Ectinosoma abrau (Kritchagin, 1877)

Common Name: Harpacticoid copepod

Synonyms and Other Names:

Halectinosoma abrau (Kritchagin, 1873), Tachidius abrau Krichagin, 1877



Copyright Info

Identification: (Ectinosoma genera) The body is fusiform and its cephalothorax is sub-triangular in the dorsal aspect (Kihara and Huys 2009). The greatest body width is usually at the posterior margin of cephalothorax. Its urosome gradually tapers towards the posterior end. The integument of somites have distinctive sub-rectangular pores. The P1 endopod is not prehensile. The P5 exopod has 4 marginal setae. The P5 exopod and baseoendopod are at least partly discrete.


Size: greater than 0.6 mm


Native Range: Ponto-Caspian basin. Aral Sea.

Nonindigenous Occurrences: Ectinosoma abrau occurs in Austria (NOBANIS 2014). This species has been recorded in Castle Harbor, Bermuda (Coull 1970; Coull and Herman 1970).


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

Ecology: Ectinosoma abrau is a brackish water copepod that resides in marine ecosystems. Its osmoregulation allows it to tolerate salinities of 0 - 30‰ (Aladin et al. 2008). In 2005 and 2006, populations of E. abrau were reported in Temryuk Bay in the Sea of Azov, where surface temperatures ranged from 5 to 28°C and salinity from 6.5 to 8.5‰ (Selifonova 2011). Ectinosoma abrau was only reported from Taganrog Bay in the Sea of Azov in 2005, after which the salinity gradually increased from 5.3 to 11.1‰ between 2005 and 2015 and E. abrau was replaced by the euryhaline copepod Acartia tonsa (Afansayev et al. 2019). Ectinosoma abrau was found in Kaptarhana cave in eastern Turkmenistan (Sendra et al. 2017), where the waters have a salinity of 11.68‰ and a pH of 7.8 (Birstein and Ljovuschkin 1965). Adults burrow in crayfish tunnels for refuge (Reid 2001) and are able to produce resting stages that can withstand harsh conditions (Wonham et al. 2005).

The diet of Ectinosoma abrau has not been studied, however, harpacticoid copepods typically consume algae, bacteria and detritus. This species is consumed by zooplanktivorous species, such as bleak (Alburnus alburnus) (Bíró and Muskó 1995).


Means of Introduction: Ectinosoma abrau has a low probability of introduction to the Great Lakes (Confidence level: High).

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

Ectinosoma abrau occurs in the Black Sea and Azov Sea in eastern Europe, including Lake Ohrid of the Balkan peninsula, which drains into the Adriatic Sea and Lake Balaton (Petkovski and Karanovic 1997; Grigorovich et al. 2003). Ships originating in eastern Europe can potentially pick up this species and introduce it to the Great Lakes; however, this has not been observed (Grigorovich et al. 2003). Ectinosoma abrau produces resting stage eggs that are capable of surviving harsh conditions such as ballast water and sediment (Wonham et al. 2005). This species can tolerate salinities up to 30‰ (Aladin et al. 2008); Ectinosoma abrau is a marine organism so it is likely that it is capable of surviving overseas transport. Ectinosoma abrau does not currently occur in waters near the Great Lakes.


Status: Not established in North America, including the Great Lakes

Ectinosoma abrau has a low probability of establishment if introduced to the Great Lakes (Confidence level: Moderate).

The native range of Ectinosoma abrau has similar climatic and abiotic conditions to that of the Great Lakes (Reid and Orlova 2002; Grigorovich et al. 2003; U.S. EPA 2008). Although it is a marine species, it is able to tolerate freshwater (Aladin et al. 2008).

There is not enough information on the diet of Ectinosoma abrau, its tolerance to various environmental conditions, fecundity, or the previous invasion history to fully predict its establishment to the Great Lakes basin. This species is euryhaline, and would likely benefit from the increased salinization of the Great Lakes due to climate change (Aladin et al. 2008). It is unknown how this species will interact with native species in the Great Lakes.


Great Lakes Impacts: There is little or no evidence to support that Ectinosoma abrau has the potential for significant environmental impact if introduced to the Great Lakes.

Mastitsky et al. (2014) did not find any evidence of E. abrau hosting high impact parasites that could endanger Great Lakes species. There is insufficient available information to determine whether Ectinosoma abrau poses a threat to other species or water quality. There are no reports on how it affects or interacts with other species.  No evidence of negative environmental impacts can be found for other locations where it is invasive.

There is little or no evidence to support that Ectinosoma abrau has the potential for significant socio-economic impact if introduced to the Great Lakes.

It has not been reported that Ectinosoma abrau poses a threat to human health or water quality. There is no evidence that this species negatively impacts infrastructure, economic sectors, recreational activities and associated tourism, or the aesthetic appeal of the areas it inhabits.

There is little or no evidence to support that Ectinosoma abrau has the potential for significant beneficial impacts if introduced to the Great Lakes.

This species is consumed by zooplanktivorous species, such as bleak (Alburnus alburnus) (Brio and Musko 1995) and may provide some value to the ecosystem as a potential food source. It has not been indicated that Ectinosoma abrau can be used for the control of other organisms or improving water quality. There is no evidence to suggest that this species is commercially, recreationally, or medically valuable.


Management: Regulations (pertaining to the Great Lakes region)

There are no known regulations for this species.*

*Ballast water regulations applicable to this species are currently in place to prevent the introduction of nonindigenous species to the Great Lakes via shipping. See Title 33: Code of Federal Regulations, Part 151, Subparts C and D (33 CFR 151 C) for the most recent federal ballast water regulations applying to the Great Lakes and Hudson River.

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 chemical control methods for this species.

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


References (click for full reference list)


Author: Baker, E., M. Narcisse, J. Li., and A. Bartos


Contributing Agencies:
NOAA GLRI Logo


Revision Date: 1/3/2022


Citation for this information:
Baker, E., M. Narcisse, J. Li., and A. Bartos, 2024, Ectinosoma abrau (Kritchagin, 1877): 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=3621&Potential=Y&Type=2&HUCNumber=DGreatLakes, Revision Date: 1/3/2022, Access Date: 4/26/2024

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.