Faxonius rusticus

(Girard, 1852)

Rusty Crayfish

G5Secure Found in 3 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G5SecureGlobal Rank
Least concernIUCN
LowThreat Impact
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.117283
Element CodeICMAL11290
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryInvertebrate Animal
IUCNLeast concern
Endemicoccurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumArthropoda
ClassMalacostraca
OrderDecapoda
FamilyCambaridae
GenusFaxonius
Synonyms
Orconectes rusticus(Girard, 1852)
Other Common Names
Écrevisse à taches rouges (FR)
Concept Reference
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American Crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480:1-236.
Taxonomic Comments
Based on Crandall and De Grave (2017), the representatives of Orconectes form at least two distinct groups. The nominal group (the "cave Orconectes") form a monophyletic group that is more closely related to members of Cambarus, while the remaining "Orconectes" are more closely related to Barbicambarus, Creaserinus, and other species of Cambarus (Crandall and Fitzpatrick 1996, Fetzner 1996). As the type species of Orconectes, Orconectes inermis Cope, 1872, belongs to the cave-dwelling group, the genus is herein restricted to just those taxa. The surface-dwelling taxa now excluded from Orconectes sensu stricto are herein placed in the resurrected genus Faxonius Ortmann, 1905a, the oldest available name previously considered to be a synonym of Orconectes Cope, 1872.
Conservation Status
Rank MethodLegacy Rank calculation - Excel v3.1x
Review Date2015-05-26
Change Date1996-02-19
Edition Date2009-07-01
Edition AuthorsCordeiro, J.
Threat ImpactLow
Range Extent>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences> 300
Rank Reasons
The native range was described by Taylor (2000) to include the lower middle Ohio River drainage of central Kentucky, western Ohio, an deastern and central Indiana and the western Lake Erie drainage in southeastern Michigan and northwestern Ohio. It has been introduced (mostly as fishing bait) across the United States with large populations in Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin (Taylor and Schuster, 2004). This species of crayfish is highly invasive and consistently outcompetes other species outside of its native range. It has a generalist nature, an ability dominate and out compete other crayfish species and an expanding range.
Range Extent Comments
The native range was described by Taylor (2000) to include the lower middle Ohio River drainage of central Kentucky, western Ohio, and eastern and central Indiana and the western Lake Erie drainage in southeastern Michigan and northwestern Ohio. It has been introduced (mostly as fishing bait) across the United States with large populations in Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin (Taylor and Schuster, 2004; Lodge et al., 2000).
Occurrences Comments
Recently, zebra mussels were found in areas occupied by this species on the Rideau River in eastern Ontario (Schueler and Karstad, 2007). This species was recently confirmed as an exotic in a single locality in Manitoba (William Watkins, MB CDC, pers. comm., January 2008). It also occurs in the northern portion Lake of the Woods, Ontario, Canada (Jansen et al., 2009). Wisconsin distribution is summarized by Puth and Allen (2004). In Indiana it should be considered native to the Whitewater River watershed (Whitewater, Greater Miami, and Maumee River drainages) and non-indigenous outside that watershed (Simon, 2001; Simon et al., 2005). In Ohio, it was initially confined to the limestone bedrock areas of the Great Miami and Scioto River basins but has invaded the entire central and western half of the state as well as the Lake Erie basin and spotty occurrences in teh eastern part of the state (Thoma and Jezerinac, 2000). In the Cumberland Plateau it occurs in tributaries of Norris Lake, Campbell Co., Tennessee, and western edge of Cumberlands in Rockcastle (Cumberland) and Kentucky River systems, Kentucky. (Bouchard, 1974). In Kentucky, it is native, widespread, and common in the lower Licking, Salt, and middle and upper Green River drainages; and also occurs at a few sites in the middle Kentucky and middle Ohio River drainages with a single upper Little Laural River (Cumberland River drainage) site in Laurel Co. (introduced) (Taylor and Schuster, 2004). It is introduced in North Carolina in 3 sites on the Broad River in Rutherford Co. and Sawmill Creek in the Little Tennessee River basin, Swain Co. (Cooper and Armstrong, 2007). It has successfully invaded the entire state of Wisconsin and constitutes a significant component of the crayfish fauna (Olden et al., 2006). It has invaded Maryland from neighboring Pennsylvania into the Monocacy River (Knauer, 2007) and has displaced native Orconectes limosus and Orconectres obscurus, as well as the other non-native Orconectes virilis from the upper Monocacy River system (Kilian et al., 2010). It is a recently introduced species in southern New England and is spreading throughout the Connecticut River system (Smith, 2000). In 2005, an introduced population was found in the upper mainstem John Day River in Oregon in abundance as well as South Fork John Day River near the confluence, Beech Creek, and downstream of Dayville (Olden et al., 2009).
Threat Impact Comments
There are no major threats.
Ecology & Habitat

Description

Rostrum acuminate, acuminate, margins subparallel and terminating in spines; cervical spines present; areola moderately wide with 4-6 punctations in narrowest part; chela with 2 rows tubercles along mesial margin of palm, chela proportionately large; hooks on ischia of male 3rd pereiopods; male 1st pleopod terminating in 2 straight subequal elements constituting <35% of total length of pleopod, mesial process slightly shorter and straight, central projection arched, cephalic surface of pleopod with strong angular shoulder proximal to base of central projection (Hobbs, 1976). [LENGTH: to 45 TCL; to 90 TL] [WIDTH: to 20]

Diagnostic Characteristics

Hooks only on 3rd pereiopod of male; rostruim acarinate, acuminate; areola moderately wide; chela heavy; male 1st pleopod as described above.

Habitat

It is a generalist species that inhabits streams, ponds, and lakes with a range of substrates (Thoma and Jezerinac, 2000). This species is tolerant to pollution such as septic tank discharge and organic pollution (Jezerinac et al., 1995). It is also reported as common in fish ponds.

Ecology

Extremely aggressive species; usually able to outcompete and eliminate native species when introduced into new drainage.

Reproduction

Amplexus in Sep, Oct; brooding as early as Oct in few precocious females, but mostly in Apr, May; some data to suggest that male dominance leads to amplexus with competing spp females and removal of her from breeding population by delivering wrong spermatophore to her receptaculum seminis.
Other Nations (2)
CanadaNNA
ProvinceRankNative
QuebecSNANo
ManitobaSNANo
OntarioSNANo
United StatesN5
ProvinceRankNative
IllinoisSNANo
PennsylvaniaSNANo
WisconsinSNANo
MassachusettsSNANo
West VirginiaSNANo
OregonSNANo
New MexicoSNANo
OhioS5Yes
VirginiaSNANo
MichiganS5Yes
MarylandSNANo
WyomingSNRYes
IowaSNANo
ArizonaSNANo
MinnesotaSNANo
VermontSNANo
MaineSNANo
ConnecticutSNANo
TennesseeS5Yes
North CarolinaSNANo
KentuckySUYes
New YorkSNANo
New JerseySNANo
New HampshireSNANo
Roadless Areas (3)
Minnesota (1)
AreaForestAcres
Wood LakeSuperior National Forest596
Oregon (2)
AreaForestAcres
Mcclellan MountainMalheur National Forest21,213
Nipple ButteMalheur National Forest11,354
References (33)
  1. Bouchard, R.W. 1974. Geography and ecology of crayfishes of the Cumberland Plateau and Cumberland Mountains, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama. Part I. The genera <i>Procambarus </i>and <i>Orconectes</i>. Freshwater Crayfish 2:563-584.
  2. Cooper, J.E. 2010. Annotated checklist of the crayfishes of North Carolina, and correlations of distributions with hydrologic units and physiographic provinces. Journal of the North Carolina Academy of Science 126(3):69-76.
  3. Cooper, J.E. and S.A. Armstrong. 2007. Locality records and other data for invasive crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae) in North Carolina. Journal of the North Carolina Academy of Science 123(1):1-13.
  4. Crandall, K. A., and S. De Grave. 2017. An updated classification of the freshwater crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidea) of the world, with a complete species list. Journal of Crustacean Biology 37(5):615-653.
  5. Dube, J. et J.-F. Desroches. 2007. Les ecrevisses du Quebec. Ministere des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune, Direction de l'amenagement de la faune de l'Estrie, de Montreal et de la Monteregie, Longueuil. v + 51 pp.
  6. Dube, J., R. Pariseau, and D. St.-Hilaire. 2002. Premiere mention de l'ecrevisse <i>Orconectes rusticus</i> (Girard) au Quebec. The Canadian Naturalist 126(2): 45-47.
  7. Hein, C.L., B.M. Roth, A.R. Ives, and M.J.V. Zanden. 2006. Fish predation and trapping for rusty crayfish (<i>Orconectes rusticus</i>) control: a whole-lake experiment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 63: 383-393.
  8. Hill, A.M., D.M. Sinars, and D.M. Lodge. 1993. Invasion of an occupied niche by the crayfish <i>Orconectes rusticus</i>- Potential importance of growth and mortality. Oecologia 94:303-306.
  9. Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American Crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480:1-236.
  10. Hobbs, Jr., H. H. 1976a. Crayfishes (Astacidae) of North and Middle America. Biological Methods Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 173 pp.
  11. Jansen, W., N. Geard, T. Mosindy, G. Olson, and M. Turner. 2009. Relative abundance and habitat association of three crayfish (<i>Orconectes virilis</i>, <i>O. rusticus</i>, and <i>O. immunis</i>) near an invasion front of O. rusticus, and long-term changes in their distribution in Lake of the Woods, Canada. Aquatic Invasions 4(4):627-649.
  12. Jezerinac, R. F., G. W. Stocker, and D. C. Tarter. 1995. The Crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae) of West Virginia. Bulletin of the Ohio Biological Survey, Vol. 10, No. 1. Ohio Biological Survey, College of Biological Sciences, The Ohio State University, and Nongame Wildlife and Natural Heritage Programs, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Columbus, Ohio. 193 pp.
  13. Kilian, J.V., A.J. Becker, S.A. Stranko, M. Ashton, R.J. Klauda, J. Gerber, and M. Hurd. 2010. The status and distribution of Maryland crayfishes. Southeastern Naturalist 9 (special issue 3):11-32.
  14. Knauer, C.A. 2007. Invasive rusty crayfish spreading in Maryland waters. Crayfish News, 29(4): 1, 14.
  15. Kuhlmann, M.L. 2008. Do invading rusty crayfish interfere with reproduction in a native congener? Journal of Crustacean Biology, 28(3): 461-465.
  16. Kuhlmann, M.L., S.L. Badylak, and E.L. Carvin. 2008. Testing the different predation hypothesis for the invasion of rusty crayfish in a stream community: Laboratory and field experiments. Freshwater Biology 53:113-128.
  17. Lodge, D.M., C.A. Taylor, D.M. Holdich, and J. Skurdal. 2000. Nonindigenous species- nonindigenous crayfishes threaten North American freshwater biodiversity: lessons from Europe. Fisheries, 25(8): 7-23.
  18. Mather, M.E. and R.A. Stein. 1993. Using growth/mortality tradeoffs to explore a crayfish species replacement in stream riffles and pools. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquaculture Science 50:88-96.
  19. McLaughlin, P. A., D. K. Camp, M. V. Angel, E. L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R. C. Brusca, D. Cadien, A. C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L. G. Eldredge, D. L. Felder, J. W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R. W. Heard, E. A. Hendrycks, H. H. Hobbs III, J. R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D. R. Laubitz, S. E. LeCroy, R. Lemaitre, R. F. Maddocks, J. W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W. A. Newman, R. M. Overstreet, W. J. Poly, W. W. Price, J. W. Reid, A. Robertson, D. C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte, F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G. D. F. Wilson, and D. D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and Scientific Names of Aquatic Invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 31. 545 pp.
  20. Momot, W.T. 1996. History of the range extension of Orconectres rusticus into northwestern Ontario and Lake Superior. <i>Freshwater Crayfish</i> 11: 61-72.
  21. Olden, J.D., J.M. McCarthy, J.T. Maxted, W.W. Fetzer, and M.J.V. Zanden. 2006. The rapid spread of rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus) with observations on native crayfish declines in Wisconsin (U.S.A.) over the past 130 years. Biological Invasions, 8: 1621-1628.
  22. Olden, J.D., J.W. Adams, and E.R. Larson. 2009. First record of <i>Orconectes rusticus </i>(Girard, 1852) (Decapoda, Cambaridae) west of the great continental divide in North America. Crustaceana 82(10):1347-1351.
  23. Pintor, L.M. and A. Sih. 2009. Differences in growth and foraging behavior of native and introduced populations of an invasive crayfish. Biological Invasions 11:1895-1902.
  24. Puth, L.M. and T.F.H. Allen. 2004. Potential corridors for the rusty crayfish, <i>Orconectes rusticus</i>, in northern Wisconsin (USA) lakes: Lessons for exotic invasions. Landscape Ecology 20:567-577.
  25. Schueler, F.W. and A. Karstad. 2007. Report on unionid conservation & exploration in eastern Ontario: 2007. The Popular Clammer: a Newsletter About Freshwater Unionid Mussels in Canada, 1: 1-2.
  26. Simmons, J.W. and S.J. Fraley. 2010. Distribution, status, and life-history observations of crayfishes in western North Carolina. Southeastern Naturalist 9 (special issue 3):79-126.
  27. Simon, T. P. 2001. Checklist of the crayfish and freshwater shrimp (Decapoda) of Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 110:104-110.
  28. Simon, T.P., M. Weisheit, E. Seabrook, L. Freeman, S. Johnson, L. Englum, K.W. Jorck, M. Abernathy, and T.P. Simon, IV. 2005. Notes on Indiana crayfish (Decapoda: Cambaridae) with comments on distribution, taxonomy, life history, and habitat. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 114(1):55-61.
  29. Smith, D.G. 2000a. Keys to the Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of Southern New England. Douglas G. Smith: Sunderland, Massachusetts. 243 pp.
  30. Taylor, C.A. and G.A. Schuster. 2004. The Crayfishes of Kentucky. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication, 28: viii + 210 pp.
  31. Taylor, C. A., G. A. Schuster, J. E. Cooper, R. J. DiStefano, A. G. Eversole, P. Hamr, H. H. Hobbs III, H. W. Robison, C. E. Skelton, and R. F. Thoma. 2007. A reassessment of the conservation status of crayfishes of the United States and Canada after 10+ years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):371-389.
  32. Taylor, Chris. Center for Biodiversity, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL
  33. Thoma, R.F. and R.E. Jezerinac. 2000. Ohio crayfish and shrimp atlas. Ohio Biological Survey Miscellaneous Contribution 7:1-28.