Sander lucioperca
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Common Name:
Zander
Synonyms and Other Names:
Sandart, European Pikeperch, Stizostedion lucioperca (Linnaeus, 1758), Zander lucioperca
Identification:
The Zander has a long, slender body with two separated dorsal fins, a mouth filled with many small teeth and a few larger ones for catching prey, and large, reflective eyes (Larsen and Berg, 2011). Coloration ranges from blue-gray to green with a silver-white belly, several dark vertical bands on the body, and yellow-gray fins. The dorsal and caudal fins have rows of black spots on their membranes. This species bears a passing resemblance to its relative the walleye (Sander vitreus), and can be distinguished by the lack of spines on S. lucioperca’s gill cover. Further identification details can be found in Berg (1949), Wheeler (1969, 1978), Maitland (1977), and Howells (1992).
Size:
100-130 cm
Native Range:
Continental Europe to western Siberia (Berg 1949, Robins et al. 1991)
This species is not currently in the Great Lakes region but may be elsewhere in the US. See the
point map
for details.
Table 1. States/provinces with 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 Sander lucioperca are found here.
Table last updated 4/19/2024
† Populations may not be currently present.
Ecology:
S. lucioperca lives in freshwater and brackish water with salinities <12 ppm (Abdolmalaki and Psuty 2007) and inhabits water with temperatures from <4-30°C (Çelik et al. 2005). S. lucioperca prefer deep, calm, temperate waters and are found in both clear and turbid waters. S. lucioperca inhabits productive eutrophic waters in Europe (Kangur et al. 2007). This species can tolerate salinities 29-32 ppt after a gradual increase over six hours (Brown et al. 2001). Sander lucioperca eggs can survive salinities <5 ppm (Gröger et al. 2007). This species is abundant in Egirdir Lake (Turkey), which freezes over in January, and has water temperatures 4-5°C in December and February (Çelik et al. 2005). This species also inhabits Estonian lakes that are frozen from November through April, and which may have an oxygen deficit under the ice (Kangur et al. 2007). S. lucioperca consumes arthropods (including isopods and insects) and fish (including cyprinids, percids, and salmonids) (Argillier et al. 2012) and consumes zooplankton when young (Gröger et al. 2007). This species can change their prey selection relatively rapidly in response to changes in the abundance and vulnerability of prey species (Popova 1978). S. lucioperca can shift to a planktivore diet during their first year if fish prey are not available, indicating that they are able to adopt an optimal foraging strategy (Persson and Brönmark 2008).
This species lays between 150 and 400 eggs (Lappalainen et al. 2003), with greater fecundity than walleye (Smith et al. 1998). European percids have total fecundity of 3000-1,185,000, and the maximum total fecundity of S. lucioperca recorded as 2,500,000 (Collette et al. 1977). This species is a nest guarder.
S. lucioperca has been widely introduced into western Europe and the species was illegally introduced into portions of England. According to Hickley (1986), the success of introduced populations seemed to be limited by the availability of the species' preferred habitat, characterized as "eutrophic, turbid, well-oxygenated and of low mean depth, and, if a river, slow-flowing rather than turbulent." S. lucioperca feeds heavily on smaller fish, and because of this, there is concern among European fish resource managers that introduced S. lucioperca may cause a collapse in resident prey fish stocks (Hickley 1986).
Means of Introduction:
Sander lucioperca has a low probability of introduction to the Great Lakes (Confidence level: Moderate). Potential pathway(s) of introduction: Dispersal, Hitchhiking/Fouling, Stocking
Sander lucioperca eggs may be transported on macrophytes and in substrate, but would have to be transported from where it occurs in North Dakota to the Great Lakes (USFWS 2012). In the past, this species was deliberately stocked in North Dakota as a sport fish (Anderson 1992), where concerns were raised about dispersal after the flooding of Spiritwood Lake.
Status:
Although it was thought that S. lucioperca stocked into a North Dakota lake did not survive (Anderson 1992), the capture of a fish in August 1999 and another 2+ year old fish in 2000 shows that at least some survived and reproduced from the initial stocking. As of 2009, the state reports that they are established in Spiritwood Lake, North Dakota. Genetic sampling of fish has found that all are pure S. lucioperca and that there has been no hybridization with walleye. Spiritwood Lake is normally a closed basin; however, it did flood on several occasions between 1998-2001. The North Dakota Game and Fish Department sampled and did not find any evidence that S. lucioperca escaped the lake during the flood (L. Schlueter, 2015, personal communication). Sander lucioperca has a high probability of establishment if introduced to the Great Lakes (Confidence level: High).
Sander lucioperca have a tolerance for a wide range of salinities, water temperatures, and nutrient loads. They are already found in locations in Europe with more extreme temperatures and salinities than the Great Lakes which suggest that it would survive winter temperatures if introduced into the Great Lakes. S. lucioperca have demonstrated an ability to adapt to available prey sources. In other introduced lakes, S. lucioperca has become a top predator.
Great Lakes Impacts:
Summary of species impacts derived from literature review. Click on an icon to find out more...
| Environmental | Socioeconomic | Beneficial |
|
|
| | | |
Sander lucioperca has the potential for high environmental impact if introduced to the Great Lakes.
When S. lucioperca was stocked into Egirdir Lake in 1955, other fish species evidently decreased and some species became extirpated while S. lucioperca populations increased in subsequent years. Eventually, only carp, S. lucioperca, and crayfish fishing in the lake had commercial value (Çelik et al. 2005). S. lucioperca can prey upon brown trout and perch. This raises questions about the impact of S. lucioperca introduction, which is suspected to be significant, on the stocks and exploitation of native species (Smith et al. 1996, Cowx 1997, Smith et al. 1998, Kershner et al. 1999). In other introduced lakes, S. lucioperca has become a top predator. This species is a nest guarder, which offers it an advantage over other native fish that do not guard young. Current research on the potential for socio-economic impacts to result from Sander lucioperca if introduced to the Great Lakes is inadequate to support proper assessment.
There is insufficient information available to determine how Sander lucioperca would impact socio-economics in the Great Lakes region. S. lucioperca is a top predator of brown trout, perch and salmonids, and as such could impact commercial fisheries for these species. It is not known to what extent S. lucioperca could affect these fisheries, but many think that it could benefit North American fisheries due to its popularity as an angling fish in other areas of the world (USFWS 2012).
Sander lucioperca has the potential for high beneficial impact if introduced to the Great Lakes.
This species is a popular angling fish with highly desired meat (Larsen and Berg 2011). S. lucioperca has been commercially valuable since the 1920s, when it constituted about one-third of the total harvest from the southern Caspian Sea. In 2009, annual aquaculture production of S. lucioperca exceeded 100 tons in Denmark, Tunisia, and Ukraine. S. lucioperca production in aquaculture (653 tons) in 2009 was less than 5% of the level caught in open waters (14,739 tons). Stocking Zander can yield the equivalent of an annual interest rate of 43% (based on capital invested in the stocked young of the annual fish) (Hansson et al. 1997).
Management:
Regulations (pertaining to the Great Lakes region)
S. lucioperca is listed as an injurious species under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. § 42(a)(1)), which prohibits the importation or any interstate transportation of any live specimens, gametes, eggs, or hybrids of this species. Note: Check federal, state/provincial, and local regulations for the most up-to-date information.
Control
Biological
No specific data exists on biological control of S. lucioperca.
Physical
Electrofishing, gill, and seine netting may be used, but these methods are time-consuming and may injure non-target species (Britton et al, 2010).
Chemical
The only effective eradication method reported for S. lucioperca is the application of rotenone, a piscicide that is also toxic to non-target species (Britton et al, 2010).
Note: Check state/provincial and local regulations for the most up-to-date information regarding permits for control methods. Follow all label instructions.
Remarks:
Courtenay et al. (1986) listed this species from New York, but the record was based on an unconfirmed report. The history of its introduction into North Dakota is not well documented in the scientific literature. Apparently the North Dakota Game and Fish Department had been interested in Zander as a sport fish for many years and that agency chose Spiritwood Lake as the site of an experimental release because the water body was completely enclosed (Anderson 1992). In 1987, prior to the lake introduction, the state had hatched eggs imported from Holland, but the resulting fry were destroyed for fear that they carried pike fry rhobdo virus (Lohman 1989). Those wanting to introduce Zander thought that it would be a boom to the fisheries of North America (Anderson 1992), whereas others expressed strong reservations (Wright 1992). Some fisheries personnel in states surrounding North Dakota and nearby Canadian provinces expressed doubts concerning the species' introduction, particularly because its effect on native species was unknown and because of its potential to spread (Wingate 1992). The Zander has been widely introduced into western Europe and the species was illegally introduced into portions of England. According to Hickley (1986), the success of introduced populations seemed to be limited by the availability of the species' preferred habitat, characterized as "eutrophic, turbid, well oxygenated and of low mean depth, and, if a river, slow-flowing rather than turbulent." Zander feed heavily on prey of small size. Because of this, there is concern among European fish resource managers that introduced Zander may cause a collapse in resident prey fish stocks (Hickley 1986). Spiritwood Lake has been connected to the James River for three years (1998-2001) because of high water conditions. There is concern that Zander may have escaped into the James River. Sampling efforts have found no evidence of that (L. Schlueter, 2015, personal communication).
References
(click for full reference list)
Author:
Fuller, P., A. Fusaro, A. Davidson, K. Alame, E. Lower, M. Gappy, and W. Conard
Contributing Agencies:
Revision Date:
3/21/2018
Citation for this information:
Fuller, P., A. Fusaro, A. Davidson, K. Alame, E. Lower, M. Gappy, and W. Conard, 2024, Sander lucioperca (Linnaeus, 1758): 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=830&Potential=Y&Type=2&HUCNumber=DGreatLakes, Revision Date: 3/21/2018, Access Date: 4/20/2024
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.