Cyprinella analostana
Girard, 1859
Common Name:
Satinfin Shiner
Synonyms and Other Names:
Notropis analostanus (Girard 1859)
Identification:
Cyprinella analostana has a deep body with a straight or slightly convex dorsal fin edge. It has a somewhat rounded snout with a terminal mouth and tiny tubercles that are present on its head (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Males may exhibit breeding coloration characterized by a milky-white border surrounding all fins, a silver-blue color on their dorsal surface that grades into a milky-white ventral surface, and well-developed tubercles (Stout 1975). Cyprinella analostana is very similar in appearance to the closely related Steelcolor Shiner C. whipplei, but C. analostana has 13–14 pectoral rays and 33–38 lateral scales, whereas C. whipplei has 15 pectoral rays and 36–40 (usually 37–38) lateral scales (Page and Burr 2011).
Size:
4.5-7 cm in length (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994), maximum length is 11 cm (Page and Burr 2011)
Native Range:
Atlantic Slope from Hudson River drainage, New York, to Pee Dee River drainage, North Carolina; Lake Ontario drainage, New York (Page and Burr 2011; Roth et al. 2013).
Great Lakes Nonindigenous Occurrences:
Three isolated populations of this species in New York are likely the result of past introductions; the three sites include the Black River (a tributary of Lake Ontario in northern New York), the southern end of Cayuga Lake, and a Lake Ontario tributary west of Rochester (Gibbs 1963; Smith 1985). In 2000 and 2005, this species was caught in Black River Bay, where the Black River flows into Lake Ontario. In 2005, C. analostana was recorded in the outlet of Keuka Lake in the Finger Lakes region. The species was reported to have been caught at several sites in Oneida Lake in 1940 and 1941, and in 1995, it was caught in Fish Creek, a major tributary of Oneida Lake. In the early 1900s, this species was found in the St. Lawrence River at Ogdensburg. In 2007 and 2009, it was reported from the mouth of the Oswegatchie River. In 2013, C. analostana was found in Sixberry Lake, in the Indian River Basin (within the Oswegatchie basin) (Carlson et al. 2016).
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 Cyprinella analostana are found here.
Full list of USGS occurrences
Table last updated 5/2/2024
† Populations may not be currently present.
Ecology:
Cyprinella analostana shows a preference for warm, large- and moderate-sized streams although it is occasionally found in small creeks, pools, backwaters, and runs of shallow to moderate depth. It is often in the tidal freshwaters of coastal rivers (Smith 1985; Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Cincotta and Stauffer (1982) determined that C. analostana preferred a temperature of about 27°C but the species has been recorded at temperatures of 36.7°C (Trembley 1961). Cyprinella analostana feeds on drifting items in the water column including larval fishes and eggs (Johnson and Dropkin 1992), algae (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994), and insects, particularly dipterans and ephemeropterans (Smith 1985).
In early April, C. analostana begins to migrate from their deeper winter habitat (1–1.3 m) to shallower spawning grounds where submerged materials are present (Stout 1975). Cyprinella analostana is believed to reach reproductive age by their first year of life (Stone 1940). Spawning begins in late May and extends into August when water temperatures are 20–30°C (Winn and Stout 1960; Stout 1975). In May, males set up territories around a suitable nest site that typically include rocks, logs, sticks and other debris (Stout 1975). Females deposit their eggs into the crevices of these submerged structures (Gale and Buynak 1978). During the spawning period, males tend to exhibit aggressive behavior towards other males by producing various “knocking” sounds and creating a lateral threat display where all fins are erect. Aggressive motions and attacks such as circling and nipping or beating their caudal fins toward each other have been observed in field and lab observations as well. Eventually one male will discontinue fighting and the dominant male will retain the territory. A male will then court a female with acoustic cues (knocks and purrs) when she enters his territory. If the female is successfully courted she will swim to the egg site and await fertilization (Stout 1975). Cyprinella analostana is a fractional spawner that can spawn several times during a season. Stout (1975) observed significant variation in spawning frequency among spawning pairs in his field observations. One pair was observed to spawn only twice while another pair spawned 20 times. However, the author did not mention the timespan of his observations and only observed five pairs of fish. Gayle and Buynak (1978) observed that pairs of fish spawned 3 to 11 times from June through August, releasing 6 to 634 eggs per event for a total of 381 to 3,268 eggs in a season. This study also noted two spawning peaks where events with large numbers of eggs released were separated by intervals of 3 to 31 days where relatively few eggs were released. The authors noted that eggs took 6–8 days to hatch in water ranging from 20–25°C and larvae started feeding 6 days after hatching when they were 5.9 mm in total length.
Means of Introduction:
Assuming the above records represent introductions, the species may have gained access to the sites by way of bait bucket release or by canal. Gibbs (1963) suggested that the presence of this species in the Black River, New York, might have been the result of dispersal through the Black River Canal.
Status:
Established, possibly introduced, in several localities in New York (Smith 1985). Great Lakes: Self-sustaining populations overwintering in Lake Ontario basin.
Great Lakes Impacts:
Summary of species impacts derived from literature review. Click on an icon to find out more...
Current research on the environmental impact of Cyprinella analostana in the Great Lakes is inadequate to support proper assessment.
In North Carolina, C. analostana was reported to hybridize with C. lutrensis, which is not in the Great Lakes but is on the GLANSIS Watchlist (Corush et al. 2021). The ability for C. analostana to hypdize with native Cyprinids in the Great Lakes has not been studied. There is little or no evidence to support that Cyprinella analostana has significant socio-economic impacts in the Great Lakes.
There is little or no evidence to support that Cyprinella analostana has significant beneficial effects in the Great Lakes.
Potential:
Shiners (e.g. Golden Shiner, Emerald Shiner) are common baitfish used by recreational anglers; however, the popularity of the Satinfin Shiner as a baitfish among anglers is unclear.
Cyprinella analostana is a host for the glochidia of the critically endangered James Spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) (Hove and Neves 1994), which might suggest that native unionids of the Great Lakes may benefit from using Cyprinella analostana as a host species during their parasitic larval stage. While native unionid mussels in the Great Lakes have declined significantly following the dreissenid invasion (Nalepa 1994; Schloesser and Nalepa 1994), there are several nearshore areas where populations have persisted (e.g. Metzger Marsh) (Nichols and Wilcox 1997; Zanatta et al. 2002; Crail et al. 2011). In these areas, C. analostana may benefit unionid recruitment, although the extent of this benefit is unclear since there is no information in the literature regarding host compatibility between C. analostana and Great Lake unionids. Furthermore, a variety of viable fish hosts already inhabit Metzger Marsh and likely exist in the other habitats where unionids are found (Nichols and Wilcox 1997) indicating that C. analostana may not have a measurable benefit on native unionids. However, previous studies with European and North American unionids have implicated that the relative importance of host fish species can vary for a given unionid populations (Taeubert et al. 2010; Zieritz et al. 2012). Therefore, if C. analostana is capable of being a host for a unionid with high host specificity, the benefit may be significant for that species of unionid.
Management:
Regulations In Canada, the use or possession of fish as live bait in any province other than from which it was taken is prohibited (SOR/93-55).This species is not on the Illinois Aquatic Life Approved Species List and if it is not otherwise native to Illinois it is illegal to be imported or possessed alive without a permit (515 ILCS 5/20-90). It is illegal to bring any live fish into Ontario for use as bait (SOR/2007-237).
Note: Check federal, state, and local regulations for the most up-to-date information.
Control
Biological
The variety of piscivorous fishes and birds in the Great Lake drainages likely feed on C. analostana. However, the effectiveness of stocking piscivorous fishes to control invasive species has been highly variable and is not as successful as chemical and physical control methods (Meronek et al. 1996).
Physical
Patrick et al. (1985) observed that air bubble curtains have been successful in deterring the movement and spread of various species of fish—especially when used in conjunction with strobe lights. Other types of physical treatments have been employed in fish control include reservoir drawdowns, traps, nets, electrofishing, and combinations of these treatments. Through their review of fish control methods, Meronek et al. (1996) observed that projects that utilized nets were the most successful of the previously listed physical treatments. Due to the threat small non-native cyprinids pose to native fish larvae, intensive seining of native species’ nursery habitats prior to native species’ spawning periods may be an effective way to remove large proportions of non-native cyprinid minnows such as C. analostana (Tyus and Saunders 2000).
Chemical
Of the four chemical piscicides registered for use in the United States, rotenone and antimycin have been used in the majority of chemical control projects and have had varied success rates for different species and different bodies of water (Marking et al. 1983; Boogaard et al. 1996; Meronek et al. 1996; GLMRIS 2012). However, Tyus and Saunders (2000) argue that chemical control measures would not be feasible for the removal of non-native cyprinid minnow species in the Colorado River due to the species’ ubiquitous distribution among native species and the potential non-target effects on native species.
Note: Check state and local regulations for the most up-to-date information regarding permits for pesticide/herbicide/piscicide/insecticide use.
Remarks:
The status of C. analostana in the Lake Ontario drainage basin has long been disputed. Gibbs (1963) considered the record of this species from a Lake Ontario tributary to be a relict population and not the result of introduction. Gilbert (1993) also concluded that Cyprinella analostana could well be native to Lake Ontario and tributaries considering there is an abundance of evidence that two-way post-glacial transfers occurred in areas such as the upper Susquehanna River and glacial overflow streams in the Finger Lakes region of New York (see Gilbert 1980) where Cyprinella analostana has been found (recorded in the southern end of Cayuga Lake). On the other hand, the many canals constructed in New York during the early 1800's (in addition to bait bucket transfer) make it very possible that species with basically Atlantic Slope affinities and restricted distributions in Lake Ontario and its tributaries (e.g., C. analostana, Notropis procne, N. bifrenatus) did not reach there naturally (Fuller et al. 1999). However, Gilbert (pers. comm. in Fuller et al. 1999) argues that Atlantic Slope species with broad distributions in the St. Lawrence basin (e.g., Semotilus corporalis, Exoglossum maxillingua, Etheostoma olmstedi) clearly did reach there by natural post-glacial dispersal. Furthermore, the fact that this species is a known bait fish (Cooper 1983) implies that bait bucket introduction is a plausible explanation for its occurrence. Current consensus is that this species is probably non-native in the Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River watersheds. The population in the Black River watershed (a subbasin of the Lake Ontario watershed) is among the most certain to be non-native and it is a source from which some of the other modern populations have spread (D. Carlson, pers. comm.). Cyprinella analostana was the only species of Cyprinella reported in a survey of Oneida Lake’s major tributary, Fish Creek, in 1995. It is likely that it is not native to Fish Creek based on the species’ absence during the earliest survey and on plausible dispersal routes provided by canals (Carlson et al. 2016).
References
(click for full reference list)
Author:
Nico, L., P. Fuller, and P. Alsip
Contributing Agencies:
Revision Date:
10/12/2022
Peer Review Date:
10/11/2022
Citation for this information:
Nico, L., P. Fuller, and P. Alsip, 2024, Cyprinella analostana Girard, 1859: 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=516&Potential=N&Type=0&HUCNumber=DGreatLakes, Revision Date: 10/12/2022, Peer Review Date: 10/11/2022, 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.