Fathead Minnow

Common Name: Fathead Minnow
Other common names: northern fathead minnow, blackhead minnow, Tuffy minnow, fathead, blue-headed chub
Scientific name: Pimephales promelas
Wisconsin Synonyms: Pimephales promelas promelas (Hubbs and Lagler 1964)
Etymology: Pimephales – fat, head
promelas – in front, black

SYSTEMATICS AND TAXONOMY:

The fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas, was originally described by Rafinesque (1820) but until the 1940's, many believed that it was polytypic, recognizing at least three subspecies, P. p. promelas, P. p. confertus, and P. p. harveyensis (Hubbs and Lagler 1964, Vandermeer 1966, Scott and Crossman 1973). The northern fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas promelas was thought to be the subspecies present in Wisconsin (Hubbs and Lagler 1964). To quantitatively examine trends in systematic traits, Vandermeer (1966) compared meristic and morphometric characters throughout the presumed native range of this species. He found that traits varied widely, and that characteristics were clinal and did not vary concordantly, suggesting that any classification into subspecies would be subjective, both in choosing criteria for taxonomic separation and in delimiting the geographic ranges of subspecies (Vandermeer 1966). Moreover, because variation in each character was complex, identifying subspecies would make the taxonomy unnecessarily cumbersome and simultaneously oversimplify the true nature of the phenotypic variation (Vandermeer 1966).   [to top]

DESCRIPTION:

Morphometry and meristics:   Click here to see additional photos of this species

The fathead minnow has a small body, slightly compressed laterally, and a slightly flattened head dorsally. The snout is blunt, especially in males with mouth slightly subterminal, strongly oblique to almost vertical, and extending back to below the anterior nostril. Pharyngeal teeth 4-4, with slender teeth and elongate cutting surfaces (Becker 1983). Origin of dorsal fin is over to slightly advanced of origin of pelvic fin, and the first ray of the dorsal fin is shorter than the other dorsal fin rays. dorsal fin rays 8; anal fin rays 7; pectoral fin rays commonly 15, but can range from 14-18; pelvic fin rays 8. Lateral series scales 41-54; lateral line short and incomplete (Scott and Crossman 1973, Becker 1983, Nelson and Paetz 1991).

The fathead minnow exhibits strong sexual dimorphism, which includes differences in morphometry. During the breeding season, males develop a broader head, a dorsal pad, i.e., prominent area of spongy rugose tissue on the nape, and nuptial tubercles on the snout and lower jaw (Wynne-Edwards 1932, Markus 1934). Females become rotund when bearing large quantities of eggs, and develop a protruding urogenital structure (ovipositor) at least one month prior to spawning (Flickinger 1969). Flickinger (1969) noted that there was 3-8% error in distinguishing immature males from females using the presence of the ovipositor.  [to top]

Pigmentation:

Adults are dark brown to dark olive dorsally, have slightly silvery sides and a silvery-white ventral surface. The peritoneum is uniformly black and can often be seen through the belly. Outside the breeding season, both males and females have a narrow dusky lateral stripe extending from the caudal peduncle to the head; this stripe becomes faint to absent in males during the breeding season. There is no dark outline on scales (Cross 1967), however scale pockets above the lateral stripe are edged in pigment whereas scale pockets below lateral line are only slightly pigmented (Becker 1983). Hatchery-reared fatheads minnows occasionally exhibit polymorphism in coloration, with a very small fraction being red, yellow, or white (Robison and Buchanan 1984). During the breeding season, males develop a dark to black head, dark body with tan vertical bars on lateral sides (sometimes called "bumblebee stripes"), and tan nuptial tubercles (Wynne-Edwards 1932, Markus 1934). Fins of males can become dark and an area of dark pigment forms on the anterior rays of the dorsal fin. Post-larvae have a dark caudal spot and dark pigment at the base of the dorsal fin, which can be used to distinguish post-larval fathead minnows from similar species, such as the bluntnose minnow, P. notatus (Buynak and Mohr 1979).  [to top]

Similar species:

Larval and prolarval stages of the fathead minnow are difficult to distinguish from similar stages of bluntnose minnow (Buynak and Mohr 1979), however, Fuiman et al. (1983) provides several practical considerations for identifying fathead minnow larvae using distinguishing morphological characteristics, such as preanal myomere distribution. The fathead minnow and bluntnose minnow also can hybridize, potentially making the distinction between hybrid and non-hybrid individuals difficult (Trautman 1957).  [to top]

Size, growth and age:

Newly hatched fathead minnows are 4.75-5.2 mm TL (Markus 1934, Buynak and Mohr 1979, Grant and Tonn 2002), with transformation to early and late postlarval stages occurring at 5.6 mm and 13.6 mm, respectively (Buynak and Mohr 1979). Growth is relatively fast, especially in warm, food-rich waters characteristic of southern portions of its range (Becker 1983, Scott and Crossman 1973). For instance, Markus (1934) found that fathead minnows in artificial conditions reached adult size within two months of hatch. For a natural population in Wisconsin, Becker (1983) reported that young fathead minnows could reach 58 mm TL in 120 days. In Elk Creek (Buffalo County), young-of-year collected 27 September 1975 were 26-48 mm TL (Becker 1983). Although the direct examination of growth rates in more northerly natural populations has not been conducted, fathead minnows reared in experimental ponds in Alberta, Canada, were shown to reach up to 36 mm TL (means of experimental populations ranged from18-24 mm) by the end of their first growing season (Grant and Tonn 2002).

Maximum adult size reported for the fathead minnow ranges from 75 to 102 mm TL (McCarraher and Thomas 1968, Scott and Crossman 1973, Robinson and Buchanan 1984, Nelson and Paetz 1991, Danylchuk 2003). Mean adult size ranges in populations between 50 and 60 mm TL (Carlson 1967, Becker 1983, Scott and Crossman 1973, Sublette et al. 1990). It is commonly observed that males grow more rapidly and to a larger size than females (Andrews and Flickinger 1979, Becker 1983).

It is regularly stated that fathead minnows rarely exceed age 3 (e.g., Brown 1971), yet only a few studies have directly aged this species. One exception is a study conducted by Carlson (1967) using scale analysis, in which fathead minnows collected from the Des Moines River, Iowa, were ages 1 or 2, with only one specimen (65 mm TL) classified as age 3. Age 1 fathead minnows collected from Sawyer Bay (Door Country) on 5 June were 45-60 mm, while age 2 fish ranged in size from 52-70 mm (Becker 1983). Andrews (1971) subsequently noted a maximum average age of 2.5 years and a relatively small size-at-age for a population at higher elevations in Colorado, likely coinciding with a shorter growing season. Using otolith analysis, Danylchuk (2003) found that age structure varied among four geographically proximate fathead minnow populations in north-central Alberta, Canada, with maximum ages ranging between age 2 and age 5. In these populations, size-at-age and growth rates were negatively associated with longevity.  [to top]

BIOLOGY:

Reproduction and Spawning:

The reproductive biology of the fathead minnow has been well-studied. Individuals can mature rapidly, even within their first year (Markus 1934), however, maturity is more frequently reported at age 1 or age 2 (Carlson 1967, Becker 1983, Danylchuk 2003). Spawning commences in mid April to early June (Markus 1934, McCarraher and Thomas 1968, Brown 1971, Cooper 1983, Robison and Buchanan 1984, Danylchuk 2003), with exact timing controlled by day length and temperature (Andrews and Flickinger 1979). Spawning begins when water temperature reaches approximately 15 ºC, but can be inhibited if water temperatures exceed 30 ºC. In southern Wisconsin ponds, Thomsen and Hasler (1944) found that spawning commenced in late May and lasted until the middle of August. In the Madison area, spawning tends to peak in early July (Becker 1983). Reproductive activity can continue to early September (Andrews and Flickinger 1979).

Males begin to develop secondary sexual characteristics approximately 30 days prior to spawning (Markus 1934), concurrent with the final stages of spermatogenesis (Smith 1978) and early stages of nest defense (McMillan and Smith 1974). Prior to spawning, males search, hold, and aggressively defend nesting sites usually associated with the underside of structure, such as lily pads and downed woody debris (Wynne-Edwards 1932, McMillan and Smith 1974). Fathead minnows also successfully spawn on introduced substrates (Benoit and Carlson 1977), but the use of substrates can be dependent on their size and cardinal location within a waterbody (DeWitt 1993). When defending nests, males hover below the substrate, touching, circling, and rubbing the surface with their dorsal pads (McMillan and Smith 1974). Males will then actively court females through a series of advances and retreats back to their nest. Once a female selects a mate selected, she will deposit buoyant sticky eggs on the underside of the substrate using her ovipositor (Flickinger 1969, McMillan and Smith 1974); egg deposition usually occurs at night (Andrews and Flickinger 1979).

Timing of reproductive activity in male fathead minnows is plastic and can be modulated by population structure, through its effects on social status. Specifically, small males will advance their reproductive condition, hold nests, and spawn earlier in the reproductive season when large males are absent or removed from a population (Danylchuk and Tonn 2001).

Once eggs are present in the nest, males become extremely alert, circling the egg mass and boldly charging, butting, and biting potential egg predators (McMillan and Smith 1974), including other small-bodied fishes, and some macroinvertebrates. Conspecifics can be a high source of egg mortality via cannibalism, especially at high population densities when the availability of other foods may be limited (Vandenbos 1996)

In addition to courtship, males will often display aggression towards females, which may be an adaptation to counteract mimicry of females by deceptive male cuckolders (Jenkins and Burkland 1994), however, this explanation has yet to be formally tested. When piscine predators are present, males adjust their nest guarding activities to be less conspicuous and increase their return time to nests following disturbance (Jones and Paszkowski 1997). This response potentially increases the susceptibility of eggs to predation. In this way, the presence of predators could indirectly affect population size.

Males continue to guard and care for eggs until they hatch (Andrews and Flickinger 1979). Care includes agitating the water around the eggs to prevent fouling, displacing sediments, and removing waste material and fungus-infected eggs (McMillan and Smith 1974). A single male may guard the eggs of several females that have deposited them in his nest at different times; Markus (1934) observed from 36 to 12,000 eggs per nest. Females are known to be fractional spawners (Andrews and Flickinger 1979; Gale and Buynak 1982, Danylchuk et al. unpublished), and have been observed to lay from 80 to 370 eggs during single spawning bouts (Thomsen and Hasler 1944). Individual females almost certainly lay their eggs in the nests of multiple males. Fecundity of age 1 females is reported at 1000-10000 eggs (Andrews and Flickinger 1979).

Guarding the eggs of several females may prolong the length of time a male remains on territory, and could affect a male's ability to successfully defend his nest and care for his eggs. Successful males have been shown to maintain a stable body weight throughout the nesting period by continually replacing catabolized energy stores with water, which, in turn, may allow them to deceive male intruders and avoid eviction from the nest (Unger 1983). Initially females spawn randomly with available males, but then prefer to spawn with males that are already guarding eggs (Unger and Sargent 1988), likely because egg survival increases with increasing clutch size (Sargent 1988). As such, newly reproductive males will prefer to evict a parental male guarding a nest with eggs rather than occupy a physically identical empty nest (Unger and Sargent 1988).   [to top]

Development:

Egg diameter is between 1.1 and 1.3 mm, and the time to hatch is from 4.5-7 days (Scott and Crossman 1983, Grant and Tonn 2002, Danylchuk and Tonn, unpublished data). Newly hatched larvae range in size from 4.75 to 5.2 mm TL (Markus 1934, Buynak and Mohr 1979, Grant and Tonn 2002), with transformation to early and late postlarval stages occurring at 5.6 mm and 13.6 mm, respectively (Buynak and Mohr 1979). Burnham and Peterka (1975) found that high salinities in prairie pothole lakes may affect egg and larval survival.  [to top]

Ecology:

The ubiquity of the fathead minnow is largely due to this species ability to tolerate a wide range of environmental conditions (Scott and Crossman 1973). Considered a pioneer species, the fathead minnow is often cited as the first species to invade intermittent drainage channels after flooding, and one of the last species to disappear from small, muddy, isolated pools that remain in stream channels during drought (Cross 1967, Sublette et al. 1990).

With the exception of low pH (Rahel and Magnuson 1983), the fathead minnow is able to survive a diversity of extreme water quality conditions. Fathead minnows are often found in plains lakes, where they tolerate relatively high alkalinity (2000 ppm), and salinities of over 10,000 ppm (McCarraher and Thomas 1968, Burnham and Peterka 1975, Scott and Crossman 1973). They are also found in drying pools in New Mexico, where they tolerate high water temperatures and low dissolved oxygen levels (Sublette et al. 1990). In addition, many studies have documented the fathead minnow's ability to survive low oxygen levels during winter months in the northern part of their range (e.g., Magnuson et al. 1989, Danylchuk and Tonn 2003).

The fathead minnow possesses a number of traits that allows this species to survive severe winter hypoxia (Gee et al. 1978, Klinger et al. 1982, Magnuson et al. 1985). The small size of the fathead minnow reduces the absolute amount of oxygen needed to support metabolic processes (Klinger et al. 1982). During progressive hypoxia, fathead minnows remain active and move upward in the water column, potentially allowing them to locate areas of higher dissolved oxygen, such as trapped air bubbles or oxygenated inlet and outlet streams (Gee et al. 1978, Klinger et al. 1982, Magnuson et al. 1985). As oxygen levels decline, fathead minnows increase the frequency of opercular movements, likely in an attempt to increase the volume of water flowing across gills (Gee et al. 1978, Klinger et al. 1982). The fathead minnow is also physostomous, however, there is no direct evidence that the gas bladder can be used as an accessory respiratory organ in this species (Klinger et al. 1982). Likewise, although several other species of cyprinids, such as goldfish, Carassius auratus, and the crucian carp, Carassius carassius, have evolved the capacity to switch to anaerobic respiration when exposed to low oxygen levels (Marchand 1987, Holopainen et al. 1997), there is no evidence that the fathead minnow has developed such a novel metabolic pathway to contend with winter hypoxia (Shoubridge and Hochachka 1980, Klinger et al. 1982). Nevertheless, the species' considerable tolerance of hypoxia contributes to it's widespread occurrence in what can best be described as "winterkill lakes".

The fathead minnow is an integral component of the fish assemblages of small and shallow northern lakes because of its ability to tolerate winter hypoxia, but susceptibility to predation (Robinson and Tonn 1989). In Alberta, Ontario, and Wisconsin, a dichotomy exists among fish assemblages of small lakes. Small-bodied fishes, including fathead minnow, reside in relatively isolated waterbodies prone to hypoxia, whereas large-bodied fishes, such as northern pike, Esox lucius, reside in lakes that are either inherently less susceptible to this disturbance (Harvey 1981, Robinson and Tonn 1989) or where stream connections allow for seasonal migrations or post-winter re-colonizations (Tonn and Magnuson 1982). Although fathead minnows could and do survive in waterbodies less prone to winter oxygen depletion, larger, piscivorous fish species generally restrict their abundance and even presence (Robinson and Tonn 1989, Jones and Paszkowski 1997, Duffy 1998). Thus, when not introduced as forage (see Importance and Management below), the fathead minnow is most commonly found in waterbodies devoid of predatory game fish (Brown 1971). However, when co-existing with predators, the release of chemical alarm substance and associated anti-predatory behaviour of fathead minnows, such as increased shoaling and shelter use, have been shown to increase their chances of survival in laboratory experiments (Mathis and Smith 1993, Chivers and Smith 1994). As noted earlier, however, these same chemical (and visual) signals can also alter the nest-guarding behavior of males (Jones and Paszkowski 1997), which could affect long-term viability of fathead minnow populations in lakes with piscivorous fish. Interestingly, the closely-related bluntnose minnow co-occurs regularly with piscivorous fish (Tonn and Magnuson 1982).

In the absence of predators, the fathead minnow can become an important component and may even dominate, the small-bodied fish assemblages, especially in the more depauperate northern areas (Robinson and Tonn 1989, Abrahams 1994, Danylchuk and Tonn 2003). In those small-bodied assemblages, the fathead minnow may out compete other species, such as the brook stickleback, Culaea inconstans (Abrahams 1996). Starrett (1950) however, suggested that the fathead minnow does not compete well with other minnows in stream environments, potentially related to the species' difficulty in feeding in turbulent waters (Landry et al. 1995).

Life history traits of the fathead minnow can be influenced by environmental factors such as water quality, predation and competition. In experimental ponds, nutrient enrichment increased the number of eggs laid by fathead minnows and enhanced survival of age-0 fish, contributing to a high number of young-of-year at the end of the growing season relative to non-enriched treatments (Grant and Tonn 2002). Although in unenriched ponds growth of age-0 fathead minnows is typically reduced at high densities of fry (Vandenbos 1996), young-of-year fish were also larger in nutrient enriched treatments (Grant and Tonn 2002). Larger young-of-year, in turn, had increased overwinter survival (Grant and Tonn 2002). Differences in predation pressure also influences the body size of fathead minnows, with larger individuals occurring in waterbodies with fewer piscivores (Duffy 1998).

Life history traits of fathead minnow can also be related to the incidence of natural disturbance (Danylchuk 2003). In the boreal region of western Canada, fathead minnows in lakes more prone to frequent and/or severe winterkills were shorter lived, grew faster, allocated a greater proportion of their body mass to gonad development, and tended to mature earlier compared to fathead minnows in more stable lakes (Danylchuk 2003). In addition, spawning activity tended to begin earlier in the season in lakes with more frequent or severe winterkills. These trends are consistent with predictions for organisms in variable, unpredictable environments and, given that fathead minnows are tolerant to a wide range of environmental conditions, suggest that variation in life history traits among populations is likely a product of both selection and phenotypic plasticity (Danylchuk 2003).

Parasite load in the fathead minnow can also affect life history traits, including growth and survival (Lemly and Esch 1984). Parasites of fathead minnows include Protozoa, Trematoda, Cestoda, Nematoda, and Crustacea (Scott and Crossman 1973). The infestation of fathead minnows by parasites can be high even when other associated species are only lightly infested (Scott and Crossman 1973). In fathead minnows collected from 4 pristine lakes in north-central Alberta, the trematode Ornithodiplostomum ptychocheilus was the most common and abundant of 14 parasites infecting fathead minnows, but absent in the other fish species that occurred in the lakes (finescale dace, Phoxinus neogaeus, and brook stickleback) (Sandland 1999). McCarraher and Thomas (1968) noted heavy infestation of cestodes in alkaline lakes in Nebraska, with over 80% of fathead minnows infested with Ligula intestinallis. For some trematode parasites, intensity of infestation in fathead minnows can be partially attributed to variation in host size, as well as to factors that influence the transmission of metacercariae such as water depth, water temperature, and densities of snails and birds (Sandland et al. 2001).  [to top]

Diet:

The omnivorous diet of the fathead minnow, which includes combinations of invertebrates, algae, and detritus, provides flexibility in its choice of foods. Invertebrate prey include rotifers, cladocerans, copepods, amphipods, ostracods, chironimidae larvae, and ceratopogonid larvae (Held and Peterka 1974, Price et al. 1991, Duffy 1998). Price et al. (1991) found size- and gender-related differences in the types of invertebrate prey consumed prior to the breeding season, likely related to differences in habitat use and activity levels. Duffy (1998) estimated that invertebrate prey consumption can be high, approaching or exceeding estimates of invertebrate production in prairie wetlands. Landry et al. (1995) found that turbulence in the water column can influence ingestion rate of invertebrate prey by fathead minnow larvae, suggesting that the diet of this species may be partially related to the physical characteristics of the waterbody in which it resides. Detritus can contribute up to 93% of the diet of fathead minnows (Litvak and Hansell 1990). Although detritus in diets is typically viewed as low quality food used primarily when higher-quality food is scarce, fathead minnows whose invertebrate diet was experimentally supplemented with detritus showed greater growth compared to fish fed invertebrates alone (Lemke and Bowen 1998). Fathead minnows have a long digestive tract that likely contributes to efficient processing of detritus, and thereby permits the extensive use of this poor but abundant food source (Gerking 1994).

Food consumption in fathead minnows can be affected by the risk of predation and interspecific competition among other members of small-bodied fish assemblages. In a laboratory study, Abrahams (1994) found that in the absence of yellow perch, Perca flavescens, fathead minnows consumed more food than brook stickleback, suggesting that the fathead minnows have a competitive advantage over other small-bodied fishes when the risk of predation is low. However, feeding rates of fathead minnows declined in the presence of perch (sticklebacks were unaffected), such that the rates of the two species were similar with predators. Danylchuk et al. (unpublished) examined the food habits of sympatric populations of fathead minnow, brook stickleback, and finescale dace in small boreal forest lakes and found a quantitative partitioning of resources. Fathead minnows focused more on detritus, brook sticklebacks on smaller invertebrates, and finescale dace on larger invertebrates. This, in addition to observed seasonal changes in resource partitioning, suggests that the diet of species in small-bodied fish assemblages may be partially attributed to interspecific competition (Danylchuk et al. unpublished data). Overlap in diet can also occur between fathead minnows and juvenile waterfowl, indicating another source of competition that may influence feeding patterns of fathead minnows (Duffy 1998).   [to top]

Associated Species:

As noted, the fathead minnow is most commonly associated with other small-bodied fish species (Scott and Crossman 1973, Nelson and Paetz 1991). In the northeastern United States, fathead minnows are associated with species such as bluntnose minnow, Pimephales notatus, blacknose dace, Rhinichthys atratulus, common shiner, Luxilus cornutus, central mudminnow, Umbra limi, white sucker, Catostomus commersoni, and brown and black bullhead, Ameiurus nebulosus and A. melas, respectively (Cooper 1983). In the northern portions of its range, the fathead minnow is commonly associated with brook stickleback, ten-spine stickleback, Spinachia spinachia, finescale dace, northern redbelly dace, Phoxinus eos, and pearl dace, Margariscus margarita (Harvey 1981, Tonn and Magnuson 1982, Robinson and Tonn 1989, Danylchuk et al. unpublished data).  [to top]

Importance and Management:

The fathead minnow can play an important role in the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems, especially where it occurs naturally and in high abundance (Scott and Crossman 1973). For example, Zimmer et al. (2001) found that the re-colonization of a prairie wetland by fathead minnows following winterkill resulted in an increase in turbidity, total phosphorus, and chlorophyll a, and a decease in the abundance of some macroinvertebrates. Eaton (2004) found that the abundance of young-of-the-year wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) increased dramatically following winterkill of small-bodied fishes including fathead minnow, in the frog's breeding lakes in Alberta. In experimental ponds the presence of fathead minnows caused nearly complete mortality of wood frog tadpoles (Eaton and Paszkowski, unpublished data). Given that wood frogs recruit from lakes to riparian and upland areas where they become part of the boreal forest food web, variability in the density of fathead minnows could affect terrestrial systems as well. Fathead minnows can also act as forage for piscivorous birds (Gingras and Paszkowski 1999, Paszkowski et al. /a>In Press), potentially contributing to higher trophic levels, however, the number of studies to assess the ecological importance of this species has been few (e.g., Janowicz 1999, Zimmer et al. 2001).

Better known is the importance of fathead minnows as both forage and bait for game fish, such as largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides (Cross 1967). In Wisconsin in the early 1940's, the intensive collection of fathead minnows from natural systems to be used as live bait began to put pressure on minnow stocks and also resulted in the bycatch of young-of-year game fish (Thomsen and Hasler 1944). As a result, a call was made for "everyone who fishes to realize that minnows are game fish food and that they are, therefore, the foundation upon which fishing is built". Subsequently, these and other authors emphasized the need for artificially propagating fathead minnows (Thomsen and Hasler 1944, Williamson 1944). In the decades that followed, the commercial production of fathead minnow expanded rapidly to meet the demands of the lucrative recreational fishing industry (Bailey and Allum 1962, Davis 1993).

Often called 'tuffy' by minnow dealers because of its ability to withstand extensive transport and bait bucket conditions, the fathead minnow has become one of the most valuable baitfish in North America (Williamson 1944, Brown 1971, Davis 1993, Etnier and Starnes 1993, Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). The ability to mature quickly, willingness to use artificial substrates for spawning, and short incubation period has also contributed to the fathead minnow's use in aquaculture (Williamson 1944, Benoit and Carlson 1977, Davis 1993). For example, in 1982, the fathead minnow ranked just behind the golden shiner in importance to the aquaculture industry in Arkansas with over 400,000 kg being produced; this production was valued at nearly two million dollars (Robison and Buchanan 1984). Fathead minnows are frequently stocked by anglers directly into waterbodies as forage fish and into fishless lakes by bait dealers to establish new populations for harvest. Unfortunately, these practices have led to the introduction of fathead minnows into numerous waterbodies in which they are not native (Bell 1956, Cooper 1983, Robison and Buchanan 1984, Sublette et al. 1990), potentially altering the balance of natural aquatic ecosystems (Goodchild 1999).

Several other uses have been found for the fathead minnow. Fathead minnows have been stocked into sloughs, ponds, and ditches for mosquito control, and have also been used in sewage treatment ponds to convert high concentrations of nutrient and plant material into usable biomass (Becker 1983). They have been propagated for the aquarium trade, with the development of an ornamental red color morph known as the "rosy red" (Robison and Buchanan 1984). The fathead minnow has also become the white rat of aquatic toxicology, being propagated and used in laboratory bioassays and for in situ testing of the effects of potentially toxic substances on aquatic vertebrates (e.g., Denny 1988, Brazner and Kline 1990, Siwik et al. 2000).  [to top]

DISTRIBUTION, STATUS AND HABITAT:

The fathead minnow is one of the most widely distributed fishes in North America, occurring naturally between the Rocky Mountains and Appalachians, and from Louisiana, Texas, and Chihuahua, Mexico, to the Alberta-Northwest Territories border (Brown 1971, Lee et al. 1980, Scott and Crossman 1973, Nelson and Paetz 1991). This species is one of the most common minnows in mid-western states, Ontario, and Canadian prairie provinces (Bailey and Allum 1962, Brown 1971, Nelson and Paetz 1991), but normally is rare or absent in areas of higher elevation or in coastal drainages (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994).

Because of frequent introductions, however, it has been difficult to define the fathead minnow's original distribution in some areas (Etnier and Starnes 1993). For instance, Andrews (1971) reported an altitudinal range extension for the fathead minnow in Colorado, with a self-sustaining population in a mountain lake at 3034 m elevation, although this population was likely introduced, since fathead minnow is not found in any of the major drainages in the region. Similarly, the fathead minnow is now found in areas outside of its original geographical range, e.g., western New Mexico and Californian drainages, typically as a result of from campaigns to enhance baitfish populations (Bell 1956, Sublette et al. 1990).

Throughout its current distribution, the fathead minnow can be found in a variety of waterbodies, including slow-moving rivers and streams with emergent vegetation growing in pools, along the shoreline and turbid back-waters (Starrett 1950, Carlson 1967), in prairie pothole lakes and wetlands (Burnham and Peterka 1975, Zimmer et al. 2001), small productive and shallow lakes of the Canadian Boreal Plains (Robinson and Tonn 1989, Price et al. 1991), small stained lakes of the Great Lakes region (Scott and Crossman 1973), and many reservoirs and dugouts throughout its natural and current range.

In Wisconsin, the fathead minnow is widely distributed, occurring in all three major drainage basins (Becker 1983). The fathead minnow resides in a wide variety of Wisconsin water bodies, from boggy lakes, ponds, and streams in the north to small ponds and low-gradient streams and ditches in the south (Becker 1983). Fathead minnow is a characteristic member of fish assemblages in low-gradient, warmwater stream environments, with little topographic relief, such as in the Southeastern Wisconsin Till Plains ecoregion (Lyons 1996). Newall and Magnuson (1999) found that although fathead minnows displayed a preference for fish communities inhabiting such environments in the St. Croix River basin, the species was not particularly common anywhere in this drainage. In streams, the presence of coarse substrate and woody shoreline vegetation may help explain the patterns of abundance for species such as fathead minnow (Lyons 1989).   [to top]

Citations:

  • Abrahams, M. V. 1994. Risk of predation and its influence on the relative competitive abilities of two species of freshwater fishes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 51:1629-1633.
  • Abrahams, M. V. 1996. Interactions between young-of-year fathead minnows and brook stickleback: effects on growth and diet selection. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:480-485.
  • Andrews, A. K. 1971. Altitudinal range extension for the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). Copeia 1:169.
  • Andrews, A. K., and S. A. Flickinger. 1979. Spawning requirements and characteristics of the fathead minnow. Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of the Game and Fishery Commission 27:759-766.
  • Bailey, R. M., and M. O. Allum. 1962. Fishes of South Dakota. Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan Miscellaneous Publication #119.
  • Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
  • Bell, R. R. 1956. Propagation of bait minnows in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Administrative Report Number 56-11.
  • Benoit, D. A., and R. W. Carlson. 1977. Spawning success of fathead minnow on selected artificial substrates. Progressive Fish-Culturist 39:67-69.
  • Brazner, J. C., and E. R. Kline. 1990. Effects of chlorpyrifos on the diet and growth of larval fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas, in littoral enclosures. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47:1157-1165.
  • Brown, C. J. D. 1971. Fishes of Montana. Big Sky Books, Montana State University.
  • Brungs, W. A. 1971. Chronic effects of low dissolved oxygen concentrations on the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 28:1119-1123.
  • Burnham, B. L., and J. J. Peterka. 1975. Effects of saline water from North Dakota lakes on survival of fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) embryos and sac fry. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32:809-812.
  • Buynak, G. L., and H. W. Mohr, Jr. 1979. Larval development of the bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus) and fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) from northeast Pennsylvania. Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science 53:172-176.
  • Carlson, D. R. 1967. Fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas Rafinesque, in the Des Moines River, Boon County, Iowa, and the Skunk River drainage, Hamilton and Story counties, Iowa. Iowa Journal of Science 41:363-374.
  • Chivers, D. P., and R. J. F. Smith. 1994. The role of experience and chemical alarm signaling in predator recognition by fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas. Journal of Fish Biology 44:273-285.
  • Cooper, E. L. 1983. Fishes of Pennsylvania and the Northeastern United States. The Penn State University Press.
  • Cross, F. B. 1967. Handbook of fishes of Kansas. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Miscellaneous Publication #45.
  • Danylchuk, A. J. 2003. Population structure and life history characteristics of fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas, in hypoxia-prone Boreal Plains lakes. Ph.D. thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
  • Danylchuk, A. J., and W. M. Tonn. 2001. Effects of social structure on reproductive activity in male fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas). Behavioral Ecology 12:482-489.
  • Danylchuk, A. J., and W. M. Tonn. 2003. Natural disturbances and fish: local and regional influences on winterkill of fathead minnows in Boreal lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:289-298.
  • Davis, J. T. 1993. Baitfish. Pages 307-321 in R. R Stickney, editor. Culture of nonsalmonid freshwater fishes. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
  • DeWitt, T. J. 1993. Nest-site preferences in male fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71:1276-1279.
  • Denny, J.S. 1988. Guidelines for the culture of fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas for the use in toxicity tests. U.S. EPA. EPA/600/S3-87/001. Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth.
  • Duffy, W. G. 1998. Population dynamics, production, and prey consumption of fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) in prairie wetlands: a bioenergetic approach. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:15-27.
  • Eaton, B. R. 2004. The role of landscape factors, predation, and demography in the ecology of anurans in boreal Alberta. Ph.D. thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
  • Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
  • Flickinger, S. A. 1969. Determination of sexes in the fathead minnow. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 3:526-527.
  • Fuiman, L. A., J. V. Conner, B. F. Lathrop, G. L. Buynak, D. E. Snyder, and J. J. Loos. 1983. State of the art of identification for cyprinid fish larvae from Eastern North America. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 112:319-332.
  • Gale W. F., and G. L. Buynak. 1982. Fecundity and spawning frequency of the fathead minnow – a fractional spawner. Transaction of the American Fisheries Society 111:35-40.
  • Gee, J. H., R .F. Tallman, and H. J. Smart. 1978. Reactions of some great plains fishes to progressive hypoxia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 56:1962-1966.
  • Gerking, S. D. 1994. Feeding Ecology of Fish. Academic Press, San Diego, California.
  • Gingras, B. A., and C. A. Paszkowski. 1999. Breeding patterns of common loons on lakes with three different fish assemblages in north-central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:600-609.
  • Goodchild, C. D. 1999. Ecological impacts of introductions associated with the use of live baitfish. Pages 181-200 in R. Claudi and J. H. Leach, editors. Nonindigenous freshwater organisms: vectors, biology, and impacts. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
  • Grant, S. C. H., and W. M. Tonn. 2002. Effects of nutrient enrichment on recruitment of age-0 fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas): potential impacts of environmental change on the Boreal Plains. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59:759-767.
  • Harvey, H. H. 1981. Fish communities of the lakes of the Bruce Peninsula. Internationale Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie Verhandlungen 21:1222-1230.
  • Held, J. W., and J. J. Peterka. 1974. Age, growth, and food habits of the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas, in North Dakota saline lakes. Transaction of the American Fisheries Society 103:743-756.
  • Holopainen, I. J., W. M. Tonn, and C. A. Paszkowski. 1997. Tales of two fishes: the dichotomous biology of crucian carp (Carassius carassius (L.)) in northern Europe. Annales Zoologici Fennici 34:1-22.
  • Hubbs, C. L., and K. F. Lagler. 1964. Fishes of the Great Lakes region. University of Michigan Press.
  • Igram, R., and W. D. Wares II. 1979. Oxygen consumption in the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas Rafinesque) II – Effects of pH, osmotic pressure, and light level. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 62A:895-897.
  • Janowicz, M. E. 1999. Trophic interactions in eutrophic boreal ponds in relation to fish predation pressure. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
  • Jenkins, R. E., and N. M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society Publication, Bethesda, Maryland.
  • Jones, H. M., and C. A. Paszkowski. 1997. Effects of northern pike on patterns of nest use and reproductive behavior of male fathead minnows in a boreal lake. Behavioral Ecology 8:655-662.
  • Klinger, S. A, J. J. Magnuson, and G. W. Gallepp. 1982. Survival mechanisms of the central mudminnow (Umbra limi), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) and brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans) for low oxygen in winter. Environmental Biology of Fishes 7:113-120.
  • Landry, F., T. J. Miller, and W. C. Leggett. 1995. The effects of small-scale turbulence on the ingestion rate of fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) larvae. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52:1714-1719.
  • Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, NC.
  • Lemke, M. J., and S. H. Bowen. 1998. The nutritional value of organic detrital aggregate in the diet of fathead minnows. Freshwater Biology 39:447-453.
  • Lemly, D. A., and G. W. Esch. 1984. Effects of the trematode, Uvulifer ambloplitis, on juvenile bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus: ecological implications. Journal of Parasitology 70: 475-492.
  • Litvak, M. K., and R. I. C. Hansell. 1990. Investigation of food habitat and niche relationships in a cyprinid community. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68:1873-1879.
  • Lyons, J. 1989. Correspondence between the distribution of fish assemblages in Wisconsin streams and Omernik's ecoregions. American Midland Naturalist 122:163-182.
  • Lyons, J. 1996. Patterns in the species composition of fish assemblages among Wisconsin streams. Environmental Biology of Fishes 45:329-341.
  • Magnuson, J. J., A. L. Beckel, K. Mills, and S. B. Brandt. 1985. Surviving winter hypoxia: behavioral adaptations of fishes in a northern Wisconsin winterkill lake. Environmental Biology of Fishes 14:241-250.
  • Magnuson, J. J., C. A. Paszkowski, F. J. Rahel, and W. M. Tonn. 1989. Fish ecology in severe environments of small isolated lakes in northern Wisconsin. Pages 487-515 in R. R. Sharitz and J. W. Gibson, editors. Freshwater wetlands and wildlife. DOE Symposium series No. 61, USDOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Oak Ridge.
  • Marchand, P. J. 1987. Life in the cold. University Press of New England. Hanover, New Hampshire.
  • Markus, H. C. 1934. Life history of the blackhead minnow (Pimephales promelas). Copeia 3:116-122.
  • Mathis, A., and R. J. F. Smith. 1993. Chemical alarm signals increase the survival time of fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) during encounters with northern pike (Esox lucius). Behavioral Ecology 4:260-265.
  • McCarraher, D. B., and R. Thomas. 1968. Some ecological observations on the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas, in the alkaline waters of Nebraska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 97:53-55.
  • McMillan, V. E., and R. J. F. Smith. 1974. Agonistic and reproductive behaviour of the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas Rafinesque). Zeitschrift fuer Tierpsychologie 34:25-58.
  • Mitchell, A. and E. E. Prepas. 1990. Atlas of Alberta Lakes. University of Alberta Press.
  • Nelson, J. S., and M. J. Paetz. 1991. Fishes of Alberta. University of Alberta Press.
  • Newall, P. R., and J. J. Magnuson. 1999. The importance of ecoregion versus drainage area on fish distributions in the St. Croix River and its Wisconsin tributaries. Environmental Biology of Fishes 55:245-254.
  • Paszkowski, C. A., B. A. Gringas, K. Wilcox, P. H. Klatt, and W. M. Tonn. In Press. Trophic relations of the red-necked grebe on lakes in the western boreal forest: a stable isotope analysis. Condor
  • Price, C. J., W. M. Tonn, and C. A. Paszkowski. 1991. Intraspecific patterns of resource use by fathead minnows in a small boreal lake. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69:2109-2115.
  • Rafinesque, C. S. 1820. Ichthyologia Ohiensis. Reprinted in R. E. Call, 1899, Burrows Bros. Co., Cleveland, Ohio.
  • Rahel, F. J., and J. J. Magnuson. 1983. Low pH and the absence of fish species in naturally acidic Wisconsin lakes: inference for cultural acidification. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40:3-9.
  • Robinson, C. L. K., and W. M. Tonn. 1989. Influence of environmental factors and piscivory in structuring fish assemblages of small Alberta lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46:81-89.
  • Robison, H. W., and T. M. Buchanan. 1984. Fishes of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press.
  • Sandland, G. 1999. Interactions between a brain-encysting trematode and its intermediate host, the fathead minnow. M. Sc. University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.
  • Sandland, G. J., C. P. Goater, and A. J. Danylchuk. 2001. Population dynamics of Ornithodiplostomum ptycloclielus metacercariae in fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) from four northern-Alberta lakes. Journal of Parasitology 87: 744-748.
  • Sargent, R. C. 1988. Parental care and egg survival both increase with clutch size in the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 23:33-37.
  • Scott W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184, Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa.
  • Shoubridge, E. A., and P. W. Hochachka. 1980. Ethanol: novel end product of vertebrate anaerobic metabolism. Science 209:308-309.
  • Siwik, P. L., T. VanMeer, M. D. MacKinnon, and C. A. Paszkowski. 2000. Growth of fathead minnows is oilsand processed wastewater in laboratory and field. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19:1837-1845.
  • Smith, R. J. F. 1978. Seasonal changes in the histology of the gonads and dorsal skin of the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. Canadian Journal of Zoology 56:2103-2109.
  • Starrett, W. C. 1950. Distribution of the fishes of Boone County, Iowa, with special reference to the minnows and darters. American Midland Naturalist 43:112-123.
  • Sublette, J. E., M. D. Hatch, and M. Sublette. 1990. The fishes of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Sublette, J. E., M. D. Hatch, and M. Sublette. 1990. The fishes of New Mexico. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM.
  • Thomsen, H. P., and A. D. Hasler. 1944. The minnow problem in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Conservation Bulletin 9:6-8.
  • Tonn, W. M., R. E. Vandenbos, and C. A. Paszkowski. 1995. Habitat on a broad scale: relative importance of immigration and extinction for small lake fish assemblages. Bulletin Français de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture 337/338/339:47-61.
  • Tonn, W. M., and J. J. Magnuson. 1982. Patterns in the species composition and richness of fish assemblages in northern Wisconsin lakes. Ecology 63:1149-1166.
  • Trautman, M. B. 1957. The fishes of Ohio. The University of Ohio Press, Columbus, Ohio.
  • Unger, L. M. 1983. Nest defense by deceit in the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 13:125-130.
  • Unger, L. M., and R. C. Sargent. 1988. Allopaternal care in the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas: females prefer males with eggs. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 23:27-32.
  • Vandenbos, R. E. 1996. Regulation of recruitment in fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas): multi-stage effects and consequences of size variation. MSc. Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
  • Vandermeer, J. H. 1966. Statistical analysis of geographical variation of the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. Copeia 1966:457-466.
  • Wares, W. D. II, and R. Igram. 1979. Oxygen consumption in the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas Rafinesque) I – Effects of weight, temperature, group size, oxygen level and opercular movement rate as a function of temperature. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 62A:351-356.
  • Williamson, L. O. 1944. The fat-head minnow as a forage fish. Wisconsin Conservation Bulletin 4:50-51.
  • Wynne-Edwards, V. C. 1932. The breeding habits of the black-headed minnow (Pimephales promelas Raf). Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 62:382-383.
  • Zimmer, K. D., M. A. Hanson, and M. G. Butler. 2001. Effects of fathead minnow colonization and removal on a prairie wetland ecosystem. Ecosystems 2001:346-357.
General Information About Species

TABLE of CONTENTS

Jump to: