This species is not currently in the Great Lakes region but may be elsewhere in the US. See the point map for details.

Potential pathway(s) of introduction: Dispersal, Unauthorized Intentional Release, Stocking/Escape from Recreational Culture

Lepomis auritus was found in Little Conneaut Creek (Ashtabula, PA) and in several New York waterways within the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence HUC (Carlson et al. 2016). The L. auritus population in  Little Conneaut Creek (Ashtabula, PA) is classified as established and located approximately 20 kilometers from the shoreline of Lake Erie. Lepomis auritus are sold online in North America for stocking lakes or ponds and for ornamental use in aquariums (Owen & Williams 2023). This species can be bought online from aquaculture facilities outside of the Great Lakes region and shipped into the region.

Lepomis auritus is stocked in many areas within its native range. Stocking near Lake Erie suggests that L. auritus was (or is) commercially cultured in or transported through the Great Lakes region. At the time of this review, it is uncertain whether this practice is still occurring.

Redbreast Sunfish are known to exist at latitudes similar to the Great Lakes and its broad temperature range suggests that overwintering will not hinder this species establishment (Carlson et al. 2016, Gautreau & Curry 2012). The presence of native  (Lepomis gibbosus, L. gulosus, L. macrochirus, & L. megalotis) and non-native (L. humilis & L. microlophus) Lepomis spp. with similar life history traits in the Great Lakes suggest that L. auritus will likely be able to establish in the Great Lakes.

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

Environmental	Socioeconomic	Beneficial

If introduced to the Great Lakes, Lepomis auritus has the potential to displace native sunfish species through competition for habitat and resources (Etnier & Starnes 1993). L. auritus is also expected to influence native fish populations genetically through hybridization (Flamio et al. 2022, Scribner et al. 2001, Schwartz 1981).

There is little or no evidence to support that Lepomis auritus has the potential for significant socio-economic impacts if introduced to the Great Lakes.

L. auritus may compete with native panfish, which are popular recreational sport fishes, but no significant impacts on recreational fishing have been reported.

Lepomis auritus has the potential for moderate beneficial impact if introduced to the Great Lakes.

If introduced to the Great Lakes, Lepomis auritus has the potential to provide an additional food fish, ecotoxicology research specimen, recreational sport fish, and food resource for other popular sport fishes such as largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) (Morris et al. 2002, Morris & Mischke 2003). L. auritus is an important game fish and a keystone species in many rivers across the southeastern U.S.A. and often supports important fisheries (Morris & Mischke 2003; Sammons and MacEina 2009).

Regulations

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

Control

Biological

The stocking of predatory fish in the Great Lakes may affect Lepomis auritus populations if it became established. However, the effectiveness of stocking piscivorous fish to control invasive species has been highly variable and is not as successful as chemical and physical control methods (Meronek et al. 1996).

Physical

Various types of physical controls that have been used to control other non-indigenous fish might also be effective in managing Lepomis auritus. Patrick et al. (1985) observed that air bubble curtains have been successful in deterring the movement of rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax, alewife Alosa pseudoharengus, and gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum—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. Physical removal by electrofishing was effective in reducing L. auritus populations in reaches of Richland Creek (Aiken unpubl.). However, this management method likely requires intensive and repeated removals in order to control or eradicate L. auritus populations. Furthermore, the effectiveness of this technique will vary based on the environment.

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 (Boogaard et al. 1996; GLMRIS 2012; Meronek et al. 1996; Marking et al. 1983).

Increasing CO₂ concentrations, either by bubbling pressurized gas directly into water or by the addition of sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO₃) has been used to sedate fish with minimal residual toxicity, and is a potential method of harvesting fish for removal, though maintaining adequate CO₂ concentrations may be difficult in large/natural water bodies. CO₂ is not approved for use as euthanasia but it can be used as an anesthetic for cold, cool, and warm water fishes in the US. Exposure to NaHCO₃ concentration of 142-642 mg/L for 5 minutes is sufficient to anesthetize most fish (Clearwater et al. 2008).

It should be noted that chemical treatment will often lead to non-target kills, and so all options for management of a species should be adequately studied before a decision is made to use piscicides or other chemicals. Potential effects on non-target plants and organisms, including macroinvertebrates and other fishes, should always be deliberately evaluated and analyzed. The effects of combinations of management chemicals and other toxicants, whether intentional or unintentional, should be understood prior to chemical treatment.  Other non-selective alterations of water quality, such as reducing dissolved oxygen levels or altering pH, could also have a deleterious impact on native fish, invertebrates, and other fauna or flora, and their potential harmful effects should therefore be evaluated thoroughly.

Note: Check state and local regulations for the most up-to-date information regarding permits for pesticide/herbicide/piscicide/insecticide use.