The Killer Shrimp Bullies Species into Extinction

New research shows this invasive crustacean isn’t quite as deadly as its name suggests—but it’s still causing localized extinctions

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


The killer shrimp (Dikerogammarus villosus) has a pretty nasty reputation.

Originally from Eastern Europe, these invasive amphipod crustaceans—they’re not really shrimp—breed quickly wherever they spread and have a bad habit of viciously attacking local aquatic wildlife. Killer shrimp are small (just 3 centimeters) but they make up for that lack of size with a bad attitude and a big mouth. They have often been observed biting and killing other creatures just for the sake of attacking them, not for food.

Over the past few decades killer shrimp have spread from their original habitat in the Danube River throughout much of Europe, usually in the ballast water of commercial fishing or shipping vessels. In many areas where they have taken up residence, local aquatic life has become depleted. Some species have disappeared altogether.


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.


But has the killer shrimp by itself caused any of these disappearances? New research suggests that it’s a bit more complex than we may have previously realized.

What’s true is that the arrival of killer shrimp in Bavaria led to the near-extinction of a native crustacean species, Gammarus pulex. But according to a paper published earlier this summer in BMC Ecology, the killer shrimp didn’t cause this population decline on its own. What the shrimp did was push the other crustaceans out of the river hiding places that would have normally protected them from predators. That left G. pulex out in the open, where they could became easy prey for a second invasive species, a fish called the round goby (Neogobius melanostomus).

Researchers from the Technical University of Munich tested this out by catching round gobies and checking their stomach contents, which proved they were eating G. pulex. They also tested things out in an aquarium setting, where the researchers were able to prove that G. pulex living in the same tank with killer shrimp were much more likely to be predated upon because the shrimp intensively took advantage of the best hiding places.

Yes, the killer shrimp effectively took the coward’s way out and lived to fight another day while the native species just became lunch.

That doesn’t minimize the killer shrimp’s role in the native crustacean’s decline. It does, however, prove that nature is a complex system which, in the case of Bavaria, is melting down due to the introduction of not just one but two invasive species.

Previously in Extinction Countdown:

John R. Platt is the editor of The Revelator. An award-winning environmental journalist, his work has appeared in Scientific American, Audubon, Motherboard, and numerous other magazines and publications. His "Extinction Countdown" column has run continuously since 2004 and has covered news and science related to more than 1,000 endangered species. John lives on the outskirts of Portland, Ore., where he finds himself surrounded by animals and cartoonists.

More by John R. Platt

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