Dorosoma cepedianum (Lesueur, 1818)

Common Name: Gizzard Shad

Synonyms and Other Names:

Hickory Shad



Copyright Info

Identification: Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum is characterized by the blunt snout, small toothless mouth, a long trailing last dorsal ray, and closely packed gill rakers which can be present in numbers beyond 400. Eyes have “eyelids” composed of fat-storing adipose tissue. The gill membranes are free from the throat. The body is short and deep and ranges from moderately to strongly compressed. The abdomen compresses to a ridge lined with bony scales called scutes. Scales are thin, cycloid (circular, smooth-edged outer margin and uniform) and largely adherent to the body. Scales are not found on the head and may be present on the back between the dorsal fin and back of the skull (Miller 1960; Etnier and Starnes 1993). Gizzard Shad can be distinguished from the Threadfin Shad D. petenense by snout shape (more pointed in D. petenense), placement of the lower jaw (projecting in D. petenense; subterminal mount in D. cepedianum), absence of black specks on chin and floor of mouth (vs. presence in D. petenense), fin color (dusky in D. cepedianum vs. yellow in D. petenense), and number of lateral scales (52-70 for D. cepedianum vs. 40-48 for D. petenense; Page and Burr 2011)


Size: 52 cm.


Native Range: Southern Great Lakes Region, Mississippi, Atlantic, and Gulf Slope drainages from Quebec to central North Dakota and New Mexico, and south to central Florida and Mexico (Page and Burr 1991).


Great Lakes Nonindigenous Occurrences: Dorosoma cepedianum is generally considered native to Lake Ontario, Lake St. Clair and the southern shoreline of Lake Erie, though this has been questioned in the literature (Miller 1957, Smith 1985). Jordan (1882) stated that the Gizzard shad was not found in Lake Erie prior to completion of the Ohio Canal.  The species is generally considered nonindigenous to southern Lake Michigan, although this has also been questioned (Miller 1957).  Populations of D. cepedianum in Lake Superior, Lake Huron and northern Lake Michigan, as well as in many inland lakes of the region are considered to be nonindigenous.


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 Dorosoma cepedianum are found here.

Full list of USGS occurrences

State/ProvinceFirst ObservedLast ObservedTotal HUCs with observations†HUCs with observations†
IN195320212Lake Michigan; Little Calumet-Galien
MI1932202217Betsie-Platte; Black-Macatawa; Boardman-Charlevoix; Huron; Kalamazoo; Lake St. Clair; Lake Superior; Lower Grand; Manistee; Maple; Muskegon; Pere Marquette-White; Pine; St. Clair; Tahquamenon; Thornapple; Upper Grand
MN201720171St. Louis
OH201920232Cuyahoga; Lake Erie
VT199320162Lake Champlain; Richelieu River
WI195320189Door-Kewaunee; Lake Michigan; Lake Winnebago; Lower Fox; Manitowoc-Sheboygan; Milwaukee; Oconto; Upper Fox; Wolf

Table last updated 5/1/2024

† Populations may not be currently present.


Ecology: Gizzard Shad are primarily found in large rivers, reservoirs, lakes, swamps, and other freshwater environments with turbidity ranging from clear to silty. Its preference is quieter open waters although it can be commonly found in the strong current of the upper Mississippi River (Miller 1960). Adults can also be found in brackish and saline waters of estuaries and bays (Whitehead 1985). Optimal habitat for the species is warm, fertile, shallow bodies of water with soft mud bottoms, low predator count and high turbidity. Lacustrine habitats with optimal conditions are prone to overpopulation by Gizzard Shad. Moderate to heavy predation, changing water levels, deep clear water, and steep shorelines tend to lead to lower Gizzard Shad populations (Williamson and Nelson 1985). Temperature plays a large role in population size. Individuals are most frequently found in areas ranging from 22-29°C with satisfactory growth observed at temperatures up to 34°C (Williamson and Nelson 1985). Populations appear to fluctuate in response to low temperatures and die-offs are common in the winter (Etnier and Starnes 1993; Becker 1983). However, Gizzard Shad may survive severe winters in areas where water temperatures are uncharacteristically warm, such as near an industrial warm-water discharge. The spread of this species in Lake Michigan is thought to be connected to artificial warm spots in harbors and industrial bays (Becker 1983). Individuals avoid waters with low dissolved oxygen and are normally absent from water with less than 2mg/L of dissolved oxygen (Williamson and Nelson 1985).

Spawning of Gizzard Shad is random and occurs from mid-May to mid-June near the surface of water in low-gradient areas. Adult females and males gather in large aggregations and eject sperm and eggs into the water. Eggs sink to the bottom and adhere to any object or surface they come in contact with. The average female produces approximately 300,000 eggs per year, eggs will hatch in 2-3 days. Young fish travel in compact schools after hatching and will typically disperse by fall, schooling is rare at age one. Reproductive maturity is normally reached at ages 2 or 3. Lifespan depends on the environment a population is found in and shorter life spans are associated with rapid growth in the first year of life. Longer life spans are typical in the northern parts of its range and individuals live to 5-7 years and have been reported living up to 10-11 years (Etnier and Starnes 1993; Williamson and Nelson 1985; Miller 1960).

Gizzard Shad are planktivores, straining minute organic particles with their gill rakers into their pharyngeal organ which is thought to concentrate and process food for swallowing. They also feed heavily on detritus found on bottom sediments, individuals consume an average of 13% of their wet weight biomass in dry sediment each day. Their diet remains largely similar at different sizes and has been found to contain algae, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and plant debris. Because Gizzard Shad are primary consumers, extremely large populations can be supported. Fry feed primarily on copepods and cladocerans, whereas adults consume large amounts of phytoplankton and zooplankton. Gizzard Shad is part of the diet of at least 17 game fishes some of which include Walleyes, White Bass, Largemouth Bass, White Crappie, Gars, Black Crappie, Sauger, Yellow Trout, Catfish, the Freshwater Drum, and Lake Trout. The Striped Bass and Muskellunge have been introduced into reservoirs to prey on Gizzard Shad.  Waterfowl also prey on the species. Winter die-offs cause individuals to float to the surface where they are consumed by crows, turkey vultures, bald eagles, and waterfowl. Gizzard Shad grow rapidly in shallow, fertile impediments with abundant food and long growing seasons. This rapid growth frequently causes individuals to become too large for most predators, reaching 10-18 cm within the first year (Etnier and Starnes 1993; Williamson and Nelson 1985; Miller 1960; Mundhal 1990).


Great Lakes Means of Introduction: It is unclear whether Dorosoma cepedianum is native to the southern Great Lakes or gained access through canals and rivers. In New York they may have gained access via the Mohawk River, Oswego River, Erie and Barge Canals (Smith 1985).  D. cepedianum may have gained access to Lake Erie via the Ohio Canal or near the mouth of the Cuyahoga River at Cleveland (Jordan 1882; Miller 1957) or via the Welland Canal.  They were stocked near Gary and in the Maumee River system, Indiana (Miller 1957); in several areas of Michigan including Lake Huron, Pine River and the Muskegon (Miller 1957); as well as the Watonwan watershed in Minnesota (Lee et al. 1980).  Gizzard shad reached Lake Michigan either through the Chicago River Canal or the Fox-Wisconsin Canal at Portage (Becker 1983). Gizzard shad were accidentally stocked in Conowingo Pond, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (Denoncourt et al. 1975) and in Raystown (Cooper 1983).


Great Lakes Status: Cryptogenic in the southern Great Lakes (Ontario, Lake St. Clair, southern Lake Erie, southern Lake Michigan) with range expansions northward.  Widespread, with populations now reported in all 5 Great Lakes and Lake St. Clair as well as numerous inland Lakes in the basin.


Great Lakes Impacts: Dorosoma cepedianum has a high environmental impact in the Great Lakes.

Dorosoma cepedianum cause direct and indirect impacts to the food webs.  Among the most notable impacts include facilitating the expansion of double crested cormorants as D. cepedianum can be a primary dietary item (Koenigs et al 2021).  Further, D. cepedianum may alter sediment composition, reducing availability of detritus for detritivorous invertebrates such as midge larvae (Mundahl 1990) and interfere with feeding by other benthivorous fishes.  They have been reported to drive down populations of larger zooplankton (DeVries and Stein 1992; Drenner et al., 1984; Roseman et al., 1985) influencing higher trophic levels via a trophic cascade (Miner and Stein 1996; Dettmers and Stein 1996; Haberyan 2021). Jenkins (1994) found that Gizzard Shad directly compete with centrarchids resulting in the centrarchids decreased growth and size at age.

Dorosoma cepedianum has a moderate beneficial impact in the Great Lakes.

Gizzard Shad is an important forage fish for some game fishes and has been said to be “the most efficient biologically of all the forage fishes” for its direct use of phytoplankton, high reproductive capacity and abundance, general freedom from parasites and rapid growth. Its primary drawbacks are mortality in spring and fall and sensitivity to handling (Miller 1960). In 1999, the commercial value of Gizzard Shad fisheries in the Great Lakes was  $7,493 (R. Kinnunen pers. comm. 2018).


Management: Regulations

Gizzard Shad is absent from the New York baitfish green list.

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

Control

Biological

Predators of Gizzard Shadcan be stocked to control population, examples of predators include Largemouth Bass, Walleye, and Northern Pike (Miller 1960).

Physical

Seining has been used to remove Gizzard Shad in areas where the species has reached nuisance levels  (Miller 1960). Although, bycatch of non-target species can be high with this method (Catalano et al. 2007).

Chemical

Gizzard Shad are extremely sensitive to rotenone. Treatments of 0.1 mg/L can be used to selectively kill this species. Complete draining or reclamation with rotenone is often needed before restocking (Wynne 2013).

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


Remarks: The gizzard shad has expanded its range naturally since the 1600s to include Massachusetts (O'Leary and Smith 1987; Hartel 1992). Jordan (1882) stated that the gizzard shad was not found in Lake Erie prior to completion of the Ohio Canal. Cold weather limits this species' northern range (Becker 1983). Propst and Carlson (1986) believe the gizzard shad may be native to the South Platte drainage in Colorado.


References (click for full reference list)


Author: Fuller, P., Neilson, M.E., Hopper, K. and Sturtevant, R.


Contributing Agencies:
NOAA GLRI Logo


Revision Date: 1/15/2024


Peer Review Date: 4/12/2013


Citation for this information:
Fuller, P., Neilson, M.E., Hopper, K. and Sturtevant, R., 2024, Dorosoma cepedianum (Lesueur, 1818): 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=492&Potential=N&Type=0&HUCNumber=DGreatLakes, Revision Date: 1/15/2024, Peer Review Date: 4/12/2013, Access Date: 5/2/2024

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.