Common minnow, European minnow, Cyprinus aphya Linnaeus, 1758, C. chrysoprasius Pallas, 1814, C. galian Gmelin, 1789, C. isetensis Georgi, 1775, C. lumaireul Schinz, 1840, C. morella Leske, 1774, C. phoxinus Linnaeus, 1758, C. rivularis (Pallas, 1773), Leuciscus phoxinus (Linnaeus, 1758), Phoxinus csikii Hankó, 1922, P. laevis Fitzinger, 1832, P. laevis subsp. balchaschana Kessler, 1879, P. laevis var. balchaschana Kessler, 1879, P. lumaireul (Schinz, 1840), P .marsilii Heckel, 1836, P. morella (Leske, 1774), P. phoxinus subsp. carpathicus Popescu Gorj & Dumitriu, 1950, P. phoxinus subsp. phoxinus (Linnaeus, 1758), P. rivularis (Pallas, 1773), P. varius Perty, 1832, P. montanus Ogérien, 1863, Salmo rivularis Pallas, 1773

This species reaches sexual maturity on a wide gradient dependent on conditions, typically between their first and fifth year(Dauod et al. 1985; Mills and Eloranta 1985; Museth et al. 2002). The spawning season is from April to July when water temperatures are between 12.3 and 14.3°C (Byeon et al. 2019). Adults migrate from lakes toward rivers to spawn (Frost 1943). Adhesive eggs are produced over stones and gravel (Keith et al. 2011). The fecundity of Phoxinus phoxinus ranges from 200–1,000 eggs per female (Museth et al. 2002), which is slightly lower than the fecundity of P. cumberlandensis of 1,540 eggs per female (Starnes and Starnes 1981) Individuals usually live for 3–7 years, with a recorded maximum of 13 years (Museth et al. 2002; Svirgdsen et al. 2018).

Potential pathway(s) of introduction: Transoceanic shipping (ballast water)

Phoxinus phoxinus may be able to be taken up in ballast water and survive ballast tank environments. This species is capable of surviving over two weeks without food (Russell and Wootton 1992), and can tolerate a wide range of temperatures (Frost 1943; Thorman 1986) and moderately low dissolved oxygen levels (Jones 1952).  However, current ballast regulations may substantially impact its survival. Phoxinus phoxinus occurs in ports that have direct trade connections with the Great Lakes (NBIC 2009; Keith et al. 2011).

Phoxinus phoxinus may also be introduced to the Great Lakes via ships declaring “No Ballast on Board” (NOBOB), which are exempt from ballast water exchange. Holeck et al. (2004) specifically states this introduction will be through BOB water or NOBOB residual water. The majority of ships entering the Great Lakes are NOBOB vessels and 43% of these ships contain residual water with less than 10‰ salinity (NOAA Final Report 2005). In the study, the temperature of the residual water from the vessels sampled ranged from -0.7 to 23.9°C; thus P. phoxinus is likely to survive the salinity and temperature of the NOBOB ballast water.

Phoxinus phoxinus has a moderate probability of establishment if introduced to the Great Lakes (Confidence level: High).

The Great Lakes climate is similar to the current range of Phoxinus phoxinus (Australian Bureau of Rural Sciences 2008). Phoxinus phoxinus can tolerate a broad range of temperatures and moderately low oxygen levels. This species occurs in the southern Bothnian Sea, Sweden, which has ice cover for about 4–5 months (Thorman 1986); thus it is likely that it is capable of overwintering in the Great Lakes. This species inhabits littoral zones with gravel and rocky bottoms (Museth et al. 2002), which are habitats that are available in the Great Lakes basin. Due to its broad physiological tolerance, Phoxinus phoxinus will likely be able to adapt to and benefit from the effects of climate change in the Great Lakes.  As an omnivorous fish with a broad diet, P. phoxinus is likely able to find an appropriate food source in the Great Lakes. It has been suggested by Borgstrøm et al. (2010) that introduced P. phoxinus competes with brown trout for prey, causing reduced brown trout recruitment and individual growth rates. The fecundity of Phoxinus phoxinus ranges from 200-1,000 eggs per female (Museth et al. 2002), which is slightly lower than the fecundity of P. cumberlandensis of 1,540 eggs per female (Starnes and Starnes 1981).

After its introduction to Lake Øvre Heimdalsvatn in the 1960s, it was heavily preyed on by brown trout (Museth et al. 2003). Brown trout currently occurs in the Great Lakes and is non-native (USFWS and GLFC 2010), but it is unknown whether it will prevent the establishment of P. phoxinus in the Great Lakes. Its distribution has spread primarily by anglers (Museth et al. 2007). In Norway, its spread was limited to the southeast during the early 1900s, but by the 1950s, translocations of P. phoxinus had become frequent. In Lake Øvre Heimdalsvatn, P. phoxinus were first observed in 1969 and spread to the whole lake by 1985 (Næstad and Brittain 2010). Phoxinus phoxinus has also spread by unintentional introduction with the stocking of hatchery-reared brown trout, and by dispersal downstream from upstream reservoirs (Museth et al. 2007).

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

Environmental	Socioeconomic	Beneficial

After P. phoxinus invaded an alpine lake that only contained brown trout, the abundance of the cestode Diphyllobothrium ditremum increased dramatically. As Phoxinus phoxinus is prey for various birds, the fish invasion increased the presence of birds in the lake, which are the final hosts for Diphyllobothrium ditremum. Therefore, a higher abundance of birds increased the output of Diphyllobothrium ditremum eggs into the lake resulting in higher infection rates in brown trout which had negative health impacts (Borgstrøm et al. 2017). Phoxinus phoxinus is also host to the parasitic nematode Philometra ovata, which is known to impact intra-sexual and inter-sexual interactions between fish (Lai et al. 2016).

Following the introduction of Phoxinus phoxinus, the composition of the littoral benthos changed from one that was once dominated by Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera, Plecoptera, and Gammarus lacustris to one that is dominated by chironomids and oligochaetes (Næstad and Brittain 2010). By changing the composition of the lower food web, P. phoxinus has the potential to alter predator-prey relationships.

Phoxinus phoxinus has a high diet overlap with brown trout (Museth et al. 2010), and the presence of P. phoxinus in Lake Øvre Heimdalsvatn promoted brown trout cannibalism of their juveniles. It has also been suggested that the presence of Phoxinus phoxinus in Lake Øvre Heimdalsvatn resulted in reduced recruitment and reduced annual individual growth rates in brown trout via resource competition and the predation of brown trout alevins by P. phoxinus (Huusko and Sutela 1997; Museth et al. 2007; Borgstrøm et al. 2010).

Phoxinus phoxinus has the potential for low socio-economic impact if introduced to the Great Lakes.

Phoxinus phoxinus has been implicated in the decline of brown trout populations and growth rates in alpine lakes (Museth et al. 2007; Borgstrøm et al. 2010). Although not a native species in the Great Lakes, brown trout is currently stocked by several Great Lakes states as a recreational sport fish (USFWS and GLFC 2010), and adverse effects on this population should be considered.

Phoxinus phoxinus has the potential for low beneficial impact if introduced to the Great Lakes.

Anglers in Europe value P. phoxinus as bait fish (Museth et al. 2007). Due to their shoaling propensity and ease of capture and maintenance, Phoxinus phoxinus is used in studies on the impact of acoustics on shoaling fish and their vulnerability to trawling (Killen et al. 2015; Currie et al. 2020; Short et al. 2020).

Federally banned in the United States from import and trade (including all hybrids) under the Lacey Act. Phoxinus phoxinus is prohibited in Minnesota, making it a misdemeanor to possess, import, purchase, transport, or introduce the species in the state (§ 84D.07). In Ohio, it is listed as invasive and is unlawful for any person to possess, import or sell live individuals of this species (Ohio Administrative Code 1501:31-19-01). Phoxinus phoxinus is prohibited in the Canadian province of Manitoba unless dead (C.C.S.M. c. W65 Regulation 173/2015).

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

Control

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

Physical
There are no known physical control methods for this species. 

Chemical
There are no known chemical control methods specific to this species. General piscicides (such as rotenone) may be used for control, but expect significant kill of non-target species.

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