Next Article in Journal
The 31P Spectral Modulus (PSM) as an Assay of Metabolic Status
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of Umbilical Cord Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Derived Extracellular Vesicles in Modulating Dermal Fibroblast Activity: A Pathway to Enhanced Tissue Regeneration
Previous Article in Special Issue
Metabolic Activity of Invasive Apple Snails Negatively Affects the Survival of Native Benthic Snail in Mangrove
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biology
Volume 14
Issue 2
10.3390/biology14020151
biology-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

What Do We Know About Non-Native, Invasive, and Transplanted Aquatic Mollusks in South America?

by
Gustavo Darrigran
1,
Carlos Belz
2,
Alvar Carranza
3,
Gonzalo A. Collado
4,
Modesto Correoso
5,
Alejandra A. Fabres
6,
Diego E. Gutiérrez Gregoric
1,
César Lodeiros
7,8,
Guido Pastorino
9,
Pablo E. Penchaszadeh
9,
Rodrigo B. Salvador
10,
Sonia Santos
11,
Silvana Thiengo
12 and
Cristina Damborenea
1,*
1
Division Zoología Invertebrados, Museo de La Plata, FCNyM—CONICET, Paseo del Bosque s/n, La Plata 1900, Argentina
2
Laboratorio de Ecologia Aplicada e Bioinvasoes, Centro, Estudos do Mar/Universidade Federal do Parana, Pontal do Parana 83255-976, Brazil
3
Departamento de Ecología y Gestión Ambiental, Centro Universitario Regional Este (CURE), Sede Maldonado, Universidad de la República, Maldonado 20100, Uruguay
4
Departamento de Ciencias Básicas, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad del Bío-Bío, Av. Andrés Bello 720, Chillán 3780000, Chile
5
Departamento Ciencias de la Tierra y la Construcción, Universidad de la Fuerzas Armadas ESPE, Av. General Rumiñahui s/n, Sangolquí 171103, Ecuador
6
Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA
7
Departamento de Acuicultura, Pesca y Recursos Renovables, Facultad de Acuicultura y Ciencias del Mar, Universidad Técnica de Manabí, Bahía de Caráquez EC131450, Ecuador
8
Instituto Oceanográfico de Venezuela, Universidad de Oriente, Cumaná 6101, Sucre, Venezuela
9
Laboratorio de Ecosistemas Costeros-Malacología, Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales CONICET, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires 1405, Argentina
10
Finnish Museum of Natural History, University of Helsinki, Pohjoinen Rautatiekatu 13, 00100 Helsinki, Finland
11
Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ), Rio de Janeiro 20550-900, Brazil
12
Laboratório de Referencia Nacional para Esquistossomose, Malacologia, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Fiocruz, Rio de Janeiro 21040-360, Brazil
 
add Show full affiliation list
 
remove Hide full affiliation list
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biology 2025, 14(2), 151; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14020151
Submission received: 28 December 2024 / Revised: 21 January 2025 / Accepted: 30 January 2025 / Published: 1 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue 2nd Edition: Aquatic Alien Invasions and Their Impact on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services )
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Simple Summary

Introduced species are a major driver of biodiversity loss, with significant impacts on the environment and effects on the economy and human well-being. Aquatic mollusks play a vital role in ecosystems by influencing food webs and nutrient cycling. They also hold economic importance—positively, through aquaculture, and negatively, as contributors to macrofouling. Since 2016, a team of 29 experts from seven South American countries has collaborated to study and manage introduced species. Their research has identified 41 non-native and 18 transplanted aquatic mollusk species, contributing to a deeper understanding of mollusk bioinvasions in South America.

Abstract

Global awareness of introduced species as one of the primary drivers of biodiversity change—causing environmental impacts, and economic and social effects—emphasizes the need to enhance our understanding of these species. Developing a comprehensive database will enable policymakers to identify global bioinvasion patterns and strengthen their capacity to manage them effectively. Aquatic mollusks play a crucial role in the ecosystems they inhabit, influencing food webs and nutrient cycling, and habitat formation and modification. They are also the dominant group in aquaculture, contributing significantly to the economy while also causing economic losses through macrofouling and posing health risks. Despite their importance, information on the introduction, establishment, and dispersal of mollusk species in South America remains scarce and is often confined to the grey literature. With the aim of organizing, increasing, and strengthening the knowledge of non-native and transplanted mollusks in general and aquatic mollusks in particular, 29 specialists in the introduced mollusks of South America, from seven countries, have been working collaboratively since 2016. Each member contributes expertise, data, and bibliographic resources to build the status of the introduced mollusks in South America and provide critical information to prevent future introductions and transplants. In aquatic environments, 41 non-native mollusk species and 18 transplanted species have been identified. Among them, the bivalve Limnoperna fortunei stands out with the greatest economic effect, while the gastropods Lymnaeidae and Thiaridae represent significant health concerns. Although this research represents a major step forward, it also highlights challenges such as the scarcity of taxonomic studies and the limited investigation of vast areas in South America. The information compiled in this review serves as a resource for researchers, policymakers, and the general public when addressing mollusk bioinvasions in South America.

1. Introduction

The pace of global change in nature over the past 50 years is unprecedented in human history [1]. The recent Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBESs) identifies five direct drivers of this change: changes in land and water, the direct exploitation of organisms, climate change, pollution, and the invasion of non-native species [2]. These are driven by several indirect factors (e.g., social values and behaviors in the patterns of production and consumption, human population dynamics and trends, and the trade market). The rate of change for both the direct and indirect drivers varies across regions and countries [1].
Biological invasions are among the greatest threats to biodiversity, ecosystem functions, and human well-being [3]. The introduction of non-native species into aquatic ecosystems can disrupt ecological processes while also incurring significant economic and social costs [4].
In contrast to the commonly held perspectives on this topic, some researchers, such as Schlaepfer [5], argue that the contributions of non-native species to biodiversity and ecosystem services are often underestimated. According to Schlaepfer [5], biodiversity and sustainability indices should include all of the species in an ecosystem (both native and non-native), emphasizing the intrinsic link between sustainable human well-being and the benefits provided by nature as a whole.
Regardless of their impacts on biodiversity, the introduction of non-native species, has increased in recent decades due to two major global factors [6]: (1) Globalization, a process that began in the mid-1970s and has shaped the current patterns of global trade, increasing the exchanges and interactions between different regions of the planet, thereby facilitating the spread of non-native species [7]; and (2) Global Climate Change, which has altered the environment in ways that often favor non-native species. Many non-native species exhibit greater adaptive and reproductive capacities than native ones, giving them invasive traits, such as the ability to spread and cause environmental impacts, and causing negative socio-economic effects [8].
Mollusks represent the second-largest and most diverse invertebrate phylum, second only to arthropods. They are a vital component of benthic communities, playing a significant role in aquatic ecosystems by functioning and contributing to key ecological processes [9,10]. However, invasive aquatic mollusks can disrupt these processes by altering nutrient dynamics; modifying physical structures and the composition of benthic habitats, consequently affecting native species interactions and food webs; and competing with native species for resources. These impacts can potentially lead to a reduced biomass and to significant changes in community structure [10].
South America is one of the most biodiverse regions in the world. The continent comprises thirteen countries, five of which—Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela—are classified as megadiverse [11]. Its vast latitudinal range and diverse climates [12] make it a potential hotspot for non-native species introduction. Nevertheless, South America remains underexplored, and mollusk fauna, both native and non-native, remains understudied [13,14]. The limited knowledge about mollusk population dynamics and distribution, combined with incomplete regional inventories, distorts our understanding of their distribution patterns [15]. This bias arises from two main factors: first, most studies are conducted near research institutions; and second, research priorities often reflect the specific interests of malacologists, focusing on particular environments.
To address these gaps and enhance the understanding of the non-native and transplanted mollusk species in South America, an international academic collaboration group, eMIAS (specialists in introduced mollusks of South America https://emiasgroup.wixsite.com/emias?lang=en, accessed on 30 January 2025), was established in 2016. Comprising 29 malacologists from seven countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela), the group shares information derived from their personal expertise and regional observations, as well as the specialized literature, including the grey literature.
The introduction, establishment, and dispersal of non-native species are closely linked to various socio-economic activities. Non-native species are more likely to establish in areas with significant land-use levels, a high human population density, and robust economic activity [2]. Based on the distribution of non-native mollusk species (NNMS), according to South American ecoregions, together with factors such as urbanization (the presence of cities with more than 500,000 inhabitants), economic activity (airports handling 7 million passengers/year, ports with a TEU value of 700,000, and cargo airports) and conservation status, Darrigran et al. [14] identified four critical zones: the Subtropical Atlantic, the Northern Andes, the Central Andes, and the Southern Andes. These zones are NNMS hotspots, representing the most vulnerable areas to the arrival and establishment of non-native species. Therefore, they should be prioritized for the management of these species.
This study provides an updated assessment of the non-native and invasive mollusks in South America, based on evaluations by regional taxonomic experts. The revised data serve as a vital foundation for developing effective bioinvasion management policies and strategies, while contributing to the identification of global patterns [16]. Additionally, this study offers comprehensive bibliographic resources on non-native and transplanted species, and their effects and impacts in South America.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Source

This review incorporates information generated by the eMIAS group, composed of specialists in the introduced mollusks of South America. The data are derived from a compilation and analysis of the recently published literature by the eMIAS members [14,17,18], as well as other recent bibliographic sources.
For the non-native mollusk species (NNMS) and transplanted native mollusk species (TMS) in South America, nomenclatures, synonyms, and Aphia IDs (unique and stable identifiers for each name in the Aphia platform infrastructure that capture the taxonomic and related data) provided by MolluscaBase [19] were used.
To evaluate the documented natural impacts and socio-economic effects of the NNMS and TMS in South America, the following mutually exclusive categories were used: (1) environmental/biodiversity impacts, (2) economic and social effects, and (3) the effects on human health [18].

2.2. Definitions

We consider the following:
  • Native species: defined based on three criteria: (1) they are inherently part of the ecosystem and evolved there; (2) they arrived in the study area long before records were kept; and (3) their arrival occurred naturally, without human assistance [20].
  • Non-native or exotic species: species introduced to new regions through human activities [2].
  • Invasive non-native species: non-native species that have successfully established and spread in a new region, causing impacts on ecosystems and effects on the society [2].
  • Biological invasions: refers to the process involving the intentional or unintentional transport or movement of a species by human activity from its natural range to new regions, where it can be established and spread [2].
  • Cryptogenic species: species for which it is unclear whether their presence in a region is due to natural processes or human intervention [21].
  • Transplant (transfer, translocation): the movement of native species from one locality to another through human action, including a successful establishment outside of their historically known geographical distribution (in this study, within South America). These movements can be accidental or deliberate (e.g., for conservation, trade, or research) [17].
  • Species established in the environment: species with self-sustaining reproductive populations that persist across multiple generations [17].
  • Ecoregions: terrestrial or aquatic areas characterized by a distinct set of natural communities, ecological dynamics, and environmental conditions, typically shared by most of the inhabiting species [22].
  • TEU (Twenty-Foot Equivalent Unit): a standard unit of measurement used in maritime transport to determine a container’s cargo capacity. One TEU corresponds to a container with a load capacity of 28,300 kg [14].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Status and Trends of NNMS in South America

The general knowledge of the non-native species in South America remains limited compared to other regions like Europe and North America [23,24]. Globally, significant information gaps exist across vast areas of South America, particularly in countries such as Bolivia, Guyana, and Belize. These gaps lead to biases in the perceived richness and distribution of NNMS and TMS. Despite these challenges, recent studies at both local and regional scales have focused on the NNMS in South America [14,17,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36].
Currently, 41 aquatic NNMS have been identified in South America, comprising 24 marine species (10 gastropods and 14 bivalves) and 17 freshwater species (12 gastropods and 5 bivalves) (Table 1 and Table 2). Among these, the freshwater clam Corbicula fluminea (Müller, 1774), the golden mussel Limnoperna fortunei (Dunker, 1857), and the Pacific oyster Magallana gigas (Thunberg, 1793) stand out for their significant impacts on native species and ecosystems. These species are classified as aggressive invaders in South America [18,37,38], making them the focus of most regional studies.
The Pacific oyster is particularly notable for its potential role in food security. Initially introduced for aquaculture, it is now cultivated in 33 coastal countries throughout the Americas, including the following seven in South America: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. While aquaculture operations are absent in Colombia and Venezuela, feral populations have been reported in Argentina and Chile [38]. Beyond its socio-economic benefits, Magallana gigas may also fulfill ecological roles previously held by native oysters, whose populations have experienced significant declines.
The findings of this study confirm the results of Darrigran et al. [14], validating the four South American zones with the highest numbers of NNMS: the Subtropical Atlantic, the Northern Andes, the Central Andes, and the Southern Andes (Figure 1), which are related to the presence of large cities, cargo and passenger airports, ports, and the conservation status of the ecoregions of South America. The Subtropical Atlantic area has the highest number of non-native species (28 aquatic species), coinciding with the highest number of large cities, passenger airports, and ports. The Central Andes area has ten aquatic non-native species, the Southern Andes area has eight non-native species, and finally, the Northern Andes area has six non-native species.
At the national level, Ecuador’s continental and insular regions within the Andean ecoregion stand out for their exceptional malacological diversity and high levels of endemism. Although systematic studies comparable to those in Brazil or Argentina are lacking, the region is characterized by rapid colonization processes and an increasing number of recorded invasive species. Identified by Darrigran et al. [14] as part of the Northern Andes zone (Figure 1), this region is highly vulnerable to the introduction and establishment of non-native species, making it a conservation priority. Several studies [14,39,40,41,42,43] suggest the potential for competition with native species. Notably, significant introductions of riverine species through transplantation, such as Pomacea canaliculata (Lamarck, 1822), have been documented recently in this region [42,43].
Table 1. Aquatic non-native Gastropoda introduced in South America. Aphia ID, unique identifier for each taxon; country codes following ISO 3166 vs. 2020 (https://www.iso.org/iso-3166-country-codes.html, accessed 31 January, 2025); MA, marine species; and FW, freshwater species.
Table 1. Aquatic non-native Gastropoda introduced in South America. Aphia ID, unique identifier for each taxon; country codes following ISO 3166 vs. 2020 (https://www.iso.org/iso-3166-country-codes.html, accessed 31 January, 2025); MA, marine species; and FW, freshwater species.
FamilySpeciesAphia IDGeographic OriginSouth America CountriesHabitatReferences
AeolidiidaeBulbaeolidia alba (Risbec, 1928)730446Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mozambique, Papua Nueva Guinea, Philippines, South Africa, and TanzaniaBR, UYMA[44,45]
EllobiidaeMyosotella myosotis (Draparnaud, 1801)139673Northeast Atlantic OceanPE, UYMA[46,47]
HaliotidaeHaliotis discus hannai Ino, 1953397083East AsiaCHMA[14]
Haliotis rufescens Swainson, 1822 445357 Pacific Ocean: USA, MexicoCHMA[14]
LymnaeidaePseudosuccinea columella (Say, 1817)724460North America, USA AR, BR, CO, EC, PE, PY, VE, UYFW[14]
Galba truncatula (Müller, 1774)716336Europe: GermanyAR, BO, BR, CH, CO, EC, PE, VEFW[14,48]
Galba schirazensis (Küster, 1862)716337Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Western Syria, southeast Turkey, Iraq, and western IranCO, EC, PE, VEFW[48,49]
MuricidaeIndothais lacera (Born, 1778)714477Indo-Pacific, occurring from the Arabian Peninsula to Southeast AsiaBRMA[50]
Rapana venosa (Valenciennes, 1846)140416Japan Sea, Yellow Sea, Bohai Sea, and East China Sea to TaiwanAR, BR, UYMA[14,51]
NassariidaeNassarius foveolatus (Dunker, 1847)560204Central and East Indian Ocean to East China Sea (Mauritius, Pakistan, India, Myanmar, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, and China)BRMA[52]
PhysidaePhysella acuta (Draparnaud, 1805)234093North AmericaAR, BR, CH, CO, EC, PE, UYFW[14,53]
PlanorbidaeFerrissia californica (Rowell, 1863)1001489North AmericaBRFW[14]
Planorbella duryi (Wetherby, 1879)1001496North America: USA.AR, BR, CO, EC, PEFW[14]
Planorbella trivolvis Say, 1817593137North America: Canada, USA, Mexico.BR, EC, PEFW[14]
Pleurobran
chaeidae		Pleurobranchaea maculata (Quoy and Gaimard, 1832) Australia and New ZealandARMA[14]
PolyceridaePolycera hedgpethi Er. Marcus, 1964140835Indo-PacificBR, PEMA[54]
TateidaePotamopyrgus antipodarum (Gray, 1843)147123New ZealandCHFW[14]
ThiaridaeStenomelania macilenta (Menke, 1830)1351381Asia: PhilippinesCHFW[14]
Melanoides tuberculata (Müller, 1774)225694Africa tropical and subtropical (except for Congo River basin and a big region of the West Coast of Africa) and South AsiaAR, BO, BR, CH, CO, EC, GF, GY, PE, PY, SU, UY, VE FW[14,55]
Tarebia granifera (Lamarck, 1816)397189Southeast AsiaBR, VEFW[14]
VermetidaeEualetes tulipa (Roseau in Chenu, 1843)709533Pacific Ocean: Panama BayBR, VEMA[14]
ViviparidaeSinotaia quadrata (Benson, 1842)820921AsiaARFW[14,31]
Table 2. Aquatic non-native Bivalvia introduced in South America. Aphia ID, unique identifier for each taxon; country codes following ISO 3166; MA, marine species; FW, freshwater species; and ?, with doubt.
Table 2. Aquatic non-native Bivalvia introduced in South America. Aphia ID, unique identifier for each taxon; country codes following ISO 3166; MA, marine species; FW, freshwater species; and ?, with doubt.
FamilySpeciesAphia IDGeographic OriginSouth America CountriesHabitatReference
ArcidaeAnadara cf. kagoshimensis Indian Ocean to the western Pacific (India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Korea, China, Japan, northern Australia)UYMA[56]
CorbiculidaeCorbicula fluminea (Müller, 1774)181580Rivers from China and Southeast Asia, Africa, India, Pacific Islands, and Australia AR, BO, BR, CO, EC, PE, PY, UY, VEFW[14]
Corbicula fluminalis (Müller, 1774)233525AsiaBR, UYFW[14]
Corbicula largillierti (Philippi, 1844)992070AsiaAR, BR, PY, UYFW[14,33]
Corbicula sp. AsiaBRFW[14]
DreissenidaeMytilopsis leucophaeata (Conrad, 1831)156887Atlantic Ocean: southern coast of eastern United StatesBRMA[14]
IsognomonidaeIsognomon bicolor (C. B. Adams, 1845)420737Western Central Atlantic, rocky shores in Bermuda, Florida, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean SeaBR, CO, TT, UY, VEMA[14]
MytilidaeArcuatula senhousia (Benson in Cator, 1842)505946Western Pacific OceanCO, VEMA[14]
Limnoperna fortunei (Dunker, 1857)506081China and Southeast AsiaAR, BO, BR, PY, UYFW[14]
Mytilus galloprovincialis Lamarck, 1819140481Europe: Mediterranean SeaAR?, BR, CH, UYMA[14,57]
Perna viridis (Linnaeus, 1758)367822Indo-Pacific OceanBR, CO, VEMA[14,58]
TeredinidaeLyrodus pedicellatus (Quatrefages, 1849)141600Indo-West Pacific OceanAR, ECMA[59,60,61,62]
Teredo furcifera E. von Martens, 1894397193Indo-West Pacific OceanAR, BR, ECMA[61,62,63]
Teredo navalis Linnaeus, 1758141607Northeast Atlantic Ocean?AR, BR, UYMA[62,63,64]
OetreidaeMagallana gigas (Thunberg, 1793)836033Japan, Korea, China, and RussiaAR, BR, CH, CO?, EC, PEMA[14]
Talonostrea talonata Li & Qui, 1994506741ChinaAR, BR, PEMA[14,65]
Saccostrea cuccullata (Born, 1778)181316Indo-PacificBRMA[14,66]
PectinidaePecten maximus (Linnaeus, 1758)140712Europe and Eastern Atlantic OceanCHMA[14]
VulsellidaeElectroma vexillum (Reeve, 1857)234144Indic Ocean and Red SeaBR, CO?MA[67,68]
The first records of an introduced mollusk in South America pertain to terrestrial species, with Bradybaena similaris (Fërussac, 1821) being the earliest documented case, introduced in Brazil and reported by d’Orbigny in 1835 [14]. The first marine NNMS record corresponds to Teredo furcifera reported by E. von Martens (1894) in the 1920s [62]. For freshwater NNMS, Pseudosuccinea columella (Say, 1817) was first reported by Morretes in 1949 [69]. Since 1970, the number of introduced aquatic mollusk species in South America has risen sharply (Figure 2). This increase coincides with the expansion of maritime transport, aquaculture, and global trade, which facilitate the introduction of marine and freshwater species worldwide [70,71,72,73].
In South America, the mollusk introductions have generally been unintentional. Information on the vectors is limited and often unknown (Figure 3). The most common pathway is stowaway transport, which includes ballast water (e.g., Limnoperna fortunei), biofouling on ship hulls (e.g., Teredinidae species), and aquaculture activities (e.g., Magallana gigas) [14].

3.2. Movement of Mollusk Species in South America

Traditionally, the studies on bioinvasion have focused on the species introduced, either deliberately or accidentally, by human activity into biogeographic regions where they were not previously present. Once introduced and established, these species can spread depending on their characteristics and the environment in which they are found. However, a less-studied phenomenon involves the movement of native species within their biogeographic regions due to human intervention, a process known as transplantation, transfer, or translocation [17].
The transplantation of a species beyond its native or historical range of distribution has increased significantly in recent decades [75]. The eMIAS identified 18 aquatic TMS in South America that experienced modifications in their historical distributions within the continent, unrelated to natural dispersal processes. Among these eighteen transplanted species, nine are marine bivalves, two are freshwater bivalves, and seven are freshwater gastropods (Table 3 and Table 4).
To illustrate the changes in mollusk distributions, Darrigran et al. [17] analyzed the percentage of freshwater and marine ecoregions in South America now inhabited by a transplanted species. Their findings revealed that 36% of marine ecoregions and 23% of freshwater ecoregions host transplanted mollusk species. The ecoregions with the greatest number of transplanted species were the Southern Caribbean (three marine species) and the Central Andean Pacific Slopes (three freshwater species). Among freshwater mollusks, the most widely transplanted gastropod is Pomacea canaliculata, which inhabits seven ecoregions, while the most frequently transplanted bivalve is the mussel Leiosolenus aristatus (Dillwyn, 1817), found in four ecoregions.
The environmental, economic, and social impacts of transplantation are comparable to those associated with the introduction and establishment of non-native species. The analysis indicates that the most common pathway for transplantation is as stowaways, particularly for bivalves, while escape is a frequent pathway for freshwater species. In South America, TMS transport routes are often linked to economic activities, such as aquaculture and the ornamental species trade [17,76] (Figure 4).
Table 3. Transplanted Gastropoda within South America. Aphia ID, unique identifier for each taxon; country codes following ISO 3166; MA, marine species; and FW, freshwater species.
Table 3. Transplanted Gastropoda within South America. Aphia ID, unique identifier for each taxon; country codes following ISO 3166; MA, marine species; and FW, freshwater species.
FamilySpeciesAphia IDKnown Historical Geographical DistributionNew LocationsHabitatReference
AmpullariidaeMarisa cornuarietis (Linnaeus, 1758)737469CO, VE, TT, and the Amazon Basin regions of BR, BO, and PE.GYFW[77]
Pomacea bridgesii (Reeve, 1856)741389Native to the Peruvian and west Amazon.AR (commercial aquariums).
BR (Rio de Janeiro and the Guapimirim), RJ; Paracambi, RJ (22°40.52′ S–43°45.90′ W); Juiz de Fora, MG (21°39′06″ S–43°25′54″ W).
CH (commercial aquariums in Santiago de Chile).
PE (aquariums and semi-controlled environments).
VE (in captivity).		FW[17]
Pomacea canaliculata (Lamarck, 1822)741113South America: Paraná River, Uruguay River, Río de la Plata, and southern Brazil.AR (Desaguadero, Colorado, South Buenos Aires drainages, and arheic waterbodies).
CH (Laguna Conchalí, Los Vilos, IV Region, and Santiago metropolitan region).
EC (wide distribution, in 2/3 of the country: Los Ríos, Guayas, Manabí, Esmeraldas, Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas, Pichincha, Chimborazo, Cotopaxi, Pastaza, Orellana, Morona Santiago, Sucumbíos, and Napo).
PE (in coastal locations).
VE (in captivity).		FW[17]
Pomacea diffusa (Blume, 1957)848365South America: warm north-central regions, the Amazon basin of BR, BO, and PE, in lentic aquatic environments.AR (only aquarism).
EC (small stream, near the Huapuno river, Arajuno, Pastaza Province, northeast Ecuador).
VE (in wildlife and in anthropized environments).
UR (aquarism).		FW[17]
Pomacea maculata (Perry, 1810)737473Lower Paraná River, in Plata Basin, AR (southern limit distribution) to north of Manaus in the north of the Amazon basin in BR. It is also present in UR, PY, and PE. It may extend west into BO and EC.PE (in the north coastal and south-central, transplanted from the Amazon).FW[17]
PhysidaeStenophysa marmorata (Guilding, 1828)1253849Northeastern South America.EC (Loja city).FW[78,79]
PlanorbidaeDrepanotrema surinamense (Clessin, 1884)848738SR, JM.EC (North Andean Pacific Slopes Ecoregion).FW[80]
Table 4. Transplanted Bivalvia within South America. Aphia ID, unique identifier for each taxon; country codes following ISO 3166; MA, marine species; and FW, freshwater species.
Table 4. Transplanted Bivalvia within South America. Aphia ID, unique identifier for each taxon; country codes following ISO 3166; MA, marine species; and FW, freshwater species.
FamilySpeciesAphia IDKnown Historical Geographical DistributionNew LocationsHabitatReferences
DreissenidaeMytilopsis cf. sallei (Recluz, 1849)397147Central America and Caribbean in coastal lagoons and estuaries. South America in CO and VE.BR (Recife).MA[17]
Mytilopsis trautwineana (Tryon, 1866)505327Río San Juan, Choco, CO and Rio Verde, EC. Rivers that drain into the Pacific Ocean.CO (Rivers draining into the Caribbean coast. Found in shrimp farms of Litopenaeus vannamei). FW[17]
MicetopodidaeAnodontites trapesialis (Lamarck, 1819)1324136From MX to UY and AR, except GY, SR, GF, and CH. Mesoamerica, Transandean, Amazonas-Orinoco, Atlantic-Sao Francisco, Parana.BR (artificial lakes for fish farming, registered in fish farms in Londrina, Paraná, and São Paulo, Santa Catarina, and Amazonas).
PE (Piura and Lambayeque).		FW[17]
ModiolidaeModiolus carvalhoi Klappenbach, 1966506118From Rio de Janeiro to Rio Grande, BR.UY (La Paloma, Rocha).MA[81,82,83].
MytilidaeLeiosolenus aristatus (Dillwyn, 1817)506056Western Atlantic: North Carolina, USA, to VE including the Gulf of Mexico, BE, Lesser Antilles, CO, PA. Eastern Pacific: from San Diego, California, USA, to Iquique, CH.BR (Cearà, Baía, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Paraná and Santa Catarina, Espiritu Santo).
EC (Champion Island, Galapagos).		MA[17]
Mytella strigata (Hanley, 1843)1458663Native in South and Central America, it extends from Bahía Magdalena on the Pacific coast of Baja California Sur (24.6° N) and in the Gulf of California from the north of Guaymas, Sonora, ME (27.9° N) to Cancas, Tumbes, PE (4° S), Galapagos Island, EC. In the Western Atlantic, from the Gulf of Paria, VE, to AR.CO (expanded—on the basis of genetic studies—from Cartagena Bay). No records of the species in the exhaustive inventories of the Colombian–Venezuelan Caribbean or in studies of benthic communities; mention it in the Bay of Cartagena (Eastern Caribbean), CO, the most northern records in South America. Also, found in artificial systems for shrimp farming in the central-western zone of VE (10°03′05″ N, 65°11′32″ W; West Caribbean)MA[17]
Mytilus platensis d’Orbigny, 1842506158Western Atlantic from Rio Grande do Sul, BR, to the Golfo San Matías, Chubut, AR.BR (Bombinhas, Palhoça and Florianópolis, Santa Catarina).MA[17]
Perna perna (Linnaeus, 1758)140483Most of the coast of BR and VE. It is also found off the coast of Africa.CH, CO, UY.MA[17]
PectinidaeArgopecten purpuratus (Lamarck, 1819)394269Pacific coasts of Peru and the North of CH, between Paita (5º S, 81º W) and Valparaíso (33º S, 71º W).CH (Puerto Montt and Chiloé, X Region, southern Chile).MA[17]
PholadidaeBarnea truncata (Say, 1822)156750Western Atlantic, from Massachusetts to Texas, USA; CO, VE, and in Bahia Sepetiba, BR.AR (Bahía Blanca, Buenos Aires). MA[17]
VeneridaeTawera elliptica (Lamarck, 1818)507917Along both sides of America, from Valparaiso to the Beagle Channel and up to 38° S from the coast of the Atlantic Ocean.CH (Reñaca in the north of Valparaiso Bay).MA[17]
In South America, the only transplanted freshwater bivalve species is Anodontites trapesialis (Lamarck, 1819), which is used in aquaculture. Additionally, other gastropods, such as Pomacea bridgesii (Reeve, 1856) and Pomacea lineata (Spix in Wagner, 1827), are cultivated [84]. Notably, Pomacea bridgesii is widely available online as a pet. In Argentina, live specimens of Pomacea bridgesii can be purchased through aquarium trade websites that facilitate transactions. The pet trade poses significant challenges as a pathway for invasive non-native species, particularly due to the risks of deliberate or accidental releases. This issue is exacerbated by the profits generated from the pet trade and the strong bonds formed between humans and their pets [85]. Another species, Pomacea diffusa Blume, 1957, is widely distributed along the Amazon basin and also appears in the aquarium trade on other continents [86].
It is important to note that the geographical origins of some species remain debated (cryptogenic species), such as Mytilus platensis d’Orbigny, 1846, and Mytilus chilensis Hupé, 1854 [87,88].

3.3. Impacts and Effects of NNMS and TMS in South America

Although species invasions are among the primary drivers impacting biodiversity, community structure and function, ecosystem services, and human health, their impacts on nature and their effects on society remain poorly understood for certain habitats, regions, and taxa [24].
Of the total aquatic NNMS (41 species) and TMS (18 species) recorded, 24 non-native species (9 freshwater species and 15 marine species) and 8 transplanted (3 freshwater and 5 marine) have been documented to cause impacts or effects in South America (Table 5 and Table 6).
Among the marine TMS, all the identified species are bivalves, with five species causing social and economic effects: Leiosolenus aristatus (Dillwyn, 1817); Mytella strigata (Hanley, 1843); Mytilopsis trautwineana (Tryon, 1866); Argopecten purpuratus (Lamarck, 1819), and Tawera elliptica (Lamarck, 1818). In freshwater systems, the bivalve Anodontites trapesialis generates social–economic effects, while the gastropod, Pomacea canaliculata impacts in all three categories considered: biodiversity, socio-economic systems, and human health [18].
NNMS impact multiple dimensions. In marine environments, nine species affect biodiversity, nine have social and economic impacts, and two have effects on human health. In freshwater systems, seven NNMS impact biodiversity, seven cause social and economic effects, and four have effects on human health. Among them, the bivalve Limnoperna fortunei is the most economically significant species, causing macrofouling in the water intakes of power plants, factories, refrigeration facilities, and water purification plants. The species with the most pronounced effects on human health include Pseudosuccinea columella and Melanoides tuberculata.
In the marine environment, Perna viridis (Linnaeus, 1758) has been a particularly prominent invader since its introduction to South America in Venezuela in 1995 [89]. This species has since spread widely across the continent, reaching the Guanabara Bay in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2019 [58]. Rapidly expanding through southeastern and southern Brazil, Perna viridis has significantly impacted mollusk farming. Along the Brazilian coast, it has been recorded on artificial substrates and aquaculture structures [90,91,92]. With its high invasive potential, Perna viridis poses a severe socio-environmental threat, including hybridization with local species and adverse effects on the coastal communities and seafood industries [57].
In summary, 24 NNMS and 8 TMS have documented environmental impacts and socio-economic effects across at least one of the three dimensions considered (Table 5 and Table 6).
Table 5. Impacts and effects of freshwater NNMS and TMS in South America, according to the environmental/biodiversity, socio-economic, and public health categories [18].
Table 5. Impacts and effects of freshwater NNMS and TMS in South America, according to the environmental/biodiversity, socio-economic, and public health categories [18].
Environmental/BiodiversitySocio-Economic Public Health
GASTROPODA
Galba truncatula (Lymnaeidae)NNMS ++
Marisa cornuarietis (Ampullariidae)TMS+++
Melanoides tuberculata (Thiaridae)NNMS+++
Physella acuta (Physidae)NNMS+
Pomacea canaliculata (Ampullariidae)TMS+++
Pseudosuccinea columella (Lymnaeidae)NNMS ++
Potamopyrgus antipodarum (Tateidae)NNMS+
Planorbella trivolvis (Planorbidae)NNMS +
BIVALVIA
Anodontites trapesialis (Mycetopodidae)TMS +
Corbicula fluminea (Cyrenidae)NNMS++
Corbicula largillierti (Cyrenidae) NNMS++
Limnoperna fortunei (Mytilidae)NNMS++
Table 6. Impacts and effects of marine NNMS and TMS in South America, according to the environmental/biodiversity, socio-economic, and public health effects categories. ?, with doubt [18,50,52,93].
Table 6. Impacts and effects of marine NNMS and TMS in South America, according to the environmental/biodiversity, socio-economic, and public health effects categories. ?, with doubt [18,50,52,93].
Environmental/BiodiversitySocio-EconomicPublic Health
GASTROPODA
Eualetes tulipa (Vermetidae)NNMS +
Haliotis discus (Haliotidae)NNMS++
Haliotis rufescens (Haliotidae)NNMS+++
Indothais lacera (Muricidae)NNMS+
Pleurobranchaea maculata (Pleurobranchaeidae)NNMS+
Nassarius foveolatus (Nassariidae)NNMS+?
Rapana venosa (Muricidae)NNMS+
BIVALVIA
Argopecten purpuratus (Pectinidae)TMS +
Isognomon bicolor (Isognomonidae)NNMS++
Leiosolenus aristatus (Mytilidae)TMS +
Magallana gigas (Ostreidae)NNMS++
Mytella strigata (Mytilidae)TMS +
Mytilopsis leucophaeata (Dreissenidae)NNMS +
Mytilopsis trautwineana (Dreissenidae)TMS +
Mytilus galloprovincialis (Mytilidae)NNMS++
Perna viridis (Mytilidae)NNMS++
Saccostrea cuccullata (Ostreidae)NNMS+
Talonostrea talonata (Ostreidae)NNMS +
Tawera elliptica (Veneridae)TMS++
Teredo navalis (Teredinidae)NNMS +
Large-scale studies conducted by research teams, such as eMIAS, emphasize a lack of societal education and awareness about environmental issues, particularly regarding the impacts of species introductions on biodiversity and the effects on socio-economic systems. This widespread ignorance across many countries has contributed to the presence of inattentive, disengaged, and undertrained officials and policymakers, who are ill equipped to manage non-native species and biodiversity effectively. Consequently, international efforts to address these challenges are either absent or insufficiently coordinated.
In light of this, various authors argue that protecting biodiversity must become a global priority. Safeguarding ecosystems from the increasing impacts of biological invasions is critical, requiring the expansion of protected areas and the allocation of funding commensurate with their significance for humanity’s future on the planet [93,94].

4. Conclusions

In recent years, the eMIAS specialist group has established critical foundational knowledge on the non-native and transplanted mollusk species in South America. This information is essential for developing effective policies to manage these species and other biological invasions, as well as for understanding their environmental impacts and socio-economic effects.
The movement of species, driven by globalization, poses a significant threat to biodiversity. The profound impacts and effects of translocated species, particularly mollusks, highlight the urgent need for further research on the introduction and translocation of non-native species in South America.
Given the continent’s vast size and heterogeneity, future research should prioritize underexplored regions and focus on assessing the impacts of non-native and translocated mollusks. This includes analyzing their economic implications, effects on human and veterinary health, and environmental consequences.
Although some isolated efforts have been made to protect South America’s ecosystems from the growing impacts of biological invasions, these initiatives remain insufficient. Research groups across the subcontinent have generated valuable knowledge and foundational data for managing transplanted, non-native, and invasive species. However, despite the presence of centers of expertise and occasional state managers who apply this knowledge effectively, the lack of widespread education of society has hindered the implementation of clear, evidence-based, and sustained environmental policies. Without significant policy reforms and broader societal engagement, South American ecosystems face an increasingly likely future dominated by non-native species, leading to homogenized and degraded environments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.D. and C.D.; methodology, G.D.; formal analysis, G.D. and C.D.; validation, resources, and data curation, C.B., A.C., G.A.C., M.C., A.A.F., D.E.G.G., C.L., G.P., P.E.P., R.B.S., S.S., S.T., G.D. and C.D.; writing—original draft preparation G.D. and C.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was partially funded by the Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica (PICT-2019-01417), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (PIP-2021/2023-1966), and Programa Incentivos UNLP (11/N927).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors upon request.

Acknowledgments

This study is part of the research carried out by International Academic Collaboration Program eMIAS (https://www.researchgate.net/lab/PROGRAMA-de-Colaboracion-Academica-Internacional-eMIAS-Gustavo-Darrigran).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. IPBES. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Brondizio, E.S., Settele, J., Díaz, S., Ngo, H.T., Eds.; IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2019; p. 1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. IPBES. Thematic Assessment Report on Invasive Alien Species and Their Control of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Roy, H.E., Pauchard, A., Stoett, P., Renard Truong, T., Eds.; IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Soto, I.; Macêdo, R.L.; Carneiro, L.; Briski, E.; Kouba, A.; Cuthbert, R.N.; Haubrock, P.J. Divergent temporal responses of native macroinvertebrate communities to biological invasions. Glob. Change Biol. 2024, 30, e17521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Prestes, J.G.; Carneiro, L.; Miiller, N.O.R.; Neundorf, A.K.A.; Richard Pedroso, C.; Renno Braga, R.; Sousa, R.; Simões Vitule, J.R. A systematic review of invasive non-native freshwater bivalves. Biol. Rev. 2024, 99, 2082–2107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Schlaepfer, M.A. Do non-native species contribute to biodiversity? PLoS Biol. 2018, 16, e2005568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Darrigran, G. Potential impact of filter-feeding invaders on temperate inland freshwater environments. Biol. Invasions 2002, 4, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hulme, P.E. Unwelcome exchange: International trade as a direct and indirect driver of biological invasions worldwide. One Earth 2021, 4, 666–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chen, Y.; Gao, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Zhan, A. Multi-omics inform invasion risks under global climate. Glob. Change Biol. 2024, 30, e17588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Reynolds, S.A.; Aldridge, D.C. Global impacts of invasive species on the tipping points of shallow lakes. Glob Change Biol. 2021, 27, 6129–6138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Mahapatra, B.B.; Das, N.K.; Jadhav, A.; Abhisikta, R.; Aravind, N.A. Global freshwater mollusc invasion: Pathways, potential distribution, and niche shift. Hydrobiologia 2025, 852, 1431–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Miyahira, I.C.; Clavijo, C.; Callil, C.T.; Cuezzo, M.G.; Darrigran, G.; Gomes, S.R.; Lasso, C.A.; Mansur, M.C.D.; Pena, M.S.; Ramírez, R.; et al. The conservation of non-marine molluscs in South America: Where we are and how to move forward. Biodivers. Conserv. 2022, 31, 2543–2574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Oliveira, L.R.; Brito, G.; Gama, M.; Ovando, X.M.C.; Anastácio, P.; Cardoso, S.J. Non-native decapods in South America: Risk assessment and potential impacts. Diversity 2023, 15, 841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Speziale, K.L.; Lambertucci, S.A.; Carrete, M.; Tella, J.L. Dealing with non-native species: What makes the difference in South America? Biol. Invasions 2012, 14, 1609–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Darrigran, G.; Agudo-Padrón, I.; Baez, P.; Belz, C.; Cardoso, F.; Carranza, A.; Collado, G.; Correoso, M.; Cuezzo, M.G.; Fabres, A.; et al. Non-native mollusks throughout South America: Emergent patterns in an understudied continent. Biol. Invasions 2020, 22, 853–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Torres, S.H.; de Lucía, M.; Gutiérrez Gregoric, D.E.; Darrigran, G. Freshwater mussel conservation in southern South America: Update on distribution range and current threats. Aquat. Sci. 2024, 86, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Carlton, J.T.; Schwindt, E. The assessment of marine bioinvasion diversity and history. Biol. Invasions 2024, 26, 237–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Darrigran, G.; Agudo-Padrón, I.; Baez, P.; Belz, C.; Cardoso, F.; Collado, G.A.; Correoso, M.; Cuezzo, M.G.; Damborenea, C.; Fabres, A.A.; et al. Species movements within biogeographic regions: Exploring the distribution of transplanted mollusc species in South America. Biol. Invasions 2023, 25, 673–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Carranza, A.; Agudo-Padrón, I.; Collado, G.A.; Damborenea, C.; Fabres, A.; Gutiérrez Gregoric, D.E.; Lodeiros, C.; Ludwig, S.; Pastorino, G.; Penchaszadeh, P.E.; et al. Socio-Ecological Impacts of Non-Native and Transplanted Aquatic Molluscs Species in South America. What do We Really Know. Hidrobiologia 2023, 850, 1001–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. MolluscaBase. Available online: https://www.molluscabase.org (accessed on 7 December 2024).
  20. IUCN Glossary of Translated Terms. Available online: https://iucn.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/iucn-glossary-of-translated-terms-en-es-fr.pdf (accessed on 8 December 2024).
  21. Carlton, J.T. Biological invasions and cryptogenic species. Ecology 1996, 77, 1653–1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dinerstein, E.; Olson, D.M.; Graham, D.; Webster, A.L.; Primm, S.A.; Bookbinder, M.P.; Ledec, G. A Conservation Assessment of the Terrestrial Ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1995; ISBN 0-8213-3295-3. [Google Scholar]
  23. Schwindt, E.; Bortolus, A. Aquatic invasion biology research in South America: Geographic patterns, advances and perspectives. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health 2017, 20, 322–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pyšek, P.; Hulme, P.E.; Simberloff, D.; Bacher, S.; Blackburn, T.M.; Carlton, J.T.; Dawson, W.; Essl, F.; Foxcroft, L.C.; Genovesi, P.; et al. Scientists’ warning on invasive alien species. Biol. Rev. 2020, 95, 1511–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Agudo-Padrón, A.I. Updated and referenced inventory of invasing exotic molluscs that occur in the State of Santa Catarina/ SC, Central Southern Brazil region. Braz. J. An. Environ. Res. 2022, 5, 3710–3727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bökenhans, V.; Paredes, F.; Chaparro, O.; Averbuj, A. Spawning and embryonic development in a foreign environment, the case of the invasive sea slug Pleurobranchaea maculata in north Patagonia, Argentina. Mar. Biol. 2024, 171, 227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cardoso Lima, L.L.C.; Passos, F.D. Bioinvasões marinhas: Moluscos bivalves introduzidos no nordeste do Brasil. Divers. J. 2021, 6, 507–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Collado, G.A.; Vidal, M.A.; Torres-Díaz, C. Spatial distribution of two invasive freshwater snails and environmental correlates of the mollusc community abundance, a case study in Chile. Anim. Biodiv. Conserv. 2023, 46, 187–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Davies, D.; Nieva, L.; Choke, L.A.; Issa, F.S.; Pujadas, J.; Prepelitchi, L. First record of Pseudosuccinea columella (Say, 1817) from Salta province, northwest Argentina (Mollusca: Gastropoda: Lymnaeidae). Check List 2014, 10, 597–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gutiérrez Gregoric, D.E.; de Lucía, M.; Torres, S.H.; Copa, J.L.E.; Darrigran, G. Invasive freshwater gastropods in South America: Physa acuta and its expansion to Austral Patagonia in Argentina. Papéis Avulsos Zool. 2024, 64, e202464029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gutiérrez Gregoric, D.E.; de Lucía, M.D.; Torres, S.H.; Copa, J.L.; Sánchez, N.C.; Darrigran, G. Expansion of Sinotaia quadrata (Mollusca: Gastropoda: Architaenioglossa: Viviparidae) in two major rivers from Argentina. An. Acad. Bras. Ciênc. 2024, 96, e20231280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Miyahira, I.C.; Gonçalves, I.C.B.; Lacerda, L.E.M.; Ximenes, R.F.; Santos, S.B. The introduction of Physa acuta (Gastropoda: Physidae) on Ilha Grande, Southeast Brazil, from initial stages to an established population. Braz. J. Biol. 2021, 83, e243801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Miyahira, I.C.; Carballo, R.; Vera-Alcaraz, H.S.; Clavijo, C. Distribution of invasive bivalves in Paraguay: Filling the gaps in the heart of South America. Acta Limnol. Bras. 2024, 36, e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Molina, S.; Beltramino, A.A.; Peso, J.G.; Vogler, R.E. Diversidad genética del gasterópodo dulciacuícola Pseudosuccinea columella (Say, 1817) en el sur del Bosque Atlántico: Un abordaje filogenético. In Proceedings of the Encontro Brasileiro de Malacologia, Instituto Butantan, São Paulo, Brazil, 4–8 October 2021. [Google Scholar]
  35. Seuffert, M.E.; Tamburi, N.E.; Saveanu, L.; Maldonado, M.A.; Manara, E.; Gurovich, F.M.; Tiecher, M.J.; Burela, S.; Martin, P.R. Established but not spreading: The tropical invasive snail Melanoides tuberculata in a geothermally warmed channel in temperate Southern Pampas. An. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 2023, 95, e20210516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zarco, A.; Fantozzi, M.C.; Cuervo, P.F. Gastropoda, Pulmonata, Lymnaeidae, Pseudosuccinea columella (Say, 1817): First record in Córdoba province, central Argentina. Check List 2011, 7, 391–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lodeiros, C.; González-Henríquez, N.; Cuéllar-Anjel, J.; Hernández-Reyes, D.; Medina-Alcaraz, C.; Quinteiro, J.; Rey-Méndez, M. Invasion of the dark false mussel in shrimp farms in Venezuela: Species identification and genetic analysis. Bioinvasions Rec. 2019, 8, 838–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Martínez-García, M.F.; Ruesink, J.L.; Grijalva-Chon, J.M.; Lodeiros, C.; Arreola-Lizárraga, J.A.; de la Re-Vega, E.; Varela-Romero, A.; Chávez-Villalba, J. Socioecological factors related to aquaculture introductions and production of Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) worldwide. Rev. Aquac. 2022, 14, 613–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Correoso, R.M. Estrategia preliminar para evaluar y erradicar Achatina fulica Gastropoda: Achatineaceae) en Ecuador. Boletín Técnico IASA Ser. Zoológica 2006, 2, 45–53. [Google Scholar]
  40. Correoso, R.M. Los Moluscos Terrestres y Fluviales del Ecuador; Editorial SIMBIOE: Quito, Ecuador, 2008; p. 179. ISBN 9789978995914. [Google Scholar]
  41. Correoso, R.M.; Coello, G.M.R.; Arrebola Burgos, J.; Martini, L.R. Pomacea canaliculata plaga del arroz en Ecuador; Universidad de las Fuerzas Armadas–ESPE: Quito, Ecuador, 2015; ISBN 978-9978-54-8. [Google Scholar]
  42. Correoso, R.M. Pomacea quinindensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T189606A65493893. 2016. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/189606/65493893 (accessed on 27 December 2024).
  43. Correoso, R.M.; Coello, M.R. Pomacea canaliculata in Ecuador: A Recent Pest with Multiple Implications. In Biology and Management of Invasive Apple Snails; Joshi, R.C., Sebastian, L.S., Eds.; Global Advances in Ecology and Management of Golden Apple Snails; Philippine Rice Research Institute: Nueva Ecija, Philippines, 2006; p. 286. [Google Scholar]
  44. Padula, V.; Santos, F.N. Three new records of Nudibranchia (Mollusca, Gastropoda)–additions on the Brazilian biodiversity. Biociências 2006, 14, 214–220. [Google Scholar]
  45. Teixeira, L.M.P.; Creed, J.C. A decade on: An updated assessment of the status of marine non-indigenous species in Brazil. Aq. Invasions 2020, 15, 30–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zaffaroni, J.C. Ovatella myosotis (Draparnaud, 1801) en aguas uruguayas. Com. Soci. Malacol. Urug. 1994, 7, 271–272. [Google Scholar]
  47. Mitov, P.G. New data on Myosotella myosotis (Draparnaud, 1801) (Pulmonata: Basommatophora: Ellobiidae) from Bulgaria. Acta Zool. Bulg. 2016, 68, 321–330. [Google Scholar]
  48. Alda, P.; Lounnas, M.; Vázquez, A.A.; Ayaqui, R.; Calvopiña, M.; Celi-Erazo, M.; Dillon, R.T., Jr.; González Ramírez, L.C.; Loker, E.S.; Muzzio-Aroca, J.; et al. Systematics and geographical distribution of Galba species, a group of cryptic and worldwide freshwater snails. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2021, 157, 107035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bargues, M.D.; Artigas, P.; Khoubbane, M.; Flores, R.; Glöer, P.; Rojas-Garcia, R.; Ashrafi, K.; Falkner, G.; Mas-Coma, S. Lymnaea schirazensis, an overlooked snail distorting fascioliasis data: Genotype, phenotype, ecology, worldwide spread, susceptibility, applicability. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e24567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Pedro, N.C.; Salvador, R.B.; Simone, L.R.L. First record of the exotic Indothais lacera (Gastropoda, Muricidae) in Brazil. Papéis Avulsos Zool. 2023, 63, e2023630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Spotorno-Oliveira, P.; Lopes, R.P.; Larroque, A.; Monteiro, D.; Dentzien-Dias, P.; Tâmega, F.T.S. First detection of the non-indigenous gastropod Rapana venosa in the southernmost coast of Brazil. Cont. Shelf Res. 2020, 194, 104047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gernet, M.D.V.; Belz, C.E.; Baggio, R.A.; Birckolz, C.J.; Santos, E.D.V.; Simone, L.R.L.; Abate, D.; Metri, R. Nassarius foveolatus (Gastropoda, Nassariidae), a new record of an exotic species in Brazil. Papéis Avulsos Zool. 2019, 59, e20195955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Brand, C.; Assef, Y.A.; Miserenino, M.A.; Aosta, F. Success of an exotic snail Physella acuta in anthropogenically impacted Patagonian streams. Biol. Acuática 2024, 43, 042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tolla, J.; Hooker, Y.; Valdés, Á.; Schröd, M.; Padula, V. Primeiro registro do nudibrânquio exótico Polycera hedgpethi Er. Marcus, 1964 (Gastropoda, Heterobranchia) na América do Sul. In Livro de Resumos XXVIII Encontro Brasileiro de Malacologia & XII Congresso Latino Americano de Malacologia, Posadas, Argentina, Misiones, Argentina and São Paulo, Brazil, 2–6 February 2023; Universidad Nacional de Misiones, Sociedade Brasileira de Malacologia: Posadas, Argentina, 2023; p. 259. [Google Scholar]
  55. Sousa, D.G.D.S.; Pires-Oliveira, J.C.; Sousa, R.L.T.D.; Freire, S.M.; Pinto, H.A. Use of a geospatial tool to predict the distribution of Melanoides tuberculata (Müller, 1774) and some native freshwater gastropods found in Brazil. Biota Neotrop. 2024, 24, e20241638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zaffaroni, J.C.; Sacarabino, F.; Serra, W.S.; Fontaina, R.; Scwindt, E. Un Arcido introducido en Sudamérica: Andara cf. kagoshimensis (Tokunaga, 1906) (Bivalvia: Arcidae) en Uruguay. In Libro de Resúmenes XI Congreso Latinoamericano de Malacología, 25–27 de Noviembre de 2020, Puerto Madryn, Argentina; Asociación Argentina de Malacología: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  57. Belz, C.E.; Simone, L.R.L.; de Júnior, N.S.; Baggio, R.A.; Gernet, M.d.V.; Birckolz, C.J. First record of the Mediterranean mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis (Bivalvia, Mytilidae) in Brazil. Papéis Avulsos Zool. 2020, 60, e20206007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Messano, L.V.R.; Gonçalves, J.E.A.; Messano, H.F.; Campos, S.H.C.; Coutinho, R. First report of the Asian green mussel Perna viridis (Linnaeus, 1758) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: A new record for the southern Atlantic Ocean. Bioinvasions Rec. 2019, 8, 653–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Balech, E. Sobre algunos animales marinos perforantes en la Argentina. Neotropica 1972, 18, 109–110. [Google Scholar]
  60. Velásquez, M.; Reuben Shipway, J.; Lira, C.; Capelo, J.; Narciso, S. Shipworms from Venezuela (Mollusca, Bivalvia, Teredinidae): An updated survey. Festivus 2017, 49, 302–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Carlton, J.T.; Keith, I.; Ruiz, G.M. Assessing marine bioinvasions in the Galápagos Islands: Implications for conservation biology and marine protected areas. Aquat. Invasions 2019, 14, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Schwindt, E.; Carlton, J.; Orensanz, J.; Scarabino, F.; Bortolus, A. Past and future of the marine bioinvasions along the Southwestern Atlantic. Aquat. Invasions 2020, 15, 11–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Carvalho Maldonado, G.; Skinner, L.F. Differences in the distribution and abundance of Teredinidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) along the coast of Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil. BJOCE 2016, 64, 75–386. [Google Scholar]
  64. Didžiulis, V. NOBANIS–Invasive Alien Species Fact Sheet–Teredo navalis. Database of the European Network on Invasive Alien Species. 2011. Available online: https://www.nobanis.org/globalassets/speciesinfo/t/teredo-navalis/teredo_navalis.pdf (accessed on 9 December 2024).
  65. Sigwart, J.D.; Wong, N.L.W.S.; Esa, Y. Controversia global en la sistemática de las ostras y una especie recién descrita del sudeste asiático (Bivalvia: Ostreidae: Crassostreinae). Mar. Biodivers. 2021, 51, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. do Amaral, V.S.; Simone, L.R.L.; de Souza Tâmega, F.T.; Barbieri, E.; Calazans, S.H.; Coutinho, R.; Spotorno-Oliveira, P. New records of the non-indigenous oyster Saccostrea cucullata (Bivalvia: Ostreidae) from the southeast and south Brazilian coast. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2020, 33, 100924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rocha-Barreira, C.A.; da Silva, E.J.; Oliver, P.G.; Carvalho, R.A.A.; Menezes, F.M. Electroma vexillum (Reeve, 1857) (Bivalvia, Vulsellidae): A new alien species arrives on the Brazilian coast. In Livro de Resumos XXVIII Encontro Brasileiro de Malacologia & XII Congresso Latino Americano de Malacologia, Posadas, Argentina, Misiones, Argentina and São Paulo, Brazil, 2–6 February 2023; Universidad Nacional de Misiones, Sociedade Brasileira de Malacologia: Posadas, Argentina, 2023; p. 243. [Google Scholar]
  68. Simone, L.R.L. New species, misidentifications and problematic taxonomy of some Atlantic South American marine mollusks: A review. Papéis Avulsos Zool. 2024, 64, e202464031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. de Morretes, F.L. Ensaio de catálogo dos moluscos do Brasil. Arq. Museu Parana. 1949, 7, 5–216. [Google Scholar]
  70. Carlton, J.T. Molluscan invasions in marine and estuarine communities. Malacologia 1999, 41, 439–454. [Google Scholar]
  71. Cowie, J. Climate Change: Biological and Human Aspects; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  72. De Silva, S.S.; Soto, D. El cambio y la acuicultura: Repercusiones potenciales, adaptación y mitigación. In Consecuencias del Cambio Climático para la Pesca y la Acuicultura: Visión de Conjunto del Estado Actual de los Conocimientos Científicos; Cochrane, K., De Young, C., Soto, D., Bahri, T., Eds.; FAO Documento Técnico de Pesca y Acuicultura: Rome, Italy, 2009; Volume 530, pp. 169–236. [Google Scholar]
  73. Ojaveer, H.; Galil, B.S.; Carlton, J.T.; Alleway, H.; Goulletquer, P.; Lehtiniemi, M.; Marchini, A.; Miller, W.; Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A.; Peharda, M.; et al. Historical baselines in marine bioinvasions: Implications for policy and management. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0202383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Faulkner, K.T.; Hulme, P.E.; Pagad, S.; Wilson, J.R.U.; Robertson, M.P. Classifying the introduction pathways of alien species: Are we moving in the right direction? NeoBiota 2020, 62, 143–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Mendoza, R.; Ramírez-Martínez, C.; Aguilera, C.; Meave del Castillo, M.E. Principales vías de introducción de las especies exóticas. In Especies Acuáticas Invasoras en México; Mendoza, R., Koleff, P., Eds.; Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad: Mexico City, México, 2014; pp. 43–73. [Google Scholar]
  76. Sindermann, C.J. Disease risks associated with importation of nonindigenous marine animals. Mar. Fish. Rev. 1993, 54, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  77. Nguma, J.F.; McCullough, F.S.; Masha, E. Elimination of Biomphalaria pfeifferi, Bulinus tropicus and Lymnaea natalensis by the ampullarid snail, Marisa cornuarietis, in a man-made dam in northern Tanzania. Acta Trop. 1982, 39, 85–90. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  78. Palacio-Villamagua, G.; Iñiguez-Gallardo, V.; Correoso-Rodríguez, M. Primer registro de Stenophysa marmorata (Guilding, 1828), Gastropoda, Physidae en ríos de la provincia de Loja, Ecuador. ACI Av. Cienc. E Ing. 2022, 14, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Taylor, D.W. Morphological Revision of Freshwater Snails, Family Physidae. Com. Soc. Malacol. Uruguay 2004, 82–83, 279–282. [Google Scholar]
  80. Breure, A.S.H.; Roosen, M.T.; Ablett, J.D. Land and freshwater molluscs of mainland Ecuador: An illustrated checklist. Iberus 2022, 40, 1–290. [Google Scholar]
  81. Scarabino, F.; Zaffaroni, J.C.; Clavijo, C.; Carranza, A. Nin, Bivalvos marinos y estuarinos de la costa uruguaya: Faunística, distribución, taxonomía y conservación. In Bases para la Conservación y el Manejo de la Costa Uruguaya; Menafra, R., Rodríguez-Gallego, L., Scarabino, F., Conde, D., Eds.; Vida Silvestre Uruguay: Montevideo, Uruguay, 2006; p. 668. [Google Scholar]
  82. Scarabino, F.; Zelaya, D.G.; Orensanz, J.M.; Ortega, L.; Defeo, O.; Schwindt, E.; Carranza, A.; Zaffaroni, J.C.; Martínez, G.; Scarabino, V.; et al. Cold, warm, temperate and brackish: Bivalve Biodiversity in a complex oceanographic scenario (Uruguay, Southwestern Atlantic). Am. Malacol Bull. 2015, 33, 284–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Zaffaroni, J.C. Presencia de Modiolus carvalhoi (Mollusca, Pelecypoda) en aguas uruguayas. Com. Soc. Malacol. Urug. 2022, 8, 101–103. [Google Scholar]
  84. Souza Júnior, E.; De Barros, J.C.N.; Paresque, K.; De Freitas, R.R. The effect of stocking density on the growth of apple snails native Pomacea bridgesii and exotic Pomacea lineata (Mollusca, Gastropoda). An. Acad. Bras. Ciênc. 2013, 85, 753–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. SCBD. Pets, Aquarium, and Terrarium Species: Best Practices for Addressing Risks to Biodiversity; Technical Series; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD): Montreal, QC, Canada, 2010; Volume 48, p. 45. [Google Scholar]
  86. Pati, S.K.; Sharma, R.M. On an alien apple snail, Pomacea diffusa Blume, 1957 from Maharashtra. Ela J. 2013, 2, 2–3. [Google Scholar]
  87. Larraín, M.A.; Zbawicka, M.; Araneda, C.; Gardner, J.P.A.; Wenne, R. Native and invasive taxa on the Pacific coast of South America: Impacts on aquaculture, traceability and biodiversity of blue mussels (Mytilus spp.). Evol. Appl. 2018, 11, 298–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Oyarzún, P.A.; Toro, J.E.; Nuñez, J.J.; Suárez-Villota, E.Y.; Gardner, J.P.A. Blue mussels of the Mytilus edulis species complex from South America: The application of species delimitation models to DNA sequence variation. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0256961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Penchaszadeh, P.E.; Velez, A. Presencia del mejillón verde Perna viridis (Linnaeus, 1758), originario de la región indo pacífica, en el oriente venezolano. Com. Soc. Malac. Urug. 1995, 7, 68–69. [Google Scholar]
  90. Soares, M.O.; Xavier, F.R.; Dias, N.M.; da Silva, M.Q.M.; de Lima, J.P.; Barroso, C.X.; Vieira, L.M.; Paiva, S.V.; Matthews-Cascon, H.; Bezerra, L.E.A.; et al. Alien hotspot: Benthic marine species introduced in the Brazilian semiarid coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2022, 174, 113250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Santos, H.; Bertollo, J.; Creed, J. Range extension of the Asian green mussel Perna viridis (Linnaeus, 1758) into a Marine Extractive Reserve in Brazil. Bioinvasions Rec. 2023, 12, 208–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Beltrão, M.C.; Cunha, N.J.R.; de Oliveira Laaf, Y.; Diehl, F.L.; Santos, T.D. Molecular methods confirm the first report of the non-indigenous Perna viridis Linnaeus, 1758 (Mytilida, Mytilidae) in southern Brazil. Check List 2022, 20, 859–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. UNESCO. The UNESCO Training Manual for the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage in Latin America and the Caribbean. 2021. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000375747 (accessed on 26 December 2024).
  94. Carneiro, L.; Miiller, N.O.R.; Cuthbert, R.N.; Vitule, J.R.S. Biological invasions negatively impact global protected areas. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 948, 174823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Biology 14 00151 g001
Figure 1. The four zones of South America with the highest number of non-native mollusk species recorded for Darrigran et al. [14]. In blue are the freshwater NNMS and in green are the marine NNMS. The species with red * correspond to the present study.
Figure 1. The four zones of South America with the highest number of non-native mollusk species recorded for Darrigran et al. [14]. In blue are the freshwater NNMS and in green are the marine NNMS. The species with red * correspond to the present study.
Biology 14 00151 g001
Biology 14 00151 g002
Figure 2. Aquatic NNMS introduced in South America by date (10-year interval), and according to habitat (marine and freshwater). The first recorded NNMS (*) corresponds to a terrestrial species recorded in 1835; the first aquatic NNMS was recorded in the 1920s.
Figure 2. Aquatic NNMS introduced in South America by date (10-year interval), and according to habitat (marine and freshwater). The first recorded NNMS (*) corresponds to a terrestrial species recorded in 1835; the first aquatic NNMS was recorded in the 1920s.
Biology 14 00151 g002
Biology 14 00151 g003
Figure 3. Introduction pathway categories for NNMS in South America. Pathway categories follow Faulkner et al. [74].
Figure 3. Introduction pathway categories for NNMS in South America. Pathway categories follow Faulkner et al. [74].
Biology 14 00151 g003
Biology 14 00151 g004
Figure 4. Transplant path categories for NNMS in South America. Categories follow Faulkner et al. [74].
Figure 4. Transplant path categories for NNMS in South America. Categories follow Faulkner et al. [74].
Biology 14 00151 g004
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Darrigran, G.; Belz, C.; Carranza, A.; Collado, G.A.; Correoso, M.; Fabres, A.A.; Gutiérrez Gregoric, D.E.; Lodeiros, C.; Pastorino, G.; Penchaszadeh, P.E.; et al. What Do We Know About Non-Native, Invasive, and Transplanted Aquatic Mollusks in South America? Biology 2025, 14, 151. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14020151

AMA Style

Darrigran G, Belz C, Carranza A, Collado GA, Correoso M, Fabres AA, Gutiérrez Gregoric DE, Lodeiros C, Pastorino G, Penchaszadeh PE, et al. What Do We Know About Non-Native, Invasive, and Transplanted Aquatic Mollusks in South America? Biology. 2025; 14(2):151. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14020151

Chicago/Turabian Style

Darrigran, Gustavo, Carlos Belz, Alvar Carranza, Gonzalo A. Collado, Modesto Correoso, Alejandra A. Fabres, Diego E. Gutiérrez Gregoric, César Lodeiros, Guido Pastorino, Pablo E. Penchaszadeh, and et al. 2025. "What Do We Know About Non-Native, Invasive, and Transplanted Aquatic Mollusks in South America?" Biology 14, no. 2: 151. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14020151

APA Style

Darrigran, G., Belz, C., Carranza, A., Collado, G. A., Correoso, M., Fabres, A. A., Gutiérrez Gregoric, D. E., Lodeiros, C., Pastorino, G., Penchaszadeh, P. E., Salvador, R. B., Santos, S., Thiengo, S., & Damborenea, C. (2025). What Do We Know About Non-Native, Invasive, and Transplanted Aquatic Mollusks in South America? Biology, 14(2), 151. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14020151

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop