Invasion HistoryFirst Non-native North American Tidal Record: 1996
First Non-native West Coast Tidal Record:
First Non-native East/Gulf Coast Tidal Record: 1996
General Invasion History:
Faxonius rusticus is native to the Ohio drainage in Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, with populations extending into West Virginia, Tennessee, and possibly the western end of the Lake Erie basin. It has been introduced to at least 20 US states, and Ontario and New Brunswick in Canada (Taylor et al. 1996; Taylor and Redmer 1996; USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Program 2017). Introductions are concentrated in the Northeast and Midwest, but populations are known from New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Oregon (Hobbs and Jass 1988; Taylor et al. 1996). Faxonus rusticus has been widely introduced with bait, and probably also from the release of laboratory animals. Its range has rapidly expanded due to a mixture of natural dispersal, aggressive displacement of other species, and human introductions (Hobbs and Jass 1988; Hobbs et al. 1989).
Within the Mississippi-Ohio basin, F. rusticus has drastically expanded its range since it was first introduced in 1932 (Hobbs et al. 1989). It was first recorded from Illinois in 1973, and is now widespread in the Illinois River system in the northern part of the state (Taylor and Redmer 1996). In the Ohio Basin, it expanded into the Kanwaha River and tributaries in southwestern West Virginia by 1978 (Jezerinac et al. 1995). In Wisconsin, it was not recorded in 1932, but it became widespread by the 1960's. Elsewhere in the Mississippi drainage, O. rusticus has invaded streams in Tennessee, Missouri, Indiana, Iowa, and Minnesota (Hobbs and Jass 1988).
In the Great Lakes basin, F. rusticus may have been present in the low country at the western end of Lake Erie in the early 19th century, but did not become widespread around the lake until the 1960's (Perry et al. 2002; USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Program 2017). It is found in many of the streams on the southwest (Wisconsin) shore of Lake Superior (Hobbs and Jass 1988). It was first recorded in Lake-of-the-Woods, Ontario, in 1964, and on the northwest shore of Lake Superior in 1985, and is now widespread (Momot 1992; Momot 1996). By 1988, F. rusticus was established on the Bruce Peninsula between Lakes Erie and Ontario (Corey 1988). The distribution of this crayfish in the Great Lakes region, as mapped by Hobbs and Jass (1988) is spotty and suggests that dispersal to inland lakes and streams by bait and other means has been more important than movement through the open waters of the Great Lakes.
North American Invasion History:
Invasion History on the East Coast:
In Atlantic drainages, the distribution of Faxonius rusticus has also been spotty. It has been introduced to scattered ponds in the Kennebec and Androscoggin River drainages in Maine, and the Connecticut River drainage in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts (Crocker 1979; Smith 1997; USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Program 2017). In the Hudson River, it was first collected in an artificial pond in Schenectady County, New York in 1968 (Crocker 1979), and is also present in the Titicus River, New York and Connecticut; and in the freshwater tidal Hudson River near Haverstraw, New York (Mills et al. 1997; USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Program 2017).
In the Chesapeake Bay drainage, Faxonius rusticus was first collected in 1976 in the Susquehanna River, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania (United States National Museum of Natural History collections). According to the collector's notes, F. rusticus was found through much of the river south to the Fall Line (in the vicinity of Conowingo Dam, Maryland). Based on experiences elsewhere, F. rusticus was expected to invade the lower Susquehanna and other Chesapeake tributaries, eventually (Norden 1995, personal communication). In 2007, O. rusticus was found by Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) personnel in Conowingo Creek, Cecil County, a Susquehanna tributary about 10 km above Conowingo Dam, and about 15 km above tidewater. From 2016 through 2012,
Faxonius. rusticus spread to Upper Bay drainages, including the Gunpowder and Patapsco Rivers (Pelton 2007; Kilian 2010; USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database 2017). In June 2007, F. rusticus was found in the Monocacy River, Frederick County, Maryland, by MDNR personnel (Kilian 2010). It has spread into the tidal region of the Potomac drainage, reaching Mattawoman Creek, Mallows Bay, and Nanjemoy Creek in Charles County, between 2006 and 2011 (USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database 2017). Faxonius rusticus has now colonized many drainages on the Eastern Shore of the Bay, including the tidal Little Blackwater River, and branches of the Pocomoke, Nanticoke, Choptank, and Chester Rivers, and freshwater tributaries of Chincoteague Bay (USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database 2017). The rapid spread of this crayfish among Bay tributaries suggest an ability to disperse through brackish water.
Invasion History Elsewhere in the World:
In 2021, this crayfish was collected in southern France, where it is considered a possible competitor and predator, and a vector for the crayfish plague )Aphanomyces astaci). (Laffitte et al. 2021).
The Rusty Crayfish (Faxonius rusticus) has a smooth ovoid carapace with a rostrum which is longer than it is wide, with concave margins, and a deep cervical groove. There are no spines in the hepatic (cheek) region, but distinct generally short cervical and branchiostegal spines are present. The antennal scale is 2.3 times as long as it is broad, and tapering distally. The claw (chela) is dotted with small bumps (punctate), and is about 2.3 longer than it is wide, with tubercles along the inner margin of the finger and palm. The carpus of the cheliped is moderately cleft. In first-form (reproductive) males, the first pleopods end in two curved terminal elements. The outer branches of the first pleopods are corneous (hardened) and the 3rd segments (ischia) of the 3rd pair of walking legs bears copulatory hooks. In the female, the annulus ventralis (seminal receptacle) is a rhombus-like structure, which is 1.5 X as wide as long, with a deep depression in the center, located between the 4th and 5th walking legs.
The carapace length can reach 45 mm in males and 44.5 mm in females, but averages to 32.0 and 29.7, respectively. The carapace is mostly rusty-brown, fading to cream-colored on ventral surfaces of the branchiostegal and hepatic regions. The dorsal surface of the thorax is dark reddish-brown or gray. The cheliped (claw-leg) is grayish green, pink, or light reddish brown, often mottled with splotches of dark brown. The tips of the 'fingers' are usually red, with subterminal black bands (Hobbs and Jass 1988; Jezerinac et al. 1995).
Cambarus juvenilis (Hagen, 1870)
Orconectes juvenilis (Hobbs, 1842)
Faxonius rusticus (Crandall and DeGrave, 2017)
Potentially Misidentified Species
Native to Atlantic drainages from Virginia to Maine.
Native to Great Lakes and northern Mississippi drainages, widely introduced to northeastern Atlantic drainages, the San Francisco Bay, and nontidal Pacific tributaries.
Ecology: Faxonius rusticus inhabits streams, ponds and lakes in a variety of habitats, including rocky, muddy, and vegetated areas. Burrowing has been observed in parts of its range, but in Wisconsin, it made only shallow excavations (Hobbs and Jass 1989). The extent to which this crayfish inhabits tidal fresh or brackish estuaries is unclear, though it does tolerate brackish water up to at least 15 PSU (Bazer et al. 2016). In the lower Potomac River, it has been found in areas which can experience oligohaline to mesohaline salinities (USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Program 2017).
aquatic plants, worms, snails, bivalves, carrion
fishes, turtles, snakes, birds, raccoons, otters
Other crayfish species
|General Habitat||Fresh (nontidal) Marsh||None|
|General Habitat||Grass Bed||None|
|General Habitat||Coarse Woody Debris||None|
|General Habitat||Nontidal Freshwater||None|
|General Habitat||Tidal Fresh Marsh||None|
|General Habitat||Unstructured Bottom||None|
|Salinity Range||Limnetic||0-0.5 PSU|
|Salinity Range||Oligohaline||0.5-5 PSU|
Life History: Freshwater crayfish of the family Cambaridae, mate by internal fertilization, with the male inserting pleopods into the females seminal (annulus ventralis) which is between the 4th and 5th walking legs. The female curls her abdomen far forward, to create a chamber in which the eggs are driven by the pleopods. The mass of eggs becomes attached under the tail. Larval development takes place inside the egg and the young hatch as miniature adults (Barnes 1983).
Male cambarid crayfish show sharp morphological changes with season. At the start of the breeding season, they molt into a sexually competent stage (Form I), marked by lengthening and stiffening of the modified 1st pleopods, with more pronounced ischial spines (in the basal segments of the 3rd walking leg, and enlarged chelipeds). After breeding, the crayfish molts back into Form II, with the 1st pleopods less differentiated and soft, the ischial spines are reduced, and the chelipeds are less robust (Hobbs 1991).
Tolerances and Life History Parameters
|Minimum Temperature (ºC)||6||1-8.5 C (Westhoff and Rosenberger 2016)|
|Maximum Temperature (ºC)||38.5||Critical Temperature Maximim, with acclimation (Clauusen 1980; Westhoff and Rosenberger 2016)|
|Minimum Salinity (‰)||0||This is a freshwater organism|
|Maximum Salinity (‰)||15||Experimental 80% survival, 17 % survival at 30 PSU (Bazer et al.(2016)|
|Minimum Length (mm)||14||Carapace Size (Hobbs and Jass 1988)|
|Maximum Length (mm)||49||49, male carapace size; 44.5 female carapace size;(Hobbs and Jass 1988)|
|Broad Temperature Range||None||Cold temperate-Warm temperate|
|Broad Salinity Range||None||Limnetic-Oligohaline|
Faxonius rusticus has had ecological impacts in lakes and streams, mostly in the Great Lakes basin, where it has invaded, damaging aquatic vegetation, competing with native crayfishes, and preying on snails (Capelli 1982; Corey 1988; Lodge et al. 1994; Gunderson 1995; Taylor and Redmer 1996; Perry et al. 2002). Impacts of Rusty Crayfish have not yet been studied in Chesapeake Bay tributaries or the Hudson River estuary, but this crayfish is now widespread in the Chesapeake watershed (USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Program 2017).
In North America, crayfish of the genus Faxonius have, at present, only minor economic importance. They are harvested for biological supply houses to be sold for research and teaching. Only a small quantity is sold for human consumption, mainly in the state of Wisconsin (Momot 1989). However, they are widely sold and used as bait (Hobbs and Jass 1988; Kilian et al. 2010). In the Great Lakes and upper Mississippi valley, invasions of F, rusticus (Rusty Crayfish) have resulted in replacement of native species with an aggressive invader, which is a more efficient predator and herbivore, and better at avoiding predators than native species (Garvey et al. 1993; Lodge et al. 1994; Lodge et al. 1998). Its ability to destroy macrophytes has negative impacts on fisherman and hunters by removing refuges for fishes and invertebrates, increasing currents and erosion, and removing food for waterfowl (Gunderson 1995). There are some anecdotal observations that F. rusticus invasions might decrease abundances of some fishes, either by removal of submerged vegetation [Esox lucius (Northern Pike); Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill); Micropterus salmoides (Largemouth Bass)] or perhaps by being less available to predators [M. salmoides (Largemouth Bass)] (Gunderson 1995). Dense populations of Faxonius rusticus in WI lakes have discouraged swimming in some locations by pinching people's toes (Gunderson 1995). Because of the widespread ecological impacts of F. rusticus, Wisconsin and Minnesota have passed legislation prohibiting the sale of live crayfish (Gunderson 1995).
Competition- Invasions of river systems and lakes by Orconectes rusticus (Rusty Crayfish) are often associated with a decline or disappearance of native crayfish species. In Ohio, O. rusticus has replaced O. sanborni in central and west-central Ohio (Butler and Stein 1985). In northern Illinois, northern Wisconsin, the northwest shore of Lake Superior, Ontario, and in eastern Ontario, O. rusticus has largely replaced O. propinquus (introduced in Wisconsin, native in Illinois and Ontario) and O. virilis (native in all regions) (Capelli 1982; Corey 1988; Momot 1996; Taylor and Redmer 1996). Burrowing crayfish of the genera Cambarus and Procambarus are not mentioned as having been displaced by O. rusticus invasions (Capelli 1982; Hobbs et al. 1989).
Species replacements by F. rusticus appear to involve a diversity of mechanisms, including aggressive behavioral competition for resources, earlier recruitment than many competitors, higher fecundity, faster juvenile growth, interference with mating, wider habitat preferences, differential vulnerability to predators, etc. (Butler and Stein 1985; Corey 1988; Hobbs et al. 1989; Hazlett et al. 1992; Mather and Stein 1993; Garvey et al. 1994; Hill and Lodge 1994). In laboratory and field studies, F. rusticus tended to dominate OF propinquus and F. virilis, resulting in reduced movement and foraging by the latter species (Garvey et al. 1994; Hazlett et al. 1992). Faxonius rusticus tended to mate inappropriately with F. sanborni, decreasing reproductive output of both species, but favoring F. rusticus because of its superior reproductive characteristics (Butler and Stein 1985).
Habitat Change - Faxonius rusticus feeds extensively on macrophytes and periphyton, and can greatly reduce submerged vegetation, but it can also indirectly favor the growth of periphyton by predation on snails and other macroinvertebrates (Charlebois and Lamberti 1996; Lodge et al. 1994). These effects have been demonstrated in experimental ponds, lake enclosure-exclosure experiments, and whole lake experiments (Lodge et al. 1994; Lodge et al. 1998). Other crayfishes are also omnivorous, and can have similar foodweb effects (e.g., F. virilis, Hanson and Chambers 1995). However, replacement of other Faxonius species by F. rusticus may alter foodwebs because F. rusticus, with its larger adult size, more rapid growth, higher mass-specific ingestion rates of snails, and lower vulnerability to fish predation, may have a quantitatively greater impact (Lodge et al. 1994). By controlling types of plant communities, F. rusticus has the potential to affect food supplies and the structural environment for fishes and invertebrates, including refuges, sediment stability, current speed, erosion, etc. (Gunderson 1995).
Predation - Faxonius rusticus is an omnivore, and eats a wide variety of animal prey (Hobbs and Jass 1988). Its predation on snails has been studied in particular detail. In enclosure-exclosure experiments, densities of F. rusticus affected abundance, species composition, and species richness of snails. Of 11 snail species, O. rusticus preferred Physella sp. and Helisoma anceps. Other macroinvertebrates were not significantly effected by F. rusticus density (Lodge et al. 1994). Snail abundance was also related to F. rusticus density in lakes (Lodge et al. 1998). Other crayfish also consume mollusks, but replacement of other species by F. rusticus may result in increased rates of predation due to F. rusticus' higher metabolic rate and competitive life history characteristics (Lodge et al. 1994). In enclosure-exclosure experiments in a stream where snails were rare, F. rusticus abundance resulted in reduced invertebrate (mainly insect larvae), through direct predation, as well as through consumption of periphyton (Charlebois and Lamberti 1996).
Herbivory - Faxonius rusticus has long been known to affect lakes by consumption, and often elimination of beds of submerged vegetation (Hobbs et al. 1989). In enclosure-exclosure experiments, plant biomass was about 9X higher in enclosure treatments, and 12 species were present, compared to 3 species in enclosure treatments. Effects of herbivory did not differ greatly among species (Lodge et al. 1994). In a stream, F. rusticus was found to be a major consumer of periphyton (largely Cladophora), but did not affect periphyton biomass, apparently because of its removal of grazing microinvertebrates, and because foraging crayfish remove debris and detritus from the periphyton, exposing algae to increased light. In enclosures with high densities of F. rusticus, chlorophyll content of periphyton was higher (Charlebois and Lamberti 1996).
ReferencesPeterson, Greg S. and 7 authors (2021) Early detection monitoring for non-indigenous fishes; comparison of survey approaches during two species introductions in a Great Lakes p, Biological Invasions Published online: <missing location>
Butler, Mark J. IV; Stein, Roy A. (1985) An analysis of the mechanisms governing species replacements in crayfish, Oecologia 66: 168-177
Capelli, G.M. (1982) Displacement of northern Wisconsin crayfish by Orconectes rusticus (Girard), Limnology and Oceanography 27: 741-745
Charlebois, Patrice M.; Lamberti, Gary A. (1996) Invading crayfish in a Michigan stream: Direct and indirect effects on periphyton and macroinvertebrates, Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15(4): 551-563
Claussen, Dennis L. (1980) Thermal acclimation in the crayfish, Orconectes rusticus and O. virilis, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology <missing volume>: 377-384
Corey, Susan (1988) Comparative life histories of two populations of the introduced crayfish Orconectes rusticus (Girard, 1852) in Ontario, Crustacean 55(1): 29-38
Crocker, Denton W. (1979) The crayfishes of New England, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 92(2): 225-252
Faxon, Walter (1884) Descriptions of a new species of Cambarus, to which is added a synonymical list of the known species of Cambarus and Astacus., Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 20: 107-158
Fullerton, A. H.; Watson, B. T. (2001) New distributional records for two nonindigenous and one native crayfish in North Carolina, Journal of Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 117(1): 66-70
Garvey, James E.; Stein, Roy A. (1993) Evaluating how chela size influences the invasion potential of an introduced crayfish (Orconectes rusticus), American Midland Naturalist 129: 172-181
Garvey, James E.; Stein, Roy A.; Thomas, Heather M. (1994) Assessing how fish predation and interspecific prey competition influence a crayfish assemblage, Ecology 75(2): 532-547
Green, Stephanie J.; Grosholz, Edwin D. (2021) Functional eradication as a framework for invasive species control, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 19(2): 98-107
Gunderson, J. 1995 Rusty Crayfish: A Nasty Invader. http://www.dumn.edu.seagr/areas/aqua/rusty.html#cover
Hazlett, Brian A.; Anderson, Frank E.; Esman, Laura A., Stafford, Craig, Munro, Eric (1992) Interspecific behavioral ecology of the crayfish Orconectes rusticus., Journal of Freshwater Ecology 7(1): 69-76
Hill, Anna M.; Lodge, David M. (1994) Diel changes in resource demand: Competition and predation in species replacement among crayfish, Ecology 75(7): 2118-2126
Hill, Lodge (1999) Replacement of Resident Crayfishes by an Exotic Crayfish: The Roles of Competition and Predation, Ecological Applications 9(2): 678-690
Hobbs III, H. H.; Jass, Joan P.; Huner, Jay V. (1989) A review of global crayfish introductions with particular emphasis on two North American species (Decapoda, Cambaridae)., Crustaceana 56(3): 299-316
Hobbs, Horton H.; Jass, Joan P. (1988) <missing title>, Milwaukee Public Museum, Milwaukee, WI. Pp. <missing location>
Jezerinac, Raymond F.; Stocker, G. Whitney; Tarter, Donald C. (1995) The crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae) of West Virginia, Bulletin of the Ohio Biological Survey 10(1): 1-193
Keller, Reuben P.; Frang, Kristin; Lodge, David M. (2008) Preventing the spread of invasive species: Economic benefits of intervention guided by ecological predictions., Conservation Biology 22(1): 8-–88
Kershner, Mark W., Lodge, David M. (1995) Effects of littoral habitat and fish predation on the distribution of an exotic crayfish, Orconectes rusticus, Journal of the North American Benthological Society 14(3): 414-422
Kilian, Jay V. and 6 authors (2010) The status and distribution of Maryland crayfishes, Southeastern Naturalist 9(Special Issue 3): 11-32
Laffitte, Maud and 10 authors (2023) A new invader in freshwater ecosystems in France: the rusty crayfish Faxonius rusticus (Girard, 1852), BioInvasions Records 12: In press
Lodge, David M.; Kershner, Mark W.; Aloi, Jane E. (1994) Effects of an omnivorous crayfish (Orconectes rusticus) on a freshwater littoral food web, Ecology 75(5): 1265-1281
Lodge, David M.; Stein, Roy A.; Brown, Kenneth M.; Covich, Alan P.; Bronmark, Christer; Garvey, James E.; Klosiewski, Steven P. (1998) Predicting impact of freshwater exotic species on native biodiversity: Challenges in spatial scaling, Australian Journal of Ecology 23: 53-67
Lucena, Rudá Amorim; Christoffersen, Martin Lindsey (2018) Anoplodactylus (Pycnogonida: Phoxichilidiidae) from Brazil, ew records and two new species, Turkish Journal of Zoology 42: 372-388
Mather, Martha E.; Stein, Roy A. (1993) Direct and indirect effects of fish predation on the replacement of a native crayfish by an invading congener, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50: 1279-1288
Mills, Edward L.; Scheuerell, Mark D.; Carlton, James T.; Strayer, David (1997) Biological invasions in the Hudson River: an inventory and historical analysis., New York State Museum Circular 57: 1-51
Momot, Walter T. (1992) Further range extensions of the crayfish Orconectes rusticus in the Lake Superior Basin of northwestern Ontario, Canadian Field-Naturalist <missing volume>: 397-399
Momot, Walter T. (1996) History of the range extensions of Orconectes rusticus into northwestern Ontario and Lake Superior, Freshwater Crayfish 11: 67-72
Mundahl, Neal D.; Benton, Michael J. (1990) Aspects of the thermal ecology of the rusty crayfish Orconectes rusticus (Girard), Oecologia 82: 210-216
Olsen, T. Mark, Lodge, David M., Capelli, Gregory M., Houlihan, Robert J. (1991) Mechanisms of impacts of an introduced crayfish (Orconectes rusticus) on littoral congeners, snails, and macrophytes, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48: 1853-1861
Perry, W. L., et al (2001) Implications of Hybridization Between Introduced and Resident Orconectes Crayfishes, Conservation Biology 15(6): 1656-1666
Perry, William L; Lodge, David M; Feder, Jeffrey L. (2002) Importance of hybridization between indigenous and nonindigenous freshwater species: An overlooked threat to North American biodiversity., Systematic Biology 51(2): 255-275
Prasade, Amruta; Nagale, Apte, Deepak (2016) Cassiopea andromeda (Forsskål, 1775) in the Gulf of Kutch, India: initial discovery of the scyphistoma, and a record of the medusa in nearly a century, None 9(36): Published online
Smith, Douglas G. (1997) An annotated checklist of malacostracans (Crustacea) inhabiting southern New England fresh waters, Journal of Freshwater Ecology 12(2): 217-223
Stock, Jan. H. (1979) Pycnogonida from the mediolittoral and infralittoral zones in the tropical western Atlantic, Studies of the Fauna of Curacao and other Caribbean Islands 184: 1-32
Strayer, David L. (1999) Effects of alien species on freshwater mollusks in North America, Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18(1): 74-98
Taylor, Christopher A.; Redmer, Michael (1996) Dispersal of the crayfish Orconectes rusticus in Illinois, with notes on species displacements and habitat preference, Journal of Crustacean Biology 16(3): 547-551
Taylor, Christopher A.; Warren, Melvin L.; Fitzpatrick, J. F., Jr., Hobbs, Horton H.., Jezerinac, Raymond F., Pflieger, William L., Robison, Henry W. (1996) Conservation status of crayfishes of the United States and Canada, Fisheries 21(4): 25-37
Turner, Ruth D.; Boss, Kenneth (1962) The genus Lithophaga in the Western Atlanitc, Johnsonia 4(41): 81-116
U.S. National Museum of Natural History 2002-2021 Invertebrate Zoology Collections Database. <missing description>
USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Program 2003-2022 Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database. Gainesville, FL. http://nas.er.usgs.gov
Witte, Leendert; Van Harten, Dick (1991) Polymorphism, biogeography, and systemaitcs of Kotoracythere inconspicua (Brady 1880) (Ostracoda: Pectocytheridae), Journal of Biogeography 18: 427-236