Common carp in the Upper Mississippi River

Abstract

Since its escapement into the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) and rapid expansion in the late 1900's, the common carp, Cyprinus carpio, has become a major component of the river fishery. Mean annual harvest value for this species was $270000 between 1953 and 1977. Recent evidence suggests that common carp may not be as abundant in the river as they have been in the past. We summarized historical commerical information on common carp in the UMR to put its current harvest levels in perspective. A major factor responsible for recent low annual harvests has been PCB contamination of the river in the Lake Pepin area. Market and biological factors probably have also contributed to declining harvests. To help explain why common carp populations in the UMR may be declining, we reviewed literature pertaining to the ecology of the species, particularly that from the river, its tributaries, or midwestern lakes. We included information on how common carp are controlled by environmental factors, and how they interact with other biota. Most aspects of carp ecology in the UMR and other areas are similar. Exceptions relate primarily to their response to annual water level regimes of the river. We postulate that population declines and absent year classes in the UMR may be related to poor recruitment during high-or variable-water years.

Effects of flow regulation on carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) recruitment in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia

“…The high numbers of sub-adult carp sampled in unregulated lowlands compared to slope sites during summer support other studies showing that adult carp typically seek warm (17 C and above), slow-flowing waters for spawning, such as the floodplain waters and river backwaters abundant in lowland alluvial river catchments (e.g. McCrimmon, 1968;Lubinski et al, 1986;Balon, 1995). Overwintering in deeper waters could have influenced these findings, but overwintering behaviour is better documented for climates where water temperatures drop below 0 C during winter (e.g.…”

“…Welcomme, 1985;Gehrke et al, 1995). Additionally, North American studies have shown that carp spawn more successfully during non-flood years (Lubinski et al, 1986;Johnson and Dropkin, 1994) and that adult carp rapidly move into backwaters to avoid mortality from high-energy flows (Brown et al, 2001). Conversely, Australian native fish have a survival advantage in more-variable flows (Gehrke et al, 1995;Puckridge et al, 2000).…”

“…Young-of-the-year (YOY) carp were between 0 and 100 mm FL. Carp between 0 and 100 mm FL tend to be one year old or less (Crivelli, 1981;Fernández-Delgado, 1990;Villizi and Walker, 1999) and were likely to have a strong association with the sampled reach because they tend to remain among shallow vegetated margins (McCrimmon, 1968;Lubinski et al, 1986). The second group, 'juvenile' carp (101-300 mm FL), were studied because reaches that support more recruitment to sexual maturity in the longer term would not be well represented by YOY carp.…”

“…Flow regulation has pervasive effects on riverine fish communities, often favouring generalist species like carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) (Welcomme, 1985;Lubinski et al, 1986;Gehrke et al, 1995). Carp abundance (numbers or biomass per unit-effort or unit-area) is often highest in regulated lowland streams, but this might not accurately reflect net recruitment (hereafter 'recruitment'), or the addition of individuals to a population through birth or immigration less losses to death or emigration (sensu Begon et al, 1996).…”

Developing a shared understanding of the Upper Mississippi River: the foundation of an ecological resilience assessment

“…The invasive common carp (Cyprinus carpio), found throughout the UMRS, are well known to uproot aquatic vegetation and increase turbidity while foraging (Lubinski et al 1986). At high biomass levels, common carp have exhibited negative impacts on both aquatic vegetation and waterfowl abundance in shallow lakes (Bajer et al 2009) and likely have impacts on the native fish community through resource competition (Howell et al 2014).…”