Orconectes limosus. Faxonius limosus underwent a reclassification in August 2017, changing the genus of non-cave dwelling Orconectes to Faxonius (Crandall and De Grave 2017).

• Striped abdomens
• Legs with orange tips
• Spiny cheeks
• May appear black due to sediment
• Small size (less than 10 cm in length)
• Head features a rostrum with nearly parallel edges, prominent lateral teeth, and lacks a median ridge
• Carapace has an areola between branchiocardiac grooves, post-orbital ridges, and prominent spines in the anterolateral region
• Abdomen displays distinct red to brown-red transverse bands across segments
• Claws have a hooked tip with an orange band, smooth internal margin (toothless), and a prominent curved spine on the carpus
• Displays a rare blue color mutation in some instances

Identification information adapted from Hobbs (1989), Aldridge (2011), Boggero et al. (2022), and Maciaszek et al. (2020).

Widespread in North America, found in the Atlantic Watershed in Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia in the United States and New Brunswick and Quebec in Canada (USFWS, 2015)

Spinycheek crayfish typically inhabit rivers, ponds, and lakes, preferring calm, turbid waters (Aldridge 2011). They are often observed on soft-bottom and silty sediments or on beaches with sandy and gravel substrates (Boggero et al. 2023). They display a broad physical tolerance, resisting water pollution, dry conditions, and low temperatures (Zglinska et al. 2022).

Food Web

Faxonius limosus are omnivorous and polytrophic. They primarily consume detritus, but their diet also includes plants, plankton, fish eggs, and benthic invertebrates, allowing them to thrive across various habitats (Vojkovska et al. 2014; Alekhnovich 2024). Their diverse diet comprises a range of benthic macroinvertebrate groups, providing sufficient nutrition in different environments (Albertson et al. 2018). They are vulnerable to white spot disease, a virus that affects crustaceans (Longshaw 2011), and act as vectors for crayfish plague. Although F. limosus were initially introduced in Europe to bolster populations affected by the plague, they later contributed to spreading the disease among native European crayfish populations (Schrimpf et al. 2013; Holdich and Black 2007).

Life History

Spinycheek Crayfish are a highly fecund species capable of parthenogenesis, or asexual reproduction (Buric et al. 2011). When reproducing sexually, they mate in the spring, with females laying up to 370 eggs that hatch by early summer (Aldridge 2011). Additionally, they can mate in autumn, allowing females to store sperm through winter and produce young in early spring (Aldridge 2011). These crayfish are relatively small and short-lived, with a maximum lifespan of less than four years and a maximum length of approximately 10 cm (Holdich and Black 2007).

Potential pathway(s) of introduction: Dispersal, Hitchhiking/Fouling, Unauthorized intentional release

Faxonius limosus are native to the eastern United States, with some of their native range connected to the Great Lakes basin. However, they have not been reported outside of their native range in North America (USFWS 2015). Faxonius limosus was introduced into Europe by human means (Boggero et al. 2023) and can travel over land to colonize new areas (Todorov et al. 2020). Spinycheek crayfish are also listed as a popular species for bait, fish food, and aquaria. However, they are not commonly sold at aquarium, pet, or garden stores in the Great Lakes region (USFWS 2015).

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

Faxonius limosus is a highly fecund species capable of parthenogenesis (Buric et. al. 2011). Given that they are native to North America at similar latitudes to the Great Lakes region, they are likely to successfully overwinter. F. limosus habitat consists of slow moving creeks and streams, ponds, as well as the littoral zones of large lakes (Aldridge 2011;Hirsch and Fisher 2008); this habitat is broadly distributed and widely available in the Great Lakes Region. Spinycheek crayfish have a broadly distributed nonindigenous population in Europe, which has a history of spreading rapidly (Pârvulescu et al. 2012). However, Adams et al. (2010) note that their spread and establishment might have been aided by declining populations of native crayfish due to the introduction of crayfish plague.

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

Environmental	Socioeconomic

Spiny Cheek Crayfish are known to carry crayfish plague as well as white spot disease (USFWS 2015). Faxonius limosus are demonstrated to contribute to the spread of crayfish plague in the Romanian section of the Danube River (Pârvulescu et al., 2012). A study of fish interactions with F. limosus in Lake Constance, Europe demonstrated that they can outcompete young of the year burbot for preferred shelters (Hirsch and Fischer, 2008); a similar interaction in the Great Lakes could make native burbot more vulnerable to predation. F. limosus is reported to form hybrids with F. propinquus in Canada (Hamr 2002).

Faxonius limosus has the potential for low socio-economic impact if introduced to the Great Lakes.

Faxonius limosus construct burrows called chimneys, at high density these burrows might decrease the perceived aesthetic of the waters they inhabit or destabilize river banks (Aldridge 2011). However, this has not been reported in their current distribution. They do not pose any known hazard to human health. Spinycheeked crayfish have not been reported to negatively affect water quality, economic sectors, or recreational activity.

Faxonius limosus has the potential for low beneficial impact if introduced to the Great Lakes.

Faxonius limosus do not act as a control agent for aquatic weeds or other non-indigenous organisms. F. limosus is not commercially cultured, but is a popular source of bait and fish food (Tricarico 2022).

In Illinois, Faxonius limosus 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).This review found insufficient information to determine whether or not control methods are in place.
 

Crayfish species not native to Michigan waters may not be used for bait, whether alive or dead, on any waters whether those waters are public or private (Fisheries Order 249.15).
 

In Minnesota, crayfish may not be sold for live bait (Minn. R. 6259.0200)
 

All species of the family Cambaridae are prohibited in Wisconsin and one cannot transport, possess, transfer, or introduce it without a permit (Chapter NR 40, Wis. Adm. Code).
 

In Pennsylvania, the sale, barter, possession or transportation of all species of crayfish is banned (58 Pa. Code § 63.46) unless they are transported as:

(1) Bait on, in, or about the water from which taken or
(2) For testing and scientific purposes or restaurant consumption, adequate measures have been taken to prevent their escape and they are accompanied by documentation stating the point of origin and the destination to which they are to be delivered.

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

Control

Biological

If Faxonius limosus were to become established in the Great Lakes basin, populations might be controlled by predatory fish. Centrarchids, burbot, perch, pike, and bass are some well-known predators of crayfish that exist in the Great Lakes (Hein et al. 2007; Westman 1991 in Gherardi et al. 2011). One study observed in a mesocosm experiment that Northern pike (Esox Lucius) were an efficient predator of crayfish independent of prey size (Neveu 2001 in Gherardi et al. 2011). The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources found that restricting the harvest of known crayfish predators caused a significant decline in invasive crayfish populations (Hein et al. 2007). Continued monitoring of these populations suggests that despite not achieving complete eradication, control and removal efforts benefited native crayfish and promoted coexistence (Perales et al. 2021).

Physical

The use of physical barriers and diversions have been reviewed as a method to control non-indigenous crayfish species populations in Europe and America (Gherardi et al. 2011; Kerby et al. 2005). Kerby et al. (2005) observed that red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) movement was significantly reduced by natural barriers. Other physical control methods include the use of electric fences and vibrations (Gherardi et al. 2011). Mechanical removal of F. limosus could also be a potential control method. Continuous trapping has been demonstrated to work on rusty crayfish (Faxonius rusticus) in a northern Wisconsin lake (Hein et al. 2007) as well as in aquaculture ponds (Bills and Marking 1988). Gherardi et al. (2011) suggests that electrofishing and trapping could also be an effective way of controlling non-indigenous crayfish species populations. Peay et al. (2015) used high-intensity electric shocks on signal crayfish in Europe and reported mortality rates as high as 97%. However, this treatment serves as a non-selective control method rather than full eradication but regular treatment could potentially keep densities low and mitigate impacts.

Chemical

Cypermethrin is a commonly used piscicide for crayfish control (Hyatt 2004). Gherardi et al. (2011) noted the success of insecticides derived from natural pyrethrum and synthetic pyrethroids in eradicating crayfish populations in Europe (Gherardi et al. 2011). Organophosphate insecticides (e.g. fenthion and methyl parathion) have also been utilized in attempts to eradicate invasive crayfish species, but these organophosphates apparently lack specificity among crustaceans and insects (Gherardi et al. 2011), so using this control method may harm native species as well as Faxonius limosus. Other studies have observed the effect surfactants have on controlling crayfish activity, but this method has shown to have a limited effect in the eradication of populations (Cabral et al. 1997 and Fonseca et al. 1997 in Gherardi et al. 2011).
 
Note: Check state and local regulations for the most up-to-date information regarding permits for pesticide/herbicide/piscicide/insecticide use.