Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum, 1792)

Common Name: Rainbow Trout

Synonyms and Other Names:

steelhead [anadromous form], coastal rainbow



Copyright Info

Identification: Rainbow trout are a deep-bodied, compressed species with a typical trout body shape, a moderately large head, and a mouth that extends back behind the eyes. Rainbow trout have highly variable coloration: those that live in lakes are silvery with a dark olive-green colour on the back, though the dorsal coloration is sometimes a deep steely blue, mostly in fish that live offshore in deep lakes or in small fish that have not yet spawned. Numerous spots are present on the back and extend about two-thirds of the way to the lateral line down the sides. The sides are silvery and largely free of spots, the belly and ventral surface of the head are whitish, and sometimes a soft metallic-pink color is present along the sides of the body and the head (GISD, 2019).

When rainbow trout leave lakes to spawn, their coloration becomes more intense: the pinkish stripe that is present on the sides of lake fish, along with the fins, turn a rich crimson color, and there is sometimes a red slash in the folds below the lower jaw. The belly and the lower sides turn gray, and spots on the sides and upper fins become bolder and more clearly delineated. Juvenile trout are olive-green along their back and silvery olive high on their sides. There are 8-13 oval-shaped marks along the sides, which may also have smaller dark spots along them. Blush-pink to yellowish markings occur along the lateral lines between the oval marks (McDowall, 1990).

For further identification guides, see Moyle (1976a); Scott and Crossman (1973); Wydoski and Whitney (1979); Morrow (1980); Eschmeyer et al. (1983); Page and Burr (1991); Behnke (1992). Behnke (1992) gave accounts and drawings for several subspecies. A commonly used named for this species is Salmo gairdnerii, sometimes given as S. gairdneri.


Size: 114 cm


Native Range: Pacific Slope from Kuskokwim River, Alaska, to (at least) Rio Santa Domingo, Baja California; upper Mackenzie River drainage (Arctic basin), Alberta and British Columbia; endorheic basins of southern Oregon (Page and Burr 1991).


Great Lakes Nonindigenous Occurrences: The rainbow trout has been stocked extensively throughout the United States, including the Great Lakes region. The species was first introduced to New York in 1874 (Smith 1985).


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 Oncorhynchus mykiss are found here.

Full list of USGS occurrences

State/ProvinceFirst ObservedLast ObservedTotal HUCs with observations†HUCs with observations†
20002000*
IL197920253Lake Michigan; Little Calumet-Galien; Pike-Root
IN190220253Lake Michigan; Little Calumet-Galien; St. Joseph
MI1876202530Au Gres-Rifle; Au Sable; Betsie-Platte; Betsy-Chocolay; Black-Presque Isle; Boardman-Charlevoix; Brule; Cheboygan; Clinton; Dead-Kelsey; Detroit; Fishdam-Sturgeon; Great Lakes Region; Huron; Keweenaw Peninsula; Lake Huron; Lake Michigan; Lake St. Clair; Lake Superior; Lone Lake-Ocqueoc; Lower Grand; Manistee; Manistique River; Menominee; Muskegon; Pere Marquette-White; St. Clair; St. Joseph; St. Marys; Thunder Bay
MN197420256Baptism-Brule; Beartrap-Nemadji; Beaver-Lester; Cloquet; Lake Superior; St. Louis
NY1885202518Ausable River; Black; Buffalo-Eighteenmile; Cattaraugus; Chautauqua-Conneaut; Irondequoit-Ninemile; Lake Champlain; Lake Ontario; Lower Genesee; Mettawee River; Niagara River; Oswego; Raisin River-St. Lawrence River; Raquette; Salmon-Sandy; Saranac River; Seneca; St. Regis
OH1895202511Ashtabula-Chagrin; Black-Rocky; Blanchard; Cedar-Portage; Chautauqua-Conneaut; Cuyahoga; Grand; Huron-Vermilion; Lake Erie; Lower Maumee; Sandusky
ONT20162025*
PA198320252Chautauqua-Conneaut; Lake Erie
VT199320257Lake Champlain; Lamoille River; Mettawee River; Missiquoi River; Otter Creek; St. Francois River; Winooski River
WI1905202520Bad-Montreal; Beartrap-Nemadji; Black-Presque Isle; Brule; Door-Kewaunee; Duck-Pensaukee; Great Lakes Region; Lake Michigan; Lake Superior; Lower Fox; Manitowoc-Sheboygan; Menominee; Milwaukee; Oconto; Ontonagon; Peshtigo; Pike-Root; St. Louis; Upper Fox; Wolf

Table last updated 6/6/2026

† Populations may not be currently present.

* HUCs are not listed for areas where the observation(s) cannot be approximated to a HUC (e.g. state centroids or Canadian provinces).


Ecology: Lake fish usually spawn in lake tributaries, where the young trout feed and grow before migrating downstream after about a year. Growing to maturity in the lake takes between 2-4 years, at which time they migrate back to the tributaries to spawn. Most fish will return to the tributary in which they hatched (McDowall, 1990). Some lake populations may spawn in lake-shore gravels rather than travel into tributaries, however. Adult rainbow trout eat insects (both aquatic and terrestrial), crustaceans, molluscs, fish eggs, and small fish. Young trout feed predominantly on zooplankton (GISD, 2019).


Great Lakes Means of Introduction: Beginning in the late 1800s, there have been many stockings of this species for sportfishing purposes by state and federal agencies and by private individuals, mostly into streams and spring branches. Some states continue to stock on an annual basis.


Great Lakes Status: Overwintering, reproducing and widespread.


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

EnvironmentalBeneficial


Oncorhynchus mykiss has a high environmental impact in the Great Lakes.

Realized:
Rainbow trout and brown trout (Salmo trutta) were deemed at least partially responsible for the extirpation of Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) in Michigan, its only known location in the Great Lakes Basin (Crawford 2001). Fausch (1988), Clark and Rose (1997), and numerous papers cited in both discussed several factors affecting competitive interactions between rainbow and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), although the overall impact of this competition on brook trout is not well known (Crawford 2001). Reportedly, rainbow trout also drive nongame fishes such as suckers and northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) from feeding territories (Li, personal communication to P. Moyle in Moyle 1976a). Rainbow trout hybridize with other rarer trout species, thereby affecting their genetic integrity (Page and Burr 1991, Rinne and Minckley 1985) (see Potential Impacts for examples outside of the Great Lakes). Rainbow trout may also affect invertebrate populations. Feltmate and Williams (1989) found that the introduction of rainbow trout to an enclosure within a Great Lakes tributary in Ontario caused a 35% decline in stonefly abundance relative to areas without rainbow trout. Stonefly populations were adversely affected by both predation and disturbance, which led to emigration (Feltmate and Williams 1989).

Rainbow trout is an important aquaculture species produced in both land-based and water-based hatcheries. Although there are hundreds of land-based hatcheries and fewer than 15 freshwater cage farms in Canada (many of which are in Lake Huron), cage farms produce the majority of fish and rainbow trout are the numerically dominant species (Rooney and Podemski 2010). High volumes of aquaculture production have had adverse impacts in freshwater lakes. In a study of cage production in a freshwater lake in Ontario, Canada, Rooney and Podemski (2010) documented increases in ammonia and metal concentrations, such that Cu and Zn exceed sediment quality guidelines. Cage farms also release solid wastes, nitrogen, and phosphorus, which can cause increased algal blooms and decreased oxygen availability (Hamblin and Gale 2002). Such trends have already been documented in northern Lake Huron and nearby Lake Wolsey (Hamblin and Gale 2002). Additionally, stocking of hatchery rainbow trout in rivers has led to the introduction of whirling disease into open waters of approximately 20 states including, most recently, the Madison River and its tributaries in Montana (B. Nehring and R. White, personal communication). Both non-native and native salmonids are susceptible to the disease (Yoder 1972). In the Madison River, the disease has reduced the rainbow trout population by 90% (White, personal communication).

Crawford et al. (2001) pointed out that salmonids have the potential to alter the energy and nutrient cycles of the Great Lakes system through increased energy transfer between open water and streams/tributaries. This energy transfer includes the addition of nitrogen and phosphorus to tributaries through decaying salmonine carcasses, as well as the addition of salmon eggs and dead fish as a food source in streams (Ivan et al. 2011, Parmenter and Lamarra 1991, Rand et al. 1992). Rand et al. (1992) found that phosphorus released from salmon carcasses was responsible for >50% of the total phosphorus discharged in some Lake Ontario streams during parts of the spring. The presence of live salmonids may have an even greater effect on nutrients in streams through the excretion of ammonium and soluable reactive phosphorus and their mechanical disturbance of the stream bottom during spawning runs (Ivan et al. 2011, Tiegs et al. 2009).

Potential:
Rainbow trout have the potential to consume native fishes and compete with native salmonids (Page and Laird 1993). Introduced rainbow trout eat endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha) in the Little Colorado River and may exert a major negative effect on the population there (Marsh and Douglas 1997). Rainbow trout have been found to negatively affect Little Colorado spinedace (Lepidomeda vittata) through predation and by affecting spinedace behavior. The trout occupied undercut banks that the spinedace normally used for refuge. As a result, spinedace were displaced from preferred microhabitats and pushed into open water, making them vulnerable to predation (Blinn et al. 1993). Introduced predatory fishes, including the rainbow trout, are likely at least partially responsible for the decline of the Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana chiricahuensis) in southeastern Arizona (Rosen et al. 1995).

In California, rainbow trout have hybridized with Lahontan cutthroat trout (O. clarki henshawi), golden trout (O. aguabonita), and redband trout (O. mykiss subsp.) to the point that all three are included in the threatened trout management program of the California Department of Fish and Game (Behnke 1992, McAffee 1966b, Moyle 1976b). In the Lahontan drainage and various Rocky Mountain rivers, hybridization with rainbow trout has been a major factor in the decline of native cutthroat trout (O. clarkii henshawi) (McAffee 1966a). In fact, rainbow trout have replaced Lahontan cutthroat trout in many areas where the cutthroat is native and rainbow trout have been introduced (McAffee 1966b). For instance, introduced rainbow trout were likely partially responsible for the near-extinction of Lahontan cutthroat in Lake Tahoe in the 1940s (McAffee 1966b). Rainbow trout have been shown to hybridize with Westslope cutthroat trout (O. clarki lewisi) throughout the Flathead River system in Montana (Muhlfeld et al. 2009). Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi hybridization with O. mykiss, and the resulting backcrossing to pure parent populations, has also resulted in strong introgression toward both populations in the Upper Oldman River, Alberta, Canada (Rasmussen et al. 2010). In Nevada, this species is also held responsible for the virtual extinction of Alvord cutthroat O. mykiss subsp. (Behnke 1992). In Arizona, the species has hybridized with native Gila trout (O. gilae) and Arizona trout (O. apache) (Minckley 1973, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979). The latter species is also known as the Apache trout and is considered a subspecies of O. gilae (i.e. O. g. apache).

There is little or no evidence to support that Oncorhynchus mykiss has significant socio-economic impacts in the Great Lakes.

Oncorhynchus mykiss has a high beneficial effect in the Great Lakes.

Realized:
Rainbow trout has been stocked as a recreational species in the Great Lakes since the 1800s and are currently stocked in all five lakes and Lake St. Clair (FWS/GLFC 2010, NYDEC 2011). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS 2006) estimated that nationally, every dollar spent on hatchery programs for rainbow trout returns over $36 of net economic value. One survey estimated the rainbow trout recreational fishery to be worth up to $12-14 million annually in Lake Erie, compared to a stocking cost of $600,000 (Kelch et al. 2006). Additionally, the global production of aquacultured rainbow trout has grown continuously, annually producing over 700,000 tons as of 2010 (FAO 2011).

Potential:
Eggs spawned by steelhead have been found to comprise an important part of the native brown trout diet in Great Lakes tributaries, but the effects of this consumption have yet to be understood (Ivan et al. 2011).


Management: Regulations (pertaining to the Great Lakes)

In New York, trout, including rainbow trout, shall not be bought and sold, excepting cases in which a hatchery permit is issued, as described under NY ECL § 11-1909. In Ohio, it is unlawful to take or possess rainbow trout less than 12 inches in length while on Lake Erie or its tributaries, including all streams in the entire drainage basin, excepting Cold Creek upstream of state route 2 located in Erie County, and Beaver Creek in Seneca County. It is also unlawful to take or possess rainbow trout less than twelve inches in length while on the Mad River or its tributaries (Ohio Admin. Code § 1501:31-13-09). In Michigan, rainbow trout is an approved species for aquaculture production (MCL § 286.875). 

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

Control
Note: While eradication of O. mykiss is a management goal in some regions of the United States, this species is generally stocked and cultivated in the Great Lakes region without intent to eradicate.

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

Physical
In streams and rivers, barriers can be constructed and natural barriers augmented to prevent upstream migration of trout and aid management and eradication efforts (Lintermans and Raadik 2003). The U.S. National Park Service uses physical removal through electrofishing to manage O. mykiss and brown trout (Salmo trutta) populations that threaten native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalus) in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia (National Park Service 2011).

Chemical
When applied in a stream with an appropriate pH and gradient, piscicides such as Antimycin A (5-10 ppb), Rotenone (50 ppb), 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol (TFM) (5000 ppb), and niclosamide (50 ppb) are highly effective against fishes including O. mykiss. Excess carbonation in water through the addition of sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) may also prove effective (Finlayson et al. 2002; Gilderhus 1972; Lintermans and Raadik 2003; Boogaard et al. 2003; Clearwater et al. 2008).

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


Remarks: Tyus et al. (1982) mapped the distribution of rainbow trout in the upper Colorado basin.


References (click for full reference list)


Author: Fuller, P., J. Larson, A. Fusaro, T.H. Makled, A.S. Mulligan ,and M. Neilson


Contributing Agencies:
NOAA GLRI Logo


Revision Date: 5/6/2026


Peer Review Date: 11/4/2013


Citation for this information:
U.S. Geological Survey, 2026, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum, 1792): 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=910, Revision Date: 5/6/2026, Peer Review Date: 11/4/2013, Access Date: 6/6/2026

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.