Home  |  Contact me  |  Publications  |  Postgraduates  | Other Projects  |  Wetlands WA Book Reviews & Articles

 Friend or Foe

Mosquitofish: Friend or Foe ?

Back Up Next

Dr Mark Lund

This page was originally presented as a poster at a Seminar on 'Impact and control of feral animals in South-Western Australia' organised by the Conservation Council of Western Australia in November 1994. It also includes material and modifications from when the poster was subsequently displayed at the Belmont Library.



Introduction

Gambusia holbrooki is a small fish native to Central America. It was introduced into Western Australia in 1934 by an amateur fish breeder (Mees, 1977). Later it was spread by Health Authorities probably to control mosquitoes. The fish has spread throughout the South West of W.A. and may extent upto Hutt River but little work has been done on its distribution. The fish survives in most permanent waterbodies (lake, ditch, stream or river) where the flow is low and there is vegetation to shelter in . It is now probably the most abundant fish in the South-West (Morrissey, 1978).
 
At present the mosquitofish that we have in W. A. is called Gambusia holbrooki, but in older texts it may be referred to as Gambusia affinis holbrooki or Gambusia affinis (Lloyd & Tomasov (1985); Wooten et al. (1988)). As the fish were introduced from many different sources, it is possible that there are also other Gambusia species in Western Australia.

 Gambusia holbrooki is a live bearer, unlike most fish, and gives birth to 20 - 40 live young. Lloyd et al. (1986) notes that 10 pregnant females can produce a population of 5 million in six months. In Lake Monger they breed between September and April (Lund, 1992), although the exact timing is probably dependant on suitable water temperatures. The males live only during the breeding season after which they die. Females can have two or three broods per season, and store sperm from breeding season to breeding season. The first offspring of the season tend to be male. Females can live for up to 2 years, although most perish during winter.

The aim of this preliminary study was to examine whether G. holbrooki were having an adverse affect on the invertebrate fauna of Lake Monger and a farm dam. This was studied by examining the guts of collected specimens.

Methods

Fish were collected using dip nets. In Lake Monger the fish were collected from 10 random sites along the sedges around the edge of the lake. Collections were taken on 18 occasions at 2-4 weekly intervals between October 1988 and October 1989.

Approximately 75 fish were collected from a small dam in the Dryandra Forest on a single occasion. Invertebrate taxa were also collected with dip nets and were identified to species, where possible.

Processing involved dissection of the fish gut and removal of any contents. Contents were identified to species level where possible.

Lake Monger has relatively poor water quality (eutrophic to hypertrophic) and has relatively few invertebrate species (Davis & Rolls (1987) and Lund (1992)). The dam has good water quality (oligotrophic to mesotrophic) and a diversity of invertebrate species.

Results

In Lake Monger the fish were found to have eaten 13 aquatic species and 2 terrestrial species (Table 1). Lund (1992) found 70 aquatic species in the lake during the same period. In the dam 10 taxa (families or orders) were collected out of 21 taxa (Table 2).

Table 1: Contents of Mosquitofish guts from Lake Monger on each sampling occasion. Note that on some occasions no fish were caught (P=pupae, L=larvae and A=adult; black=very common, green=common and yellow=rare)

    13 27 8 24 7 7 21 11 2 16 4 5 24
 

Dec

Jan

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Sep Oct
Species Name   1998 1999
HEMIPTERA  
Micronecta robusta                            
Agraptocorixa eurynome                            
CRUSTACEA  
Daphnia carinata                            
Cyclopoida spp                            
Paramphisopus palustris                            
OSTRACODA  
Sarscypridopsis aculeata                            
DIPTERA (Midges)  
Chironomidae spp P                          
  A                          
Procladius villosimanus P                          
Cryptochironomus griseidorsum L                          
Kiefferulus intertinctus L                          
  P                          
Dicrotendipes conjunctus L                          
Polypedilum nubifer L                          
  P                          
Cricotopus albitibia L                          
Paralimnophyes pullulus L                          
TERRESTRIAL ORGANISMS  
Spider                            
Hymenoptera                            

Table 2: Number of fish containing species within their gut from the dam (P=pupae, L=larvae and A=adult)

Species Name

Common Names

Numbers of Fish

HYDRACARINA spp

Mites

1

COLLEMBOLA spp

Springtails

8

CRUSTACEA

Calanoida spp

 

3

Cyclopoida spp

 

2

OSTRACODA

 

Sarscypridopsis aculeata

 

2

DIPTERA

 

Flies

 

Chironomidae spp

P

Midges

6

A

 

8

L

 

9

Culicidae sp

L

Mosquitoes

1

COLEOPTERA spp

L

Beetle

1

A

 

1

TRICHOPTERA spp

 

Caddisfly

1

EMPTY

   

35

 

The prey eaten in both the lake and the dam were consistent with G. holbrooki being a surface feeder, including terrestrial insects (Spiders and Hymenoptera) blown onto the water surface, or animals that live on the water surface (Collembola). Other major prey items were animals that occur close to the surface such as Chironomidae (midge) pupae and Hemiptera (Micronecta robusta ) that come to the water surface to breathe.

In both waterbodies although Diptera (flies) were the main family eaten, the only evidence of the fish eating mosquito larvae (Culicidae) was found in the dam where one larva was collected from a gut. Mosquito larvae were very uncommon in both the lake and the dam.

While the length of midge larvae and pupae could exceed 8 mm, their width as of that of all the prey was always less than 3 mm and mainly less than 1 mm. This probably reflects the size of the fishes mouth and the fact that the organisms were generally swallowed whole.

Discussion

The adverse impacts of G. holbrooki on macroinvertebrates has been well documented (see review in Balla (1992)). Experiments have demonstrated negative impacts on beetles, some hemiptera (e.g. Micronecta robusta), rotifers, cladocerans (e.g. Daphnia carinata), ostracods (e.g. Sarscpridopsis aculeata), copepods (e.g. Calanoida and Cyclopoida), odonata and snails (Bence (1988); Hurlbert et al. (1972); Hurlbert & Mulla (1981)). In Lake Monger the fish seem to be eating mainly extremely abundant taxa i.e. midges and M. robusta.

The removal of algae eating zooplankton such as D. carinata by fish has been shown to greatly increase the chances of algal blooms in the water ((Shapiro et al., 1975). This study showed that the fish feed on D. carinata and so may indirectly reduce water quality through removing them. The fish have also been found to increase the amount of algae in the water through excretion of nutrients (V. Matveev pers. comm.)

 In the dam, G. holbrooki were found to feed on beetles, mayflies, caddis flies and mites. These organisms are potentially rarer taxa and predation could reduce numbers or eliminate them. The results show that G. holbrooki can eat a large range of organisms and in more pristine areas may eliminate rare taxa.

It is evident from this preliminary study that much more work needs to be undertaken to understand the ecology and impacts of G. holbrooki in Australia.

 

Pros 

Cons 

  1. Gambusia holbrooki do eat mosquito larvae. However as (Lloyd et al., 1986) found mosquito larvae only form a small part of their diet, many native fish actually eat a higher proportion of mosquito larvae. Whether there is actually a serious problem with mosquitoes breeding in local lakes has never been demonstrated and data collected by Davis et al. (1992) and Balla (1992) suggests that few mosquito larvae are found in any Perth wetlands whether or not they contain G. holbrooki.
  2. Gambusia holbrooki was found in this study to eat reasonable numbers of midges and may help to control nuisance problems. However they only feed around the edges of the lake and large numbers of midges grow in the central part (Pinder et al., 1991). As they encourage algal blooms they may also contribute to the midge problem. 
  1. They are an introduced species
  2. They are prolific breeders and have dispersed over a large proportion of the state. The high biomass of fish produced each year feeds on invertebrates, they are therefore having an impact on invertebrate numbers. Their wide range of food types means that in pristine areas they are likely to lead to the elimination of rare species.
  3. They are an aggressive fish and are believed responsible for declines in native fish populations (Mees, 1977). It is likely that G. holbrooki and eutrophication have eliminated the majority of native fish populations from the wetlands on the Swan Coastal Plain. 
  4. Their effectiveness and the need to control mosquitoes has not been adequately demonstrated.
  5. They have been shown in other studies to contribute to contribute to algal blooms through excretion of nutrients 

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Murdoch University for providing funds and equipment to collect the fish. The assistance of Dr Jackie Courtenay and Murdoch University students in dissecting the fish was appreciated. Thanks to Edith Cowan University for facilities provided to identify the specimens and prepare the poster.

References

  1. Balla, S. A. (1992). Managing Perth's wetlands to conserve the aquatic fauna. Ph.D. Thesis, Murdoch University, Perth.
  2.  Bence, J. R. (1988). Indirect effects and biological control of mosquitoes by mosquitofish. Journal of Applied Ecology, 25, 505-521.
  3. Davis, J. A., & Rolls, S. W. (1987). A baseline biological monitoring programme for the urban wetlands of the Swan Coastal Plain, Western Australia (Bulletin No. 265). Environmental Protection Authority and Water Authority of Western Australia.
  4.  Davis J. A., Rosich, R. S., Bradley, J. S., Growns, J. E., Schmidt, L. G., & Cheal, F. (1992) Wetland Classification on the Basis of Water Quality and Invertebrate Community Data. in Wetlands of the Swan Coastal Plain, Volume 6, Water Authority of Western Australia and Environmental Protection Agency, Perth.
  5.  Hurlbert, S. H., & Mulla, M. S. (1981). Impacts of mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) predation on plankton communities. Hydrobiologia, 83, 125-151.
  6.  Hurlbert, S. H., Zedler, J., & Fairbanks, D. (1972). Ecosystem alteration by mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) predation. Science, 175, 639-641.
  7.  Lloyd, L. N., Arthington, A. H., & Milton, D. A. (1986). The mosquitofish- a valuable mosquito-control agent or a pest? Brisbane: John Wiley & Sons.
  8. Lloyd, L. N., & Tomasov, J. F. (1985). Taxonomic status of the Mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis (Poeciliidae), in Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 36, 447-451.
  9.  Lund, M. A. (1992). Aspects of the ecology of a degraded Perth wetland (Lake Monger, Western Australia) and implications for biomanipulation and other restoration techniques. Ph.D. Thesis, Murdoch University.
  10.  Mees, G. F. (1977). The status of Gambusia affinis (Baird and Girard) in south-western Australia. Records of the West Australian Museum, 6, 27-31.
  11.  Morrissey, N. M. (1978). The past and present distribution of marron, Cherax tenuimanus (Smith), on Western Australia. Fisheries Research Bulletin (Western Australia), 22, 1-38.
  12.  Pinder, A. M., Trayler, K. M., & Davis, J. A. (1991). Chironomid control in Perth wetlands. Final Report and recommendations. Western Australia: Murdoch University.
  13. Shapiro, J., Lamarra, V., & Lynch, M. (1975). Biomanipulation: An ecosystem approach to lake restoration. Gainesville: University of Florida.
  14. Wooten, M. C., Scibner, K. T., & Smith, M. H. (1988). Genetic variability and systematics of Gambusia in the southeastern United States. Copeia, 1988, 283-289.
     
 

       Home  |  Contact Me  |   Publications   |   Postgraduates  | Other Projects  |   Wetlands WABook Reviews & Articles

         Last Modified: 16/11/05          Send mail to for more information           Disclaimer
estern Australian wetlands, biomanipulation, restoration, rehabilitation, nutrient dynamics, Ord River, lake, lakes, rivers, river, nitrogen, nitrate, ammonia, phosphorus, constructed, artificial, stormwater, catchment, management, alum, aluminium sulphate, sulfate, carp, gambusia, mosquitofish,  Monger, Hyde Park, Joondalup, Collie, coal mines, voids, microbial, acidity, macroinvertebrates, zooplankton, midges, chironomidae, recycling, waste, Mary Caroll Park, history, ecosystem, function, ecological, aquatic, processes, ecological risk assessment, irrigation, research, postgraduate, student, projects, conceptual, model, pit lakes, mine lakes, AMD, ARD, acid mine drainage, acid rock drainage