Giant goby (Gobius cobitis)
Distribution data supplied by the Ocean Biodiversity Information System (OBIS). To interrogate UK data visit the NBN Atlas.Map Help
Researched by | Dr Heidi Tillin & Karen Riley | Refereed by | Admin |
Authority | Pallas, 1814 | ||
Other common names | - | Synonyms | Gobius capito Linnaeus, 1758 |
Summary
Description
The giant goby Gobius cobitis is Britain's largest goby. It has relatively small and well spaced eyes, a short tail stalk and a deep body throughout its length. Greyish to olive brown in colour with 'pepper and salt' speckling. Dark blotches appear along and below the lateral midline. The edges of the dorsal, tail and anal fins are light greyish in colour. Breeding males are darker in colour than females. It reaches up to 27 cm in length.
Recorded distribution in Britain and Ireland
The distribution of Gobius cobitis in Britain is restricted to the south-west coast of England, from Wembury to the Isles of Scilly.
Global distribution
Found in the eastern Atlantic, from the western English Channel to Morocco, the Mediterranean, the Black Sea (except north-west) and the Gulf of Suez.
Habitat
In Britain, Gobius cobitis is found typically in the intertidal in high shore rock pools on sheltered shores. It is often found in brackish water with Ulva spp. present in the rockpools.
Depth range
Intertidal to up to 10mIdentifying features
- Small scales.
- Scales on top of the head do not extend to the level of the eyes.
- Upper rays of pectoral fin free of membrane.
- Lobes at front edge of pelvic fin disc distinct.
- A large goby, reaching a maximum of 27cm in length.
Additional information
It inhabits high shore rock pools, often with a freshwater input.
Listed by
Biology review
Taxonomy
Level | Scientific name | Common name |
---|---|---|
Phylum | Chordata | Sea squirts, fish, reptiles, birds and mammals |
Class | Actinopterygii | Ray-finned fish, e.g. sturgeon, eels, fin fish, gobies, blennies, and seahorses |
Order | Gobiiformes | |
Family | Gobiidae | |
Genus | Gobius | |
Authority | Pallas, 1814 | |
Recent Synonyms | Gobius capito Linnaeus, 1758 |
Biology
Parameter | Data | ||
---|---|---|---|
Typical abundance | Moderate density | ||
Male size range | 8 - 27cm | ||
Male size at maturity | 13 cm | ||
Female size range | 12 cm | ||
Female size at maturity | 8 - 27cm | ||
Growth form | Pisciform | ||
Growth rate | Data deficient | ||
Body flexibility | High (greater than 45 degrees) | ||
Mobility | Swimmer | ||
Characteristic feeding method | Grazer (fronds/blades), Predator | ||
Diet/food source | Omnivore | ||
Typically feeds on | Crustaceans, polychaetes, small fishes, insects and large amounts of green algae. | ||
Sociability | Not relevant | ||
Environmental position | Demersal | ||
Dependency | Independent. | ||
Supports | None | ||
Is the species harmful? | No |
Biology information
The feeding habits of Gobius cobitis vary with the size of the animal. Young fish, which measure about 8-9 cm, feed on smaller food items such as copepods, ostracods and small amphipods (Gibson, 1970). As the individual grows it will feed on larger food items until its diet consists of green algae, Ulva spp., crustaceans such as amphipods, crabs, prawns, amphipods, isopods, polychaetes and small fishes, particularly juveniles of the blenny, Blennius pholis (Potts & Swaby, 1992). The importance of different types of food vary but in general Gobius cobitis is a generalist feeder able to switch between food items depending on what is available (Compaire et al., 2016). Its longevity is approximately 10 years and the maximum total length reported was 23-27 cm (Potts & Swaby, 1992; Hayward et al., 1996). No difference in longevity has been noticed between sexes (Gibson, 1970).
Habitat preferences
Parameter | Data |
---|---|
Physiographic preferences | Open coast |
Biological zone preferences | Sublittoral fringe |
Substratum / habitat preferences | Mixed, Rockpools, Under boulders |
Tidal strength preferences | No information |
Wave exposure preferences | Sheltered |
Salinity preferences | Variable (18-40 psu) |
Depth range | Intertidal to up to 10m |
Other preferences | None |
Migration Pattern |
Habitat Information
- The south-west coast of England represents the most northern limit of the giant goby's range.
- Gobius cobitis is common within its geographical limits. Often seen 'basking' in direct sun on exposed patches within pools.
- It feeds on Ulva spp., crustaceans and polychaetes.
- Sublittoral pools inhabited by Gobius cobitis usually contain large boulders with a crevice large enough to shelter beneath and are devoid of gravel or sand. However, Gibson (1970) recorded gravel and stones on the bottom of their rock pools and Faria et al. (1998) noted that they preferentially occupied mixed bottom and sandy substratum. Usually, there is freshwater draining into the rock pools inhabited by Gobius cobitis. Upper shore rock pools are likely to experience extremes in temperature, light levels and salinity.
- Despite previous records for Wembury and West Looe, Potts & Swaby (1992) found no Gobius cobitis within these areas and, therefore, assumed that populations had declined or were absent at that time. However, a record of Gobius cobitis was made at West Looe on 31 January 1998 by John Markham. Although there is no evidence that the species is endangered, it is potentially vulnerable to human interference due to its preferred shore habitat (Potts & Swaby, 1992).
- The giant goby is a very common inshore fish in the North East Atlantic and the Mediterranean (Miller, 1986).
Life history
Adult characteristics
Parameter | Data |
---|---|
Reproductive type | Gonochoristic (dioecious) |
Reproductive frequency | Annual episodic |
Fecundity (number of eggs) | See additional information |
Generation time | 2-5 years |
Age at maturity | 2-3 years |
Season | Spring - Summer |
Life span | See additional information |
Larval characteristics
Parameter | Data |
---|---|
Larval/propagule type | - |
Larval/juvenile development | Oviparous |
Duration of larval stage | 11-30 days |
Larval dispersal potential | Greater than 10 km |
Larval settlement period | Insufficient information |
Life history information
- The lifespan of Gobius cobitis is 10 years.
- Gobius cobitis usually mature in their second year. Females usually produce 2 clutches of eggs each season for a further 8 years (Potts & Swaby, 1992). Eggs are laid by the female and attached to the under-surface of large boulders. The eggs are fertilized and guarded by the male. Gibson (1970) suggested that males fertilise and guard batches of eggs from at least two females and that spawning occurs twice during the breeding season. Thus the eggs are protected and kept inshore until the feeding larvae hatch.
- The breeding season usually occurs in spring and early summer in Britain, but differences have been noted worldwide. For instance, reproduction takes place between March and May in Naples, and May to early July in Varna, the Black Sea. Fecundity was reported by Gibson (1970) to be dependent on size, and varies between 2,000 and 12,000 eggs per female. Hatching occurs approximately 22- 24 days after spawning at a temperature of 12-16 °C, and between 15 and 17 days after spawning at a temperature of 15-18 °C (Gil et al., 1997).
- Gobius cobitis live for approximately 10 years (Potts & Swaby, 1992; Hayward et al., 1996). No difference in longevity has been noticed between sexes (Gibson, 1970).
Sensitivity review
Resilience and recovery rates
Gobius cobitis is fairly long-lived (up to 10 years) and usually breeds twice during the breeding season each year (spring to early summer) (Gibson, 1970). Fecundity depends upon size but is usually high (Gibson, 1970) and the larvae are long-lived (Gil et al., 1997). Faria & Almada (1999) considered the larval supply to be more than sufficient to ensure population renewal.
For many pressures, Gobius cobitis are likely to be able to migrate in and out of affected areas. If populations are removed over large areas, recovery may be prolonged and sensitivity will be greater.
Resilience assessment. Where resistance is assessed as 'High', resilience is assessed as 'High' (by default). Where resistance is assessed as 'Medium' or 'Low' and only a proportion of habit may be affected or the gobies are considered likely to be able to migrate out of and back into impacted areas, resilience is assessed as 'High', based on recovery through adult migration. Where resistance is 'None' or recovery through migration is considered unlikely, resilience is assessed as 'Medium (2-10 years) unless habitats are affected over long-time scales to allow migration and population spread from adjacent populations. No information was found to support the recovery assessments and no information was found on population connectivity, hence confidence in the resilience assessments is 'Low'.
Hydrological Pressures
Use [show more] / [show less] to open/close text displayed
Resistance | Resilience | Sensitivity | |
Temperature increase (local) [Show more]Temperature increase (local)Benchmark. A 5°C increase in temperature for one month, or 2°C for one year. Further detail EvidenceIntertidal species are exposed to high and low air temperatures during periods of emersion and must also be able to cope with sharp temperature fluctuations over a short period of time during the tidal cycle. In winter air temperatures are colder than the sea; conversely in summer air temperatures are much warmer than the sea. Species that occur in the intertidal are therefore generally adapted to tolerate a range of temperatures, with the width of the thermal niche positively correlated with the height of the shore (Davenport & Davenport, 2005). Berschick et al. (1987) and Trouchot & Duhamel-Jouve (1980) stated that Gobius cobitis is well-adapted to the short-term oxygen and temperature changes which occur on a daily basis within intertidal rockpools. The geographical distribution of Gobius cobitis extends from the south-western tip of Britain to waters further south. Gobius cobitis populations in southern waters are therefore exposed to warmer waters. Long-term increases in temperature due to climate warming would, therefore, be likely to increase the population size. Furthermore, it has been shown that temperature does have an effect on the speed of larval development (the greater the temperature the shorter the development time needed) (Gil et al., 1997) and the time of the breeding season. Horn & Gibson (1990) also showed that food consumption increased and gut transition times decreased. Sensitivity assessment. Gobius cobitis is expected to be tolerant of an increase in temperature at the chronic benchmark level. An acute increase in temperature may lead to some thermal stress, especially in populations acclimated to lower temperatures. Resistance to an acute increase in temperature is assessed as ‘Medium’ although most exposed individuals would move out of impacted pools and other habitats, a proportion of the population may be trapped in rock pools high on the shore when the tide is out. Recovery is assessed as ‘High' and sensitivity is, therefore, assessed as ‘Low’, based on ability to migrate in and out of affected areas. If populations are removed over large areas recovery will be prolonged and sensitivity will be greater. Confidence in this assessment is low and the assessment should be used cautiously. | MediumHelp | HighHelp | LowHelp |
Temperature decrease (local) [Show more]Temperature decrease (local)Benchmark. A 5°C decrease in temperature for one month, or 2°C for one year. Further detail EvidenceMany intertidal species are tolerant of freezing conditions as they are exposed to extremes of low air temperatures during periods of emersion. They must also be able to cope with sharp temperature fluctuations over a short period of time during the tidal cycle. In winter air temperatures are colder than the sea, conversely in summer air temperatures are much warmer than the sea. Species that occur in the intertidal are therefore generally adapted to tolerate a range of temperatures, with the width of the thermal niche positively correlated with the height of the shore (Davenport & Davenport, 2005). During the severe winter period in 1962-63 the south-west coast of Britain experienced temperatures 5 and 6 °C below the long-term average for about 2 months. During this period there was heavy mortality of observed populations of Gobius paganellus, Gobius minutus and Gobius flavens (Crisp (ed.), 1964). Therefore a decrease in temperature may affect populations in the British Isles, by either shifting the geographical distribution further southwards towards warmer waters, or killing a proportion of the northern-most population. Sensitivity assessment. Gobius cobitis is expected to be tolerant of a decrease in temperature at the chronic benchmark level. An acute decrease in temperature may lead to some thermal stress, especially in populations acclimated to warmer temperatures. Resistance is assessed as ‘Low’ based on other populations of gobies (Crisp, 1964. Recovery is assessed as ‘Medium' and sensitivity is, therefore, assessed as ‘Medium’. | LowHelp | MediumHelp | MediumHelp |
Salinity increase (local) [Show more]Salinity increase (local)Benchmark. A increase in one MNCR salinity category above the usual range of the biotope or habitat. Further detail EvidenceNo evidence was found to assess the salinity tolerances of Gobius cobitis. As it occurs in intertidal coastal habitats that experience full salinity the assessed change at the pressure benchmark is an increase in salinity to hypersaline (>40ppt). Like all species found in the intertidal, Gobius cobitis will naturally experience fluctuations in salinity where evaporation on warm days increases salinity in pools and inputs of rainwater expose individuals to freshwater. Species found in the intertidal typically have some form of physiological adaptations to withstand fluctuations in salinity. Typically the upper shore distribution of species in the intertidal is determined by physiological tolerances to emersion, salinity and temperature (Barnes & Hughes, 1999). Species that occur lower on the shore are exposed to salinity variations for shorter times (due to tidal immersion) than those that occur on the upper shore levels and tend to be less tolerant of salinity changes. Sensitivity assessment. Although some increases in salinity may be tolerated by Gobius cobitis, the natural variation, (rather than the pressure benchmark) is generally short-term and mitigated during tidal inundation. Based on the distribution of Gobius cobitis in pools on the mid to lower shore, this species is considered to be sensitive to a persistent increase in salinity to > 40 ppt. Resistance is assessed as ‘Low’ and it is likely that individuals would move out of impacted pools and habitats if possible. Recovery is assessed as ‘High' (following restoration of usual salinity if adjacent populations can relocate to pools. Sensitivity is, therefore, assessed as ‘Low’, based on ability to migrate in and out of affected areas. If populations are removed over large areas recovery will be prolonged and sensitivity will be greater. Confidence in this assessment is low and the assessment should be used cautiously. | LowHelp | HighHelp | LowHelp |
Salinity decrease (local) [Show more]Salinity decrease (local)Benchmark. A decrease in one MNCR salinity category above the usual range of the biotope or habitat. Further detail EvidenceNo evidence was found to assess the salinity tolerances of Gobius cobitis. As this species occurs in the UK in intertidal coastal habitats that experience full salinity or in rockpools high on the shore that may be brackish and equivalent to variable salinity (18-35 ppt) or reduced salinity (18-30 ppt), the assessed change at the pressure benchmark is a reduction in salinity to low (<18ppt). Species found in the intertidal typically have some form of physiological adaptations to withstand fluctuations in salinity. Typically the upper shore distribution of species in the intertidal is determined by physiological tolerances to emersion, salinity and temperature (Barnes & Hughes, 1999). Species that occur higher on the shore are exposed to salinity variations for longer times (due to lower levels of tidal immersion) than those that occur on lower shore levels and tend to be more tolerant of salinity changes. Sensitivity assessment. Gobius cobitis is considered to be sensitive to a long-term decrease in salinity at the pressure benchmark. Resistance is therefore assessed as ‘Low’ and it is likely that individuals would move out of impacted pools if possible. Recovery is assessed as ‘High' (following restoration of usual salinity if adjacent populations can relocate to pools. Sensitivity is, therefore, assessed as ‘Low’, based on ability yto migrate in and out of affected areas. If populations are removed over large areas recovery will be prolonged and sensitivity will be greater. Confidence in this assessment is low and the assessment should be used cautiously. | LowHelp | HighHelp | LowHelp |
Water flow (tidal current) changes (local) [Show more]Water flow (tidal current) changes (local)Benchmark. A change in peak mean spring bed flow velocity of between 0.1 m/s to 0.2 m/s for more than one year. Further detail EvidenceNo direct evidence was found to assess this pressure. The ability of Gobius cobitis to shelter in rock pools and in crevices between large boulders would be able to shield them from a moderate increase in the water flow rate. Gobius cobitis is also likely to be tolerant of a decrease in water flow rate. Sensitivity assessment. Resistance is assessed as ‘High’ and resilience as ‘High’ (by default) and Gobius cobitis is assessed as ‘Not sensitive’. | HighHelp | HighHelp | Not sensitiveHelp |
Emergence regime changes [Show more]Emergence regime changesBenchmark. 1) A change in the time covered or not covered by the sea for a period of ≥1 year or 2) an increase in relative sea level or decrease in high water level for ≥1 year. Further detail EvidenceGobius cobitis is mobile and can relocate to its preferred location on the shore. A change in emergence may indirectly affect this species through changes in the provision of suitable habitats and effects on food supply. An increase in emergence is likely to significantly affect physico-chemical environment of the rockpool and its resident community. An increase in emergence will increase the time that the pool is exposed to fluctuating air temperatures, wind, rain and sunlight, all of which will affect the and temperature, salinity regime within the pool. A decrease in emergence will reduce the time the pool spends exposed to the air and cut off from the sea. Therefore, the range of temperatures and oxygen levels characteristic of rockpool environments is likely to decrease. Sensitivity assessment. As emergence may be a key factor structuring the suitability of rock pool habitats for Gobius cobitis, resistance to a change in emergence (increase or decrease) is assessed as ‘Low’ and it is likely that individuals would move out of impacted pools if possible. Recovery is assessed as ‘High' (following restoration of usual emergence regime if adjacent populations can relocate to pools. Sensitivity is, therefore, assessed as ‘Low’, based on ability to migrate in and out of affected areas. If populations are removed over large areas recovery will be prolonged and sensitivity will be greater. Confidence in this assessment is low and the assessment should be used cautiously. | LowHelp | HighHelp | LowHelp |
Wave exposure changes (local) [Show more]Wave exposure changes (local)Benchmark. A change in near shore significant wave height of >3% but <5% for more than one year. Further detail EvidenceNo direct evidence was found to assess this pressure. The low exposure of high shore rockpools to this pressure over a tidal cycle and the ability of Gobius cobitis to shelter in rock pools and in crevices between large boulders would be able to shield them from a moderate increase in the wave action at the pressure benchmark. Gobius cobitis is also likely to be tolerant of a decrease in wave height. Sensitivity assessment. Resistance is assessed as ‘High’ and resilience as ‘High’ (by default) and Gobius cobitis is assessed as ‘Not sensitive’. | HighHelp | HighHelp | Not sensitiveHelp |
Chemical Pressures
Use [show more] / [show less] to open/close text displayed
Resistance | Resilience | Sensitivity | |
Transition elements & organo-metal contamination [Show more]Transition elements & organo-metal contaminationBenchmark. Exposure of marine species or habitat to one or more relevant contaminants via uncontrolled releases or incidental spills. Further detail EvidenceNot sensitive at the pressure benchmark that assumes compliance with all relevant environmental protection standards. Cadmium, mercury, lead, zinc and copper are highly persistent, have the potential to bioaccumulate significantly and are all considered to be very toxic to fish (Cole et al., 1999). Mueller (1979) found that in Pomatoschistus sp., a different species of goby, very low concentrations of cadmium, copper and lead (0.5 g/l Cd2+; 5 g/l Cu2+; 20 g/l Pb2+) brought about changes in activity and an obstruction to the gill epithelia by mucus. This may also be true for Gobius cobitis. | Not Assessed (NA)Help | Not assessed (NA)Help | Not assessed (NA)Help |
Hydrocarbon & PAH contamination [Show more]Hydrocarbon & PAH contaminationBenchmark. Exposure of marine species or habitat to one or more relevant contaminants via uncontrolled releases or incidental spills. Further detail EvidenceNot sensitive at the pressure benchmark that assumes compliance with all relevant environmental protection standards. No information was available regarding specific toxicity to gobies. However, it is known that toxicity of low molecular weight poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) to organisms in the water column is moderate (Cole et al., 1999). They have the potential to accumulate in sediments and, depending on individual PAH, can be toxic to sediment dwellers at levels between 6 and 150 µg/l (Cole et al., 1999). The toxicity of oil and petrochemicals to fish ranges from moderate to high (Cole et al., 1999), the main problem being smothering of the intertidal habitat. Bowling et al. (1983) found that anthracene, a PAH, had a photo-induced toxicity to the bluegill sunfish. In fact, they reported that when exposed to sunlight anthracene was at least 400 times more toxic than when no sunlight was present. According to Ankley et al. (1997) only a subset of PAH's are phototoxic (fluranthene, anthracene, pyrene etc.). Effects of these compounds are destruction of gill epithelia, erosion of skin layers, hypoxia and asphyxiation (Bowling et al., 1983). It is possible that Gobius cobitis could be similarly intolerant of hydrocarbons, however this is not known. | Not Assessed (NA)Help | Not assessed (NA)Help | Not assessed (NA)Help |
Synthetic compound contamination [Show more]Synthetic compound contaminationBenchmark. Exposure of marine species or habitat to one or more relevant contaminants via uncontrolled releases or incidental spills. Further detail EvidenceNot sensitive at the pressure benchmark that assumes compliance with all relevant environmental protection standards. Lindane is likely to bioaccumulate significantly and is considered to be highly toxic to fish (Cole et al., 1999). Ebere & Akintonwa (1992) conducted experiments on the toxicity of various pesticides to Gobius sp. They found Lindane and Diazinon to be very toxic, with 96 hr LC50s of 0.25 µg/l and 0.04 µg/l respectively. TBT is generally very toxic to algae and fish. However, toxicity of TBT is highly variable with 96-hr LC50 ranging from 1.5 to 36 µg/l, with larval stages being more intolerant than adults (Cole et al., 1999). PCBs are highly persistent in the water column and sediments, have the potential to bioaccumulate significantly and can be very toxic to marine invertebrates. However their toxicity to fish is not clear (Cole et al., 1999). | Not Assessed (NA)Help | Not assessed (NA)Help | Not assessed (NA)Help |
Radionuclide contamination [Show more]Radionuclide contaminationBenchmark. An increase in 10µGy/h above background levels. Further detail EvidenceNo evidence. | No evidence (NEv)Help | Not relevant (NR)Help | No evidence (NEv)Help |
Introduction of other substances [Show more]Introduction of other substancesBenchmark. Exposure of marine species or habitat to one or more relevant contaminants via uncontrolled releases or incidental spills. Further detail EvidenceNot sensitive at the pressure benchmark that assumes compliance with all relevant environmental protection standards. | Not Assessed (NA)Help | Not assessed (NA)Help | Not assessed (NA)Help |
De-oxygenation [Show more]De-oxygenationBenchmark. Exposure to dissolved oxygen concentration of less than or equal to 2 mg/l for one week (a change from WFD poor status to bad status). Further detail EvidenceTemperature and oxygen levels change drastically over a tidal cycle in a rockpool. Berschick et al. (1987) and Trouchot & Duhamel-Jouve (1980) stated that Gobius cobitis is well-adapted to the hypoxic and hyperoxic conditions that occur on a daily basis within intertidal rockpools (0.1 to 32.5 mg/l). Therefore the species has been recorded as being not sensitive (resistance and resilience are high) to deoxygenation at the pressure benchmark. | HighHelp | HighHelp | Not sensitiveHelp |
Nutrient enrichment [Show more]Nutrient enrichmentBenchmark. Compliance with WFD criteria for good status. Further detail EvidenceThis pressure relates to increased levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and silicon in the marine environment compared to background concentrations. The pressure benchmark is set at compliance with Water Framework Directive (WFD) criteria for good status, based on nitrogen concentration (UKTAG, 2014). Higher nutrient levels may encourage the growth of algae such as Ulva spp., Gobius cobitis, may feed on. A reduction in nutrients in order to meet the requirement for good status may reduce growth of Ulva spp. Ulva spp. are unlikely to be replaced by less palatable red and brown seaweeds as the upper shore rockpools with freshwater input that Gobius cobitis prefers are not suitable for these species. Freshwater inputs from land-run-off may also carry nutrients and support the growth of green algae. Gobius cobitis is a generalist feeder, with invertebrates, including terrestrial invertebrates such as chironomids, a part of the diet of gobies in undisturbed conditions (Compaire et al., 2016). The ability to switch diet to whatever food is readily available suggests that changes in nutrient level at the pressure benchmark are unlikely to affect this species. Sensitivity assessment. As Gobius cobitis is unlikely to be directly or indirectly impacted by changes in nutrient level at the pressure benchmark, resistance is assessed as ’High’, resilience as ‘High’ and this species is assessed as ‘Not sensitive’. | HighHelp | HighHelp | Not sensitiveHelp |
Organic enrichment [Show more]Organic enrichmentBenchmark. A deposit of 100 gC/m2/yr. Further detail EvidenceGobius cobitis is a generalist feeder, with the importance of algae vs invertebrates varying between studies (Compaire et al., 2016). Detritus does not form part of its diet and an increase in organic matter at the pressure benchmark is unlikely to directly affect this species, although it may increase secondary production of detritus feeding crustaceans and polychaetes that form part of its diet. Sensitivity assessment. Increases in organic matter at the pressure benchmark are unlikely to impact gobies. Resistance is, therefore, assessed as ‘High’ and resilience as ‘High’ (by default) so that this species is assessed as ‘Not sensitive’. | HighHelp | HighHelp | Not sensitiveHelp |
Physical Pressures
Use [show more] / [show less] to open/close text displayed
Resistance | Resilience | Sensitivity | |
Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat) [Show more]Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat)Benchmark. A permanent loss of existing saline habitat within the site. Further detail EvidenceAll marine habitats and benthic species are considered to have a resistance of ‘None’ to this pressure and to be unable to recover from a permanent loss of habitat (resilience is ‘Very Low’). Sensitivity within the direct spatial footprint of this pressure is therefore ‘High’. Although no specific evidence is described confidence in this assessment is ‘High’, due to the incontrovertible nature of this pressure. | NoneHelp | Very LowHelp | HighHelp |
Physical change (to another seabed type) [Show more]Physical change (to another seabed type)Benchmark. Permanent change from sedimentary or soft rock substrata to hard rock or artificial substrata or vice-versa. Further detail EvidenceGobius cobitis lives and forages on a variety of substrata. It requires rockpools in the intertidal to survive at low tide. The loss of hard substratum would remove the rock pool habitat of Gobius cobitis. Free draining sediments would not support this species and artificial hard substratum habitats may also differ in water retention from natural hard substratum, so that replacement of natural surfaces with artificial may lead to a loss of habitat. Sensitivity assessment. Based on the loss of suitable habitat, resistance is assessed as ‘None’, resilience is assessed as ‘Very Low’, as the change at the pressure benchmark is permanent and sensitivity is, therefore, ‘High’. | NoneHelp | Very LowHelp | HighHelp |
Physical change (to another sediment type) [Show more]Physical change (to another sediment type)Benchmark. Permanent change in one Folk class (based on UK SeaMap simplified classification). Further detail EvidenceGobius cobitis can forage on a variety of substrata but inhabits rock pools in the intertidal. This pressure is therefore ‘Not relevant’ as the species is not dependent on sedimentary habitats. | Not relevant (NR)Help | Not relevant (NR)Help | Not relevant (NR)Help |
Habitat structure changes - removal of substratum (extraction) [Show more]Habitat structure changes - removal of substratum (extraction)Benchmark. The extraction of substratum to 30 cm (where substratum includes sediments and soft rock but excludes hard bedrock). Further detail EvidenceGobius cobitis would be sensitive to the removal of the habitat. However, extraction of rock substratum is considered unlikely and this pressure is considered to be ‘Not relevant’ to hard substratum habitats. | Not relevant (NR)Help | Not relevant (NR)Help | Not relevant (NR)Help |
Abrasion / disturbance of the surface of the substratum or seabed [Show more]Abrasion / disturbance of the surface of the substratum or seabedBenchmark. Damage to surface features (e.g. species and physical structures within the habitat). Further detail EvidenceGobius cobitis is sufficiently mobile to avoid abrasive contact and to shelter from it, therefore it is unlikely to suffer from abrasion. | Not relevant (NR)Help | Not relevant (NR)Help | Not relevant (NR)Help |
Penetration or disturbance of the substratum subsurface [Show more]Penetration or disturbance of the substratum subsurfaceBenchmark. Damage to sub-surface features (e.g. species and physical structures within the habitat). Further detail EvidenceNot relevant to species occurring in rock habitats. | Not relevant (NR)Help | Not relevant (NR)Help | Not relevant (NR)Help |
Changes in suspended solids (water clarity) [Show more]Changes in suspended solids (water clarity)Benchmark. A change in one rank on the WFD (Water Framework Directive) scale e.g. from clear to intermediate for one year. Further detail EvidenceMoore (1977) indicated that an increase in siltation can have a negative effect on the growth of adult fish, survival of eggs and larvae and pathological effects on gill epithelia. Bottom-dwelling species are generally found to be tolerant of suspended solids (Moore, 1977). Juveniles have been reported as being more intolerant of siltation than adults (Moore, 1977). Therefore, a low intolerance to siltation has been recorded. Gobius cobitis is likely to be tolerant of a decrease in suspended sediment. An increase in suspended would result in a reduction in the amount of light penetration and, subsequently, a decrease in algal growth, however, other food sources (such as Crustacea and Polychaeta) would still be readily available. The minimum light intensity needed for the detection and recognition of food are of great importance in many species of fish (Kinne, 1970). For instance if the organism needs to spend more time foraging for food, its energy expenditure will increase and could possibly lead to growth and reproductive problems. In heavily turbid waters fish larvae have been noted to show a greater than normal mortality. Sensitivity assessment. Gobius cobitis is considered to be ‘Not sensitive’ to decreases in suspended solids. An increase in suspended solids may lead to some sublethal effects on feeding rates or reproductive success over the course of a year. Resistance is assessed as ‘High’ and resilience as ‘High’ by default so that this species is assessed as ‘Not sensitive’. | HighHelp | HighHelp | Not sensitiveHelp |
Smothering and siltation rate changes (light) [Show more]Smothering and siltation rate changes (light)Benchmark. ‘Light’ deposition of up to 5 cm of fine material added to the seabed in a single discrete event. Further detail EvidenceAs Gobius cobitis are mobile they may be able to avoid sediment deposition or to burrow out of a deposit of 5cm. However, a deposit of fine sediment in the preferred habitat of rockpools high on the shore is likely to have effects on habitat quality. Cordone & Kelley (1961) reported that (in a freshwater habitat) deposition of sediment on the bottom of the substratum would destroy needed shelter, reduce the availability of food, impair growth and lower the survival rate of eggs and larvae of fish. If sediment deposition occurred during the breeding season broods of eggs would be smothered. Sensitivity assessment. Resistance is assessed as ‘High’ based on mobility, resilience is assessed as ‘High’ by default and this species is assessed as ‘Not sensitive’. | HighHelp | HighHelp | Not sensitiveHelp |
Smothering and siltation rate changes (heavy) [Show more]Smothering and siltation rate changes (heavy)Benchmark. ‘Heavy’ deposition of up to 30 cm of fine material added to the seabed in a single discrete event. Further detail EvidenceNo evidence was found to assess this pressure. The deposition of 30cm of fine sediment in a high shore rockpool when the tide is out is likely to smother Gobius cobitis and result in loss of the habitat through infilling and the loss of prey species. In wave exposed conditions and pools on the lower shore the sediment may be removed, but in sheltered areas and the pools higher on the shore preferred by Gobius cobitis, sediments are likely to be retained for longer. Sensitivity assessment. Based on smothering of the population, resistance is assessed as ‘None’ and resilience as ‘Medium’. Sensitivity is, therefore assessed as ‘Medium’. | NoneHelp | MediumHelp | MediumHelp |
Litter [Show more]LitterBenchmark. The introduction of man-made objects able to cause physical harm (surface, water column, seafloor or strandline). Further detail EvidenceNot assessed. | Not Assessed (NA)Help | Not assessed (NA)Help | Not assessed (NA)Help |
Electromagnetic changes [Show more]Electromagnetic changesBenchmark. A local electric field of 1 V/m or a local magnetic field of 10 µT. Further detail EvidenceNo evidence. | No evidence (NEv)Help | Not relevant (NR)Help | No evidence (NEv)Help |
Underwater noise changes [Show more]Underwater noise changesBenchmark. MSFD indicator levels (SEL or peak SPL) exceeded for 20% of days in a calendar year. Further detail EvidenceNo evidence was found to assess sensitivity to noise at the pressure benchmark although it is likely that Gobius cobitis can sense noise as vibrations. Noise disturbance may lead to startle responses and hiding, disrupting feeding and other behaviours. Following disruption, normal activties are likely to resume. Sensitivity assessment. Noise may lead to some sub-lethal stress but not mortality. Resistance is, therefore, assesssed as 'High' and resilience as 'High' by (default) and this species is assessed as 'Not sensitive'. | HighHelp | HighHelp | Not sensitiveHelp |
Introduction of light or shading [Show more]Introduction of light or shadingBenchmark. A change in incident light via anthropogenic means. Further detail EvidenceFish generally forage for food using visual methods and can detect differing levels of light and shade. It is, therefore, probable that Gobius cobitis would detect changes in incident light. No evidence was found to assess this pressure. Changes in foraging activity and feeding rate may occur, either due to effects on the behaviour of Gobius cobitis or prey species. Sensitivity assessment. Introduction of light may lead to some sub-lethal stress but not mortality. Resistance is, therefore, assessed, as 'High' and resilience as 'High' by (default) and this species is assessed as 'Not sensitive'. | HighHelp | HighHelp | Not sensitiveHelp |
Barrier to species movement [Show more]Barrier to species movementBenchmark. A permanent or temporary barrier to species movement over ≥50% of water body width or a 10% change in tidal excursion. Further detail EvidenceNo evidence was found to assess this pressure. Gobius cobitis is typically found in rock pools high on the shore. Barriers that limit tidal excursion or extend across a waterbody are unlikely to directly impact Gobius cobitis and this pressure is assessed as 'Not relevant'. | Not relevant (NR)Help | Not relevant (NR)Help | Not relevant (NR)Help |
Death or injury by collision [Show more]Death or injury by collisionBenchmark. Injury or mortality from collisions of biota with both static or moving structures due to 0.1% of tidal volume on an average tide, passing through an artificial structure. Further detail EvidenceGobius cobitis are mobile and may be able to detect and avoid artificial structures. As they are demersal fish associated with rock pools and substratum rather than pelagic it is unlikely that there will be much potential interaction between gobies and the intakes of artificial structures (unless these create strong suction). This pressure is therefore assessed as 'Not relevant'. | Not relevant (NR)Help | Not relevant (NR)Help | Not relevant (NR)Help |
Visual disturbance [Show more]Visual disturbanceBenchmark. The daily duration of transient visual cues exceeds 10% of the period of site occupancy by the feature. Further detail EvidenceNo evidence was found to assess sensitivity to noise at the pressure benchmark although it is likely that visual disturbance may lead to startle responses and hiding, disrupting feeding and other behaviours. Following disruption, normal activities are likely to resume. Sensitivity assessment. Visual disturbance may lead to some sub-lethal stress but not mortality. Resistance is, therefore, assessed, as 'High' and resilience as 'High' by (default) and this species is assessed as 'Not sensitive'. | HighHelp | HighHelp | Not sensitiveHelp |
Biological Pressures
Use [show more] / [show less] to open/close text displayed
Resistance | Resilience | Sensitivity | |
Genetic modification & translocation of indigenous species [Show more]Genetic modification & translocation of indigenous speciesBenchmark. Translocation of indigenous species or the introduction of genetically modified or genetically different populations of indigenous species that may result in changes in the genetic structure of local populations, hybridization, or change in community structure. Further detail EvidenceGobius cobitis is not cultivated or translocated. This pressure is therefore considered ‘Not relevant’ to this species. | Not relevant (NR)Help | Not relevant (NR)Help | Not relevant (NR)Help |
Introduction or spread of invasive non-indigenous species [Show more]Introduction or spread of invasive non-indigenous speciesBenchmark. The introduction of one or more invasive non-indigenous species (INIS). Further detail EvidenceNo evidence was found for impacts of invasive non-indigenous species on Gobius cobitis. | No evidence (NEv)Help | Not relevant (NR)Help | No evidence (NEv)Help |
Introduction of microbial pathogens [Show more]Introduction of microbial pathogensBenchmark. The introduction of relevant microbial pathogens or metazoan disease vectors to an area where they are currently not present (e.g. Martelia refringens and Bonamia, Avian influenza virus, viral Haemorrhagic Septicaemia virus). Further detail EvidenceNo evidence was found to assess this impact in UK populations. The parasite, Haliotrema capensis, has been found in Gobius cobitis in the Mediterranean Sea (Sasal et al., 1998). Although no information was found about specific effects of this parasite on the giant goby, it is likely that it will cause a reduction in its fitness. | No evidence (NEv)Help | Not relevant (NR)Help | No evidence (NEv)Help |
Removal of target species [Show more]Removal of target speciesBenchmark. Removal of species targeted by fishery, shellfishery or harvesting at a commercial or recreational scale. Further detail EvidenceGobius cobitis is not commercially or recreationally harvested and this pressure is ‘Not relevant’. | Not relevant (NR)Help | Not relevant (NR)Help | Not relevant (NR)Help |
Removal of non-target species [Show more]Removal of non-target speciesBenchmark. Removal of features or incidental non-targeted catch (by-catch) through targeted fishery, shellfishery or harvesting at a commercial or recreational scale. Further detail EvidenceGobius cobitis can shelter within rockpool crevices and are mobile and able to move swiftly when disturbed. They are unlikely to be removed in large numbers by recreational or commercial harvesters using small hand-held nets to target other species such as shrimp are being targeted. Removal of algae and prey species may reduce food supply and some incidental damage or mortality may occur where other species are being targeted. Sensitivity assessment. Resistance is assessed as 'Medium' and resilience as 'High' so that sensitivity is assessed as 'Low'. | MediumHelp | HighHelp | LowHelp |
Importance review
Policy/legislation
Designation | Support |
---|---|
Wildlife & Countryside Act | Schedule 5, section 9 |
Features of Conservation Importance (England & Wales) | Yes |
Status
National (GB) importance | Not rare or scarce | Global red list (IUCN) category | - |
Non-native
Parameter | Data |
---|---|
Native | Native |
Origin | - |
Date Arrived | Not relevant |
Importance information
The giant goby is protected under the Wildlife Countryside Act 1981, Schedule 5. This means that the species is fully protected. You therefore cannot injure, kill or take it from the wild, possess it or control it and you may not disturb it in any way.Bibliography
Adey, W.H. & Adey, P.J., 1973. Studies on the biosystematics and ecology of the epilithic crustose corallinacea of the British Isles. British Phycological Journal, 8, 343-407.
Ankley, G.T., Erickson, R.J., Sheedy, B.R., Kosian, P.A., Mattson, V.R. & Cox, J.S., 1997. Evaluation of models for predicting the phototoxic potency of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Aquatic Toxicology, 37, 37-50.
Berschick, P., Bridges, C.R., & Grieshaber, M.K., 1987. The influence of hyperoxia, hypoxia and temperature on the respiratory physiology of the intertidal rockpool fish Gobius cobitis Pallas. Journal of Experimental Biology, 130, 369-387.
Bowling, J.W., Leversee, G.J., Landrum, P.F. & Giesy, J.P., 1983. Acute mortality of anthracene-contaminated fish exposed to sunlight. Aquatic Toxicology, 3, 79-90.
Cordone, A.J. & Kelley, D.W., 1961. The influences of inorganic sediment on the aquatic life of streams. California Fish Game, 47, 189-228.
Crisp, D.J. (ed.), 1964. The effects of the severe winter of 1962-63 on marine life in Britain. Journal of Animal Ecology, 33, 165-210.
Ebere, A.G. & Akintonwa, A., 1992. Acute toxicity of pesticides to Gobius sp., Palaemonetes africanus, and Desmocaris trispimosa. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 49, 588-592.
Eno, N.C., Clark, R.A. & Sanderson, W.G. (ed.) 1997. Non-native marine species in British waters: a review and directory. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
Faria, C. & Almada, V., 1999. Variation and resilience of rocky intertidal fish in western Portugal. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 184, 197-203.
Faria, C., Almada, V. & Do Carmo Nunes, M., 1998. Patterns of agonistic behaviour, shelter occupation and habitat preference in juvenile Lipophrys pholis, Coryphoblennius galerita and Gobius cobitis. Journal of Fish Biology, 53, 6, 1263-1273.
Froese, R. & Pauly, D. (ed.), 2000a. Species summary for Gobius cobitis, giant goby. http://www.fishbase.org, 2001-02-22
Gibson, R.N., 1970. Observations on the biology of the giant goby, Gobius cobitis Pallas. Journal of Fish Biology,2, 281-288.
Gil, M.F., Goncalves, E.J., Faria, C., Almada, V.C., Baptista, C., Carreiro, H., 1997. Embryonic and larval development of the giant goby, Gobius cobitis. Journal of Natural History, 31, 5, 799-804.
Hayward, P., Nelson-Smith, T. & Shields, C. 1996. Collins pocket guide. Sea shore of Britain and northern Europe. London: HarperCollins.
Horn, M.H. & Gibson, R.N., 1990. Effects of temperature on the food processing of three species of seaweed-eating fishes from the European coastal waters. Journal of Fish Biology, 37, 237-247.
Howson, C.M. & Picton, B.E., 1997. The species directory of the marine fauna and flora of the British Isles and surrounding seas. Belfast: Ulster Museum. [Ulster Museum publication, no. 276.]
Kinne, O. (ed.), 1970. Marine Ecology: A Comprehensive Treatise on Life in Oceans and Coastal Waters. Vol. 1 Environmental Factors Part 1. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons
Kinne, O. (ed.), 1984. Marine Ecology: A Comprehensive, Integrated Treatise on Life in Oceans and Coastal Waters.Vol. V. Ocean Management Part 3: Pollution and Protection of the Seas - Radioactive Materials, Heavy Metals and Oil. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Miller, P.J., 1986. Gobiidae. P. 1019 - 1085. Fishes of the North-eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. In Whitehead, P.J.P., Bauchot, M.-L., Hureau, J.C., Nielson, J., & Tortonese, E. (eds.), Paris: UNESCO, vol. 3
Moore, P.G., 1977a. Inorganic particulate suspensions in the sea and their effects on marine animals. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review, 15, 225-363.
Mueller, D., 1979. Sublethal and lethal effects of copper, cadmium and lead to organisms representative for the intertidal flats at the outer Elbe Estuary. Archiv fur hydrobiologie, supplement 43 (2-3), 289-346.
Oertzen, J.-A., Wulf, D. & Bruegmann, L., 1988. Ecotoxicological effects of two mercury compounds on Neomysis integer (Leach) and Pomatoschistus microps (Kroyer). Kieler Meeresforschungen Sonderheft, 6, 414-123.
Pallas, P.S., 1831. Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica, sistens omnium animalium in extenso Imperio Rossico et adjacentibus maribus observatorum recensionem, domicilia, mores et descriptiones anatomen atque icones plurimorum. Volume 3., pp. i-vii + 1-428 + index (I-CXXV). Petropoli: Academiae Scientiarum.
Potts, G.W. & Swaby, S.E., 1992. The current status of the giant goby, Gobius cobitis Pallas in the British Isles. , Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Unpublished report no. 99 F2A 059.
Sasal, P., Pages, J.R. & Euzet, L., 1998. Haliotrema cupensis n. sp. (Monogena, Ancyrocephalidae) from a marine gobiid (Teleostei, Perciformes) of the Mediterranean coast. Systematic Parasitology, 39, 107-112.
Thorson, G., 1964. Light as an ecological factor in the dispersal and settlement of larvae.
Truchot, J.P. & Duhamel-Jouve, A., 1980. Oxygen and carbon dioxide in the marine environment: Diurnal and tidal changes in rockpools. Respiratory Physiology, 39, 241-254.
Wheeler, A., 1993. The distribution of Gobius cobitis in the British Isles. Journal of Fish Biology, 43, 4, 652-655.
Wheeler, A., 1994. Field Key to the Shore Fishes of the British Isles. Shrewsbury: Field Studies Council.
WHO (World Health Organization), 1989. Mercury - Environmental Aspects. Environmental Health Criteria No. 86. Geneva: World Health Organization., Geneva: World Health Organization.
WHO (World Health Organization), 1991. Mercury - inorganic - Environmental Aspects. Environmental Health Criteria No. 118. Geneva: World Health Organization., Geneva: World Health Organization.
- Compaire, J.C., Cabrera, R., Gómez-Cama, C. and Soriguer, M.C., 2016. Trophic relationships, feeding habits and seasonal dietary changes in an intertidal rockpool fish assemblage in the Gulf of Cadiz (NE Atlantic). Journal of Marine Systems, 158, 165-172.
Datasets
Fenwick, 2018. Aphotomarine. Occurrence dataset http://www.aphotomarine.com/index.html Accessed via NBNAtlas.org on 2018-10-01
NBN (National Biodiversity Network) Atlas. Available from: https://www.nbnatlas.org.
OBIS (Ocean Biodiversity Information System), 2024. Global map of species distribution using gridded data. Available from: Ocean Biogeographic Information System. www.iobis.org. Accessed: 2024-11-02
Citation
This review can be cited as:
Last Updated: 31/03/2017