New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Evolution Shocks Scientists in an Electric Battle against Invasive Bass

Scientists electrically culled invasive fish in a 20-year battle—but the fish fought back with rapid evolution

The small mouthed black bass

Ana Maria Tudor/Alamy Stock Photo

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

A group of Cornell University scientists have been outmaneuvered by a formidable (and genetically supercharged) adversary: the smallmouth bass of Little Moose Lake in New York State’s Adirondack Mountains.

The invasive—and drastically overpopulating—species prevailed over the scientists’ 20-year electric culling campaign by evolving to grow faster and spawn younger. This strategy let them reproduce before the scientists’ specially equipped boat took its twice-yearly lake cruise, electrically stunning all fish within several feet so the team could toss the bass into a cooler. (The other fish species were left to recover.) The lake’s bass population is now thriving in greater numbers than ever.

Smallmouth bass are among the hardest-fighting freshwater sport fishes, popular with anglers for the leaping acrobatics the fish perform trying to unhook themselves. In the late 1800s outdoor enthusiasts started introducing this adaptable, red-eyed predator into countless lakes and fishing holes, where it can often outcompete locals—including prized trout—for prey.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Little Moose’s native lake trout once grew to a whopping 35 pounds and could span three feet in length, but when smallmouth bass proliferated, the trout became severely stunted, reaching just nine inches long, and were not catchable by anglers, says Liam Zarri, a molecular ecologist at the Smithsonian National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute.* While at Cornell, he identified the genetic effects of the attempted eradication and recently published the findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA.

[Culling] left only “the individuals that live fast, die young—the all-out-motorcycle-riding smallmouth bass.” — Liam Zarri Smithsonian National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute

This bass species had the genes for a range of survival strategies before the culls started, Zarri says. But individual bass that were genetically predisposed to sexually mature relatively late and grow slowly into big, old, lake-dominating specimens didn’t survive the shock treatments. This left only “the individuals that live fast, die young—the all-out-motorcycle-riding smallmouth bass that reproduce as early as they can because they’re probably not going to make it to the next year,” he says.

Driving the species’ new life in the fast lane are chromosomes involved with growth rate and reproduction timing, Zarri explains. DNA sequences in these chromosomes are “wildly different,” he says, from those in tissue samples taken from Little Moose bass preserved before the electrofishing began. The changes spread through the population and culminated in an evolutionary backlash, “but the lesson isn’t about victory or defeat,” says Cornell geneticist Nina Therkilsden, who helped Zarri compare the genomes. “It’s about the need for conservation strategies that anticipate and work with evolution rather than against it.”

Stephanie Green, an ecologist who grapples with invasive species in Canada and wasn’t involved in the Cornell research, says varying the culls’ timing and frequency could make them less likely to fuel the rapid evolution—and the Cornell scientists say they’re actively considering such alternatives.

*Editor’s Note (10/3/2025): This sentence was updated after posting to clarify that the historical proliferation of smallmouth bass in Little Moose Lake resulted in smaller lake trout at the time rather than to this day.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe