The Rise of Carp and The Fall of Game Fish, by Don Orth

The Common Carp Cyprinus carpio is a symbol of courage and perseverance in China. It makes spring spawning runs up large rivers, provides food via pond polyculture, and provides inspiration in ornamental displays and garden ponds.  Japanese and Chinese admire the carp as a symbol of good luck and strength.   Common Carp were introduced to Austria and Germany in the 13^th century and brought to England in 1496 to feed the nobles and royals. Their introduction to North America in 1887 is attributed to Spencer Fullerton Baird, the US Fisheries Commissioner. At that time indiscriminate logging, soil erosion, wetland drainage, and overharvest of native fish created a fisheries crisis that was to be solved by introduction of new species. 

However, Common Carp had already been introduced to North America by private persons in the 1830s (Moyle and Kuehn 1964). Julius A. Poppe had transferred carp from Germany to Sonoma, California, in 1872 to support the growing fish farming industry (Buffler and Dickson 2009).  Spencer Baird allowed widespread introductions because “Their instinct for domestication has already been established--and there is no reason why time should be lost on less proven species.” Common Carp were raised in ponds to feed a hungry nation and they quickly escaped to public waters.  As early as 1883 Common Carp were caught by hook and line from the Mississippi River near Quincy, Illinois, and Milton Trautman noted a decrease in wild celery and wild rice in shallow waters of Lake Erie (Moyle and Kuehne 1964).   

The author circa 1985 with typical New River Common Carp.

The rise of carp in North America actually followed the fall of many important game fishes, such as bluegill and walleye.  The fall of the game fish was due to land use changes that made lakes and rivers warmer and more turbid than the game fish preferred.  Our land use practices created more waters well suited for carp, and we quickly had carp in abundance.   Commercial catches of Common Carp in the Mississippi River fed millions of Americans. The answer to abundant carp was Carpe carpium or “Seize the carp” but Common Carp numbers far exceeded the demand.  In Europe, Common Carp are highly valued target of recreational fishers and specialized carp anglers harvest more carp than commercial fisheries (Arlinghaus and Mehner 2003). However, many more recreational fishing targets are available in North America and efforts to entice more anglers to fish for carp are slowly evolving (Buffler and Dickson 2009).  Fly fishers entice anglers by referring to them as freshwater bonefish and providing tips for catching more carp.

Common Carp head on by Arctic Wolf Flickr 

It is safe to conclude that the rise of the carp created more problems than fishing boons.  Common Carp are opportunistic feeders and remove desirable beds of submerged aquatic vegetation, compete with game fish for food, reduce aquatic insects such as dragonflies, and continuously resuspend bottom sediments.   The Common Carp is an effective ecosystem engineer transforming a clear lake or backwater with a diverse community of submerged and emergent vegetation into a turbid eyesore with fewer bluegill and bass.

 

 Common Carp among vegetation bed.  Photo Chesapeake Bay Program.  

This story about Neosho Mill Pond and Pike Lake is a familiar one.  Bass anglers on Pike Lake began using small Common Carp for bait, threw leftover bait overboard, and Common Carp established a reproducing population in this small Wisconsin lake.  When the Pike Lake dam failed Common Carp appeared in the downstream Neosho Mill Pond.   The well-vegetated, clear pond waters were transformed to a muddy, turbid pond dominated by the Common Carp.   When the lake was drained in 1924, Alvin Cahn (1929) did not find a single water plant on the exposed lake bottom! Rounded depressions a quarter-inch deep covered the entire lake bottom.  These ‘carp mumblings’ were impressions of the mouth of the Common Carp, made as the fish sucked the soft muck in search of food.  With the loss of rooted vegetation, game fish lost their favorite habitats. Alvin Cahn seined the concentrated waters of Neosho Mill Pond after the draining and identified 6,006 individuals, 5,891 (98%) were Common Carp, weighing 37,750 pounds.  Lakes of southern Wisconsin without Common Carp had extensive beds of Potamogeton pondweeds, Ceratophyllum hornwort, Nymphaea water lily, and patches of the emergent Saggitaria arrowhead and abundant sunfish, Largemouth Bass, and Northern Pike.   

Since Alvin Cahn’s description of ‘carp as a dominant,’ numerous investigations have confirmed the role of Common Carp on lake ecosystems (Wilson 1958; Moyle & Kuehn, 1964; Lougheed et al. 1998; Weber and Brown 2011; Vilizzi et al. 2015; Bajer 2016, 2018).  Common Carp dominate in many diverse lake and river types due to their mobility, fecundity,  and longevity. Their subterminal mouth protrudes downward allowing even small Common Carp to dig in sediments to a depth of 15 cm (Crivelli 1983). A highly sensitive gustatory system and efficient filtering allow carp to feed on most benthic invertebrates and plant seeds (Crivelli 1981). When carp biomass exceeds ~ 190 kg/ha, aquatic plants decline and water turbidity increases (Vilizzi et al. 2015; Bajer et al. 2016). The benthic foraging behavior reduces richness of benthic invertebrates, macrophytes, resuspends sediments and nutrients, increases turbidity, alters phytoplankton and zooplankton communities, and reduces sport fish (Lougheed et al. 1998; Weber and Brown 2009; Bajer et al 2018).   

Conceptual model of the effects of Common Carp on freshwater ecosystems. Weber and Brown (2009). 

In large open systems removal of Common Carp is not feasible. In these locations, incentives to harvest by angling or bowfishing should be in place.  In lakes and ponds the “remove and restock’ solution may be feasible (Weber and Brown 2009).  Though one may expect that the effects of eutrophication and carp are often intertwined (Weber et al. 2011; Vilizzi et al. 2015; Bajer et al., 2016), carp removal experiments show rapid recovery of macrophytes (Bajer et al. 2018).

Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil (foreground) and Vallisneria americana wild celery (background).   Photo by Will Parson, Chesapeake Bay program 

Although it may be an expensive undertaking, the ‘remove-and-restock’ option provides many benefits.  To paraphrase Thoreau, we fish all our lives without knowing it is not fish we are after. Being outdoors and enjoying nature is one of the primary reasons people fish.   The surroundings are important.  After carp removal, bottom sediments were more stable and clarity increased in Lake Wingra, Wisconsin (Lin and Wu 2013). Macrophytes responded favorably to carp removal in Lake Susan in Minnesota (Knopik 2014).  Clean clear water, diverse types of emergent and submerged vegetation, swallows and dragonflies swooping over the lake, and frogs croaking all will heighten the outdoor experiences.  Common Carp removal from turbid lakes can decrease internal nutrient cycling, increase water transparency, restore aquatic macrophytes and clear water (Weber and Brown 2009).   Restoration of a diverse plant assemblage will provide shelter for small fishes, and enhance abundance of certain macroinvertebrates (Miller and Crowl 2006; Nieoczym and Kloskowski 2015).  Restoration of lakes and ponds to a more desirable state is possible if one considers the entire ecosystems and employes multiple techniques for Common Carp removal (Weber and Brown 2009).

References

Arlinghaus, R., and T. Mehner. 2003. Socio-economic characterisation of specialised common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) anglers in Germany, and implications for inland fisheries management and eutrophication control.  Fisheries Research 61:19-33.

Bajer, P. G., M. W. Beck, T. K. Cross, J. D. Koch, W. M. Bar- todziej & P. W. Sorensen, 2016. Biological invasion by a benthivorous fish reduced the cover and species richness of aquatic plants in most lakes of a large North American ecoregion. Global Change Biology 22: 3937–3947.

Bajer, P.G., M.W. Beck, and P. J. Hundt. 2018. Effect of non-native versus native invaders on macrophyte richness: are carp and bullheads ecological proxies? Hydrobiologia https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-018-3592-1

Buffler, R., and T. Dickson. 2009.  Carp.  Pages 67-98 in Fishing for Buffalo: A Guide to the Pursuit and Cuisine of Carp, Suckers, Eelpout, Gar, and Other Rough Fish. University of Minnesota Press 224 pp.

Cahn, A. R., 1929. The effects of carp on a small lake: the carp as a dominant. Ecology 10: 271–274.

Crivelli, A.J. 1981. The biology of the common carp, Cyprinus carpio L. in the Camargue, southern France. Journal of Fish Biology 18: 271–290.

Crivelli, A.J. 1983. The destruction of aquatic vegetation by carp: a comparison between southern France and the United States. Hydrobiologia 106: 37–41.

Knopik, J.M. 2014. Aquatic macrophyte response to carp removal and the success of transplanting aquatic macrophytes to restore the littoral community.  Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota.  106 pp.

Lin, Y-T., and C.H. Wu. 2013. Response of bottom sediment stability after carp removal in a small lake.  Annales de Limnologie 49:157-168.

Lougheed, V. L., B. Crosbie and P. Chow-Fraser. 1998. Predictions on the effect of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) exclusion on water quality, zooplankton, and submergent macrophytes in a Great Lakes wetland. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55(5): 1189–1197.

Moyle, J.B., and J.H. Kuehn. 1964. Carp, a sometimes villain. Pages 635-642 in J.P. Linduska, editor. Waterfowl Tomorrow.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Nieoczym, M., and J. Kloskowski. 2015. Responses of epibenthic and nektonic macroinvertebrate communities to a gradient of fish size in ponds.  Journal of Limnology 74:50-62.

Vilizzi, L., A. S. Tarkan and G. H. Copp, 2015. Experimental evidence from causal criteria analysis for the effects of common carp Cyprinus carpio on freshwater ecosystems: a global perspective. Reviews in Fisheries Science and Aquaculture 23: 253–290.

Weber, M.J., and M.L. Brown. 2009. Effects of common carp on aquatic ecosystems 80 years after “carp as a dominant”: ecological insights for fisheries management. Reviews in Fisheries Science 17:524-537.

Weber, M. J. & M. L. Brown, 2011. Relationships among invasive common carp, native fishes and physicochemical characteristics in upper Midwest (USA) lakes. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 20: 270–278.

Wilson, J. N., 1958. The limnology of certain prairie lakes in Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist 59(2): 418–437.