Not all carp are created equal: Impacts of broadband sound on common carp swimming behavior

Murchy, Kelsie A.; Vetter, Brooke J.; Brey, Marybeth K.; Amberg, Jon J.; Gaikowski, Mark P.; Mensinger, Allen F.

doi:10.1121/2.0000314

Cited by 15 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study also provides new information on acoustic behavior of the common carp, which is highly invasive in shallow water ecosystems. Common carp were similarly, albeit less responsive to complex sound than bighead and silver carp, as has been noted previously [ 55 ]. All three species exhibited a similar tendency to move parallel to the particle acceleration vectors out to a distance of 60 cm from the speaker.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

Silver, bighead, and common carp orient to acoustic particle motion when avoiding a complex sound

Zielinski

Sorensen

2017

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavioral responses of silver carp (Hypopthalmichthys molitrix), bighead carp (H. nobilis), and common carp (Cyprinus carpio) to a complex, broadband sound were tested in the absence of visual cues to determine whether these species are negatively phonotaxic and the roles that sound pressure and particle motion might play mediating this response. In a dark featureless square enclosure, groups of 3 fish were tracked and the distance of each fish from speakers and their swimming trajectories relative to sound pressure and particle acceleration were analyzed before, and then while an outboard motor sound was played. All three species exhibited negative phonotaxis during the first two exposures after which they ceased responding. The median percent time fish spent near the active speaker for the first two trials decreased from 7.0% to 1.3% for silver carp, 7.9% to 1.1% for bighead carp, and 9.5% to 3% for common carp. Notably, when close to the active speaker fish swam away from the source and maintained a nearly perfect 0° orientation to the axes of particle acceleration. Fish did not enter sound fields greater than 140 dB (ref. 1 μPa). These results demonstrate that carp avoid complex sounds in darkness and while initial responses may be informed by sound pressure, sustained oriented avoidance behavior is likely mediated by particle motion. This understanding of how invasive carp use particle motion to guide avoidance could be used to design new acoustic deterrents to divert them in dark, turbid river waters.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

Silver, bighead, and common carp orient to acoustic particle motion when avoiding a complex sound

Zielinski

Sorensen

2017

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Coincidentally, this sound level corresponded with a maximum SPL RMS of 145 dB re 1 uPa (Supplemental Figure 1 available in the online version of this article), similar to the SPL RMS used by others (Vetter et al 2015;Murchy et al 2016;Zielinski and Sorensen 2017). Percent time that groups of Common Carp spent in the 20-m active zone during the pretest and test periods were then square root transformed to meet the assumptions of homogeneity of variance and normality.…”

Section: Management Briefmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…They were then given overnight (>16 h) to recover before tests 3 and 4 were conducted following the same protocol. These recovery periods between tests were on average 7–8 h long, longer than those used in other sound studies (approximately 30 min [Zielinski and Sorensen 2017], 60–270 min [Murchy et al 2016], and 6 h [Wamboldt et al 2019]). After four tests, fish were allowed to leave the chamber by lifting the blocking net (their absence was confirmed by the real‐time tracking system), archived data was downloaded for analysis, and another group of five Common Carp was captured and added.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…It was then allowed to play for 15 min. This strategy of waiting until fish were approaching the sound source followed that used by others (Vetter et al 2015; Murchy et al 2016; Zielinski and Sorensen 2017) and ensured that most Common Carp were exposed to sound in the same manner, and in a way they could not anticipate. We chose to wait until a majority (versus just one) of the Common Carp was within this activation zone because, unlike bigheaded carps, Common Carp do not school but shoal loosely (Ghosal et al 2016).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, several laboratory studies have shown that both bigheaded carps and Common Carp avoid various types of broadband (i.e., sounds which include low and high frequencies) and complex sounds (i.e., sounds which contain multiple frequencies). Most of this work has focused on the responses of bigheaded carps to outboard motor sounds, but all three species have been shown to be repelled in similar manners, and although Common Carp may be slightly less deterred, they habituate less rapidly (Murchy et al 2016; Zielinski and Sorensen 2017; Dennis et al 2019). Vetter et al (2015) were the first to show that when bigheaded carps are held in a well‐lit outdoor raceway they can be repeatedly repelled by short bursts (<30 s) of a 100‐horsepower (hp) outboard motor sound (10–10,000 Hz).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Common Carp Are Initially Repelled by a Broadband Outboard Motor Sound in a Lock Chamber but Habituate Rapidly

Dennis

Sorensen

2020

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Projecting sound into navigational locks has been suggested as a promising way to block the upstream movement of invasive species of carp (family Cyprinidae). This possibility is promising because carp have a good sense of hearing compared to non-ostariophysian fishes. Although the broadband sound of an outboard motor has been shown to repel several species of carp in laboratory arenas, its efficacy in a navigational lock is unknown. This study tested whether wild-caught Common Carp Cyprinus carpio are repelled by this sound in a lock chamber in a similar manner to that observed in laboratory studies. We found that while the sound of a 40-hp outboard motor repelled Common Carp in a lock the first time it was tested, the fish stopped responding after that, suggesting that they had habituated. This result differed from that of a laboratory study that used the same sound at the same volume and found responses to persist for three exposures before dissipating. Many factors, including the use of wild Common Carp already familiar with outboard motor sounds and differences in background noise, may have been responsible for differences between laboratory and field results. There is a need for more field tests using other sounds and carp species.

show abstract

Deterring the Movement of an Invasive Fish: Individual Variation in Common Carp Responses to Acoustic and Stroboscopic Stimuli

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological invasions erode ecosystem functioning and occur more frequently in freshwater ecosystems than in terrestrial environments. Nonphysical deterrents may be used to limit invasive fish dispersal, without altering the streamflow or connectivity of a watershed. Little is currently known about how behavioral variation among individuals may affect the efficacy of a deterrent, although such variation has been shown to affect fish dispersal in other contexts, such as range expansion. Furthermore, deterrent effectiveness is rarely tested when fish are motivated to disperse. Across a control, CO2, and CO2 + deterrent treatment, we quantified the avoidance response of invasive Common Carp Cyprinus carpio to a combined acoustic‐stroboscopic deterrent. In the CO2 treatment, we motivated individuals to enter a novel environment by degrading the home chamber of a choice arena with a continuous infusion of CO2. In the CO2 + deterrent treatment we introduced acoustic and stroboscopic stimuli to delay the departure of the fish and evaluate the efficacy of the deterrent. Finally, we tested a subset of the fish multiple times to determine whether they consistently responded to the same concentration of CO2. We found that the acoustic and stroboscopic deterrent could detain the fish in an increasingly unfavorable environment. Common Carp took only 195 and 131 s, respectively, to swim between the chambers during the control and CO2 treatment but took an average of 596 s in the CO2 + deterrent treatment. High CO2 concentrations in the CO2 + deterrent treatment led to most fish eventually dispersing toward the deterrent stimuli. Avoidance behavior varied widely within the CO2 + deterrent treatment, and Common Carp expressed repeatable differences in the tank‐inflow CO2 concentrations that were observed during chamber departure. Such interindividual variation in deterrent avoidance indicates that some individuals within a given species are more likely to move past a deterrent than others.

show abstract

Not all carp are created equal: Impacts of broadband sound on common carp swimming behavior

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

Silver, bighead, and common carp orient to acoustic particle motion when avoiding a complex sound

Silver, bighead, and common carp orient to acoustic particle motion when avoiding a complex sound

Common Carp Are Initially Repelled by a Broadband Outboard Motor Sound in a Lock Chamber but Habituate Rapidly

Deterring the Movement of an Invasive Fish: Individual Variation in Common Carp Responses to Acoustic and Stroboscopic Stimuli

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About