Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst.
Number 419, 2018
Topical issue on Crayfish
Article Number 15
Number of page(s) 9
Published online 13 March 2018
  • Andreou D, Feist SW, Stone D, Bateman K, Gozlan RE. 2011. First occurrence and associated pathology of Sphaerothecum destruens in cyprinids. Dis Aquat Org 95: 145–151. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Arim M, Abades SA, Neill PE, Lima M, Marquet PA. 2006. Spread dynamics of invasive species. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 103: 374–378. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bechler D, Hightower P, Rousey J, Smith M. 2014. The use of nest traps to study behaviour, population structure and life history of Procambarus spiculifer. Freshwater Crayfish 20: 7–16. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Berry F, Breithaupt T. 2010. To signal or not to signal? Chemical communication by urine-borne signals mirrors sexual conflict in crayfish. BMC Biology 8: 25. [Google Scholar]
  • Bomford M, O'Brien P. 1995. Eradication or control for inverteybrate pests? Wildl Soc Bull 23: 249–255. [Google Scholar]
  • Bubb DH, Thom TJ, Lucas MC. 2004. Movement and dispersal of the invasive signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus in upland rivers. Freshw Biol 49: 357–368. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Byrne C, Lynch J, Bracken J. 1999. A sampling strategy for stream populations of white-clawed crayfish, Austropotamobius pallipes. Biology and Environment. Proc Roy Irish Acad 99B: 89–94. [Google Scholar]
  • Capinha C, Leung B, Anastácio P. 2011. Predicting worldwide invasiveness for four major problematic decapods: an evaluation of using different calibration sets. Ecography 34: 448–459. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • CEH. 2017. 45011: River Barle at Brushwood. (Last accessed 04/08/2017). [Google Scholar]
  • Dana ED, López-Santiago J, García-de-Loma J, García-Ocaña DM, Gámez V, Ortega F. 2010. Long-term management of the invasive Pacifastacus leniusculus (Dana, 1852) in a small mountain stream. Aquat Invasions 5: 317. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Engdahl F, Fjalling A, Sandstrom A, Bohman P, Edsman L. 2013. A trial of natural habitat enclosure traps as a sampling tool for juvenile crayfish. Freshwater Crayfish 19: 137–144. [Google Scholar]
  • Freeman M, Turnbull J, Yeomans W, Bean C. 2009. Prospects for management strategies of invasive crayfish with an emphasis on biological control. Aquat Conserv 20: 211–233. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Freeman MA, Turnbull JF, Yeomans WE, Bean CW. 2010. Prospects for management strategies of invasive crayfish populations with an emphasis on biological control. Aquat Conserv 20: 211–223. [Google Scholar]
  • Gherardi F, Aquiloni L, Diéguez-Uribeondo J, Tricarico E. 2011. Managing invasive crayfish: is there a hope? Aquat Sci 73: 185–200. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Graham ME, Herberholz J. 2009. Stability of dominance relationships in crayfish depends on social context. Anim Behav 77: 195–199. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Green N. 2015. Guidance on the use of artificial refugia for freshwater crayfish species. Bovey Tracey, Devon: Nicky Green Associates. [Google Scholar]
  • Guan RZ, Wiles PR. 1997. Ecological impact of introduced crayfish on benthic fishes in a British lowland river. Conserv Biol 11: 641–647. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Harrison ML, Hoover TM, Richardson JS. 2006. Agonistic behaviours and movement in the signal crayfish, Pacifastacus leniusculus: can dominance interactions influence crayfish size-class distributions in streams? Can J Zool 84: 1495–1504. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hein C, Vander Zanden J, Magnuson J. 2007. Intensive trapping and fish predation cause massive population decline of an invasive crayfish. Freshwater Biol 52: 1134–1146. [Google Scholar]
  • Holdich DM, Reeve IS. 1991. Distribution of freshwater crayfish in the British Isles, with particular reference to crayfish plague, alien introductions and water quality. Aquat Conserv 1: 139–158. [Google Scholar]
  • Holdich D, Reynolds J, Souty-Grousset C, Sibley P. 2009. A review of the ever increasing threat to European crayfish from non-indigenous crayfish species. Know Man Aquat Ecosys 11: 394–395 [Google Scholar]
  • Holdich DM, James J, Jackson C, Peay S. 2014. The North American signal crayfish, with particular reference to its success as an invasive species in Great Britain. Eth Ecol Evol 26: 232–262. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Houghton RJ, Wood C, Lambin X. 2017. Size-mediated, density-dependent cannibalism in the signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus (Dana, 1852) (decapoda, astacidea), an invasive crayfish in Britain. Crustaceana 90: 417–435. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hudina S, Zganec K, Hock K. 2015. Differences in aggressive behaviour along the expanding range of an invasive crayfish: an important component of invasion dynamics. Biol Invasions 17: 3101–3112. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hudina S, Hock K, Radović A, Klobučar G, Petković J, Jelić M, Maguire I. 2016. Species-specific differences in dynamics of agonistic interactions may contribute to the competitive advantage of the invasive signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) over the native narrow-clawed crayfish (Astacus leptodactylus). Mar Freshw Behav Physiol 49: 147–157. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • IBM. 2015. SPSS Statistics 23. [Google Scholar]
  • IBM. 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics V23.0 documentation. [Google Scholar]
  • Jackson MC, Jones T, Milligan M, et al. 2014. Niche differentiation among invasive crayfish and their impacts on ecosystem structure and functioning. Freshwater Biol 59: 1123–1135. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Jackson M, Grey J, Miller K, Britton JR, Donohue I. 2016. Dietary niche constriction when invaders meet natives: evidence from freshwater decapods. J Anim Ecol 85: 1098–1107. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Kats LB, Bucciarelli G, Vandergon TL, et al. 2013. Effects of natural flooding and manual trapping on the facilitation of invasive crayfish-native amphibian coexistence in a semi-arid perennial stream. J Arid Environ 98: 109–112. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Kozak P, Policar T. 2002. Practical elimination of signal crayfish P. leniusculus from a pond. In Holditch D, Sibley P. eds. Management and Conservation of Crayfish. Proceedings of a conference held on 7th November 2002. Bristol: Environment Agency, pp. 200–209. [Google Scholar]
  • Kusab I, Quinn J. 2009. Use of a traditional Maori harvesting method, the tau kōura, for monitoring koura (freshwater crayfish, Paranephrops planifrons) in Lake Rotoiti, North Island, New Zealand. New Zeal J Mar Freshw Res 43: 713–722. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Larson E, Olden J. 2016. Field sampling techniques for crayfish. In Stebbing P, Longshaw M. eds. Biology and Ecology of crayfish. London: CRC Press, pp. 287–324. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lodge DM, Deines A, Gherardi F, et al. 2012. Global introductions of crayfishes: evaluating the impact of species invasions on ecosystem services. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Sys 43: 449–472. [Google Scholar]
  • Mathers KL, Chadd RP, Dunbar MJ, et al. 2016. The long-term effects of invasive signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) on instream macroinvertebrate communities. Sci Total Enviro 556: 207–218. [Google Scholar]
  • McDonald, JH. 2014. Handbook of Biological Statistics, 3rd ed. Baltimore, Maryland: Sparky House Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  • Moorhouse T, McDonald D. 2011. The effect of removal by trapping on body condition in populations of signal crayfish. Biol Conserv 144: 1826–1831. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Natural England. 2017. River Barle SSSI. (Last accessed 13/01/2018). [Google Scholar]
  • Parkyn S, DiStefano R, Imhoff I. 2011. Comparison of constructed microhabitat and baited traps in Table Rock Reservoir, Missouri USA. Freshwater Crayfish 18: 69–74. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Peay S. 2004. A cost-led evaluation of survey methods and monitoring for white-clawed crayfish − lessons from the UK. Bulletin Français de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture 372–373: 335–352. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Rice SP, Johnson MF, Extence C, Reeds J, Longstaff H. 2014. Diel patterns of suspended sediment flux and the zoogeomorphic agency of invasive crayfish. Patrones diarios del flujo de sedimento en suspensión y el efecto zoogeomórfico del cangrejo de río invasor 40: 7. [Google Scholar]
  • Rogowski DL, Sitko S, Bonar SA. 2013. Optimising control of invasive crayfish using life-history information. Freshw Biol 58: 1279–1291. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Scott B. 2012. The efficacy of artificial refuge traps for the monitoring of the invasive signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus (MSc thesis). School of Civil Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton. [Google Scholar]
  • Simberloff D. 2009. We can eliminate invasions or live with them. Successful management projects. Biol Invasions 11: 149–157. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Skurdal J, Qvenild T. 1986. Growth, maturity, and fecundity of Astacus astacus in lake Steinsfjorden, S.E. Norway. Freshwater Crayfish 6: 182–186. [Google Scholar]
  • Smith P, Wright R. 2000. A preliminary consideration of some aspects relating to the population dynamics of signal crayfish (P. leniusculus) with a view to assessing the utility of trapping as a removal method. In Rogers D, Brickland J. eds. Proceedings of the Crayfish Conference held on 26th/27th April 2000. Leeds, pp. 87–93. [Google Scholar]
  • Stebbing PD, Longshaw M, Taylor N, et al. 2012. Review of methods for the control of invasive crayfish in Great Britain, final report C5471. Weymouth, UK: CEFAS. [Google Scholar]
  • Stebbing P, Longshaw M, Scott A. 2014. Review of methods for the management of non-indigenous crayfish, with particular reference to Great Britain. Eth Ecol Evol 26: 204–231. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Trappy. 2017. Crayfish Traps. (Last accessed 04/08/2017). [Google Scholar]
  • Twardochleb LA, Olden JD, Larson E. 2013. A global meta-analysis of the ecological impacts of non-native crayfish. Freshw Sci 32: 1367–1382. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Walter K. 2012. An evaluation of whether artificial refuge traps or baited traps are the most effective method for trapping White-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes in the Creedy Yeo River, Devon. The Plymouth Student Scientist 5: 443–485. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.