Cyprinus carpio (Common carp): WelfareCheck|farm

Distribution

IUCN Red List status

vulnerable

Information

Authors: Caroline Marques Maia, Maria Filipa Castanheira
Version: C | 2.0 (2023-07-19)

Reviewers: Jenny Volstorf, María J. Cabrera-Álvarez
Editor: Jenny Volstorf

Initial release: 2017-06-03
Version information:

Appearance: C
Last major update: 2023-07-19

Cite as: »Marques Maia, Caroline, and Maria Filipa Castanheira. 2023. Cyprinus carpio (WelfareCheck | farm). In: fair-fish database, ed. fair-fish. World Wide Web electronic publication. First published 2017-06-03. Version C | 2.0. https://fair-fish-database.net.«

WelfareScore | farm

Cyprinus carpio

LiPoCe

Criteria

Home range

Depth range

Migration

Reproduction

Aggregation

Aggression

Substrate

Stress

Malformations

Slaughter

Legend

Condensed assessment of the species' likelihood and potential for good fish welfare in aquaculture, based on ethological findings for 10 crucial criteria.

Li = Likelihood that the individuals of the species experience good welfare under minimal farming conditions
Po = Potential of the individuals of the species to experience good welfare under high-standard farming conditions
Ce = Certainty of our findings in Likelihood and Potential

WelfareScore = Sum of criteria scoring "High" (max. 10)

High

Medium

Low

Unclear

No findings

General remarks

Cyprinus carpio is a widespread freshwater fish that is able to survive a wide range of water quality. It has been introduced into so many countries that it reached the status of a virtually global fish and is included in the list of the world's 100 worst invasive species. The native wild populations are considered vulnerable to extinction by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The hybridisation with the also invasive Carassius auratus probably increases its invasive potential due to enhanced genetic diversity. In aquaculture, the main production countries are located in Asia, such as China and Indonesia. It is commonly raised in EXTENSIVE or SEMI-INTENSIVE polycultures with Asian cyprinids, and its culture is fish meal independent, being mainly based on cereals. C. carpio is the oldest reared species, being the most commonly cultured and the third most significant fish species in the world production. However, there is still missing information for LARVAE, FRY, and SPAWNERS of this species about natural aggregation patterns, malformations, and home range, besides stress response and aggression under farming conditions. C. carpio is stressed by common farming procedures like transportation, crowding, and confinement. Moreover, as the demand for frozen or processed products is low, C. carpio is commonly sold in a fresh, live form on markets, thus probably slaughtered by asphyxia or hyporthermia, which is detrimental to its welfare.

1 Home range

Many species traverse in a limited horizontal space (even if just for a certain period of time per year); the home range may be described as a species' understanding of its environment (i.e., its cognitive map) for the most important resources it needs access to.

What is the probability of providing the species' whole home range in captivity?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as the range in captivity at least overlaps with the range in the wild. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as wild information in LARVAE, FRY, and SPAWNERS is missing.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

WILD: short-distance movements 3.
FARM: traditional spawning ponds: 500-600 m² 4. LARVAE: holding jars: 50-200 L 5. FRY rearing ponds: 100-5,000 m² 6; RAS: 132 L 7. For carps in general, earthen ponds: 100-1,000 m² 4; tanks: 1.4 m² (1.2 x 1.2 m) 4. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to C. carpio as well.
LAB: does not apply.

JUVENILES:

WILD: non-native waters: 0.003-10.6 km/d, totaling 0.03-4.0 km² 8, core area: 10-50 m with occasional visits of up to 860 m and of 10-70 m with occasional visits up to 600 m for translocated IND 9.
FARM: ponds: for FINGERLINGS: 0.005-0.02 km² 6, for fattening: 0.05-0.1 km² 6, for market size production: >0.05 km² 6, specialised for wintering: 0.0006-0.002 km² 6, for storage: 0.002-0.1 km² 6. Tanks of RAS: 500 L 10. Net pens 11.
LAB: does not apply.

ADULTS:

WILD: non-native waters: 0.003-10.6 km/d, totaling 0.03-4.0 km² 8, core area: 10-50 m with occasional visits of up to 860 m and of 10-70 m with occasional visits up to 600 m for translocated IND 9, daily core area: average 0.07 km² during day or night 12.
FARM: ponds: for market size production: >0.05 km² 6, specialised for wintering: 0.0006-0.002 km² 6, 0.0006-0.001 m² 5 (for ADULTS to become SPAWNERS), for storage: 0.002-0.1 km² 6.
LAB: does not apply.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: for ADULTS to become SPAWNERS ➝ ADULTS. Traditional spawning ponds: 25-30 m² 4, 64 m² (8 x 8 m) 4, 120-300 m² 6, 1,000 m² 5; breeding hapa with aquatic vegetation 4; more recent spawning ponds: 10,000-20,000 m² 5. For carps in general, earthen ponds: 20-30 m or 2,000-25,000 m² 4; storage tanks: 200 m² (10 x 20 m), 450 m² (15 x 30 m) 4; breeding tanks: 3.8 m² (2.5 x 1.5 m), 8 m² (4 x 2 m), 18.8 m² (7.5 x 2.5 m), 2 m ∅ 4. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to C. carpio as well.
LAB: does not apply.

2 Depth range

Given the availability of resources (food, shelter) or the need to avoid predators, species spend their time within a certain depth range.

What is the probability of providing the species' whole depth range in captivity?

It is low for minimal farming conditions, as some ponds do not cover the whole range in the wild. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as other ponds overlap with the range in the wild, although we cannot be sure in FRY and ADULTS. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as farm information for FRY and ADULTS has to be confirmed for C. carpio.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

WILD: LARVAE: for spawning depth ➝ SPAWNERS. FRY: non-native waters: 0.2-1 m 13.
FARM: for carps in general, earthen ponds: 0.5-1.2 m 4; tanks: 1.2 m 4. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to C. carpio as well. FRY: wintering ponds: small and deep 5.
LAB: does not apply.

JUVENILES:

WILD: live in middle and lower reaches of rivers and shallow conﬁned waters 14. Non-native waters: BENTHIC 15, 0-25 m 8 16, mean: 0.7-1.3 m during spring and autumn 17, caught more in the littoral in spring and deeper in winter 16.
FARM: ponds: 1-1.5 m in Europe and subtropical regions, 2-2.5 m in hot climate 6, shallow in Europe 14, wintering ponds: small and deep 5.
LAB: does not apply.

ADULTS:

WILD: live in middle and lower reaches of rivers and shallow conﬁned waters 14. Non-native waters: BENTHIC 15, 0-25 m 8 16, mean: 1.5-3.2 m 17, preference of <1 m in a warm-water discharge canal 18, moved deeper in autumn (mean 2.2 m) and winter (mean 2.3 m) than in spring (mean 1.7 m) and summer (mean 1.6 m) 17, caught more in the littoral in spring 16.
FARM: ponds: 1-1.5 m in Europe and subtropical regions, 2-2.5 m in hot climate 6, shallow in Europe 14, deep earthen ponds 5 (for ADULTS to become SPAWNERS).
LAB: does not apply.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: spawning depth: shallow waters 19 5 of 0.3-0.5 m 20. Non-native waters: usually 0-10 m during the day, 0-5 m during the night, but registered at ≤17 m depth 21, spawning in shallow waters 15 of 0.2-1.7 m 17 13, mean 1.5-1.6 m 17.
FARM: for ADULTS to become SPAWNERS ➝ ADULTS. Breeding ponds: <1 m 22. Traditional spawning ponds: 0.5-0.7 m 4, 0.3-0.6 m 6; more recent spawning ponds: shallow 5. For carps in general, earthen ponds: 1.0-2.5 m or deeper depending on climate zone 4; storage tanks: 1.0-1.5 m 4; breeding tanks: 1 m 4. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to C. carpio as well.
LAB: does not apply.

3 Migration

Some species undergo seasonal changes of environments for different purposes (feeding, spawning, etc.), and to move there, they migrate for more or less extensive distances.

What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the migrating or habitat-changing behaviour of the species?

It is low for minimal farming conditions, as JUVENILES, ADULTS, and – in some populations – SPAWNERS undertake more or less extensive migrations, and we cannot be sure that providing each age class with their respective environmental conditions will satisfy their urge to migrate or whether they need to experience the transition. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as in some populations at least SPAWNERS do not migrate and the range in captivity potentially overlaps with the migration distance (although unknown). Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as there is wild migration distance information missing in all age classes.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

POTAMODROMOUS 23 24 21 15 25.

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

WILD: short-distance movements 3. FRY: non-native waters: 0.1-33 °C 13.
FARM: fresh water 22. LARVAE: holding jars: 20-24 °C 5. FRY: RAS: natural ~12 h PHOTOPERIOD, 21.2-21.6 °C 7. For details of holding systems ➝ W1 and W2.
LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES:

WILD: non-native waters: repeatedly migrating between foraging and overwintering habitats each year 15, move deeper in autumn and winter than in spring and summer 17 19, caught more in the littoral in spring 16, low (<6%) migration rate from marsh to lakes, mainly during warm months, with low water level 24, site fidelity 9. Fresh water 20. Non-native waters: 9-15 h PHOTOPERIOD 19 25, 0.1-33 °C 18 26 16 8 27 9 28 29 30 17 12 31 32 with apparent preference (higher catch per unit effort): 23.2-26.9 °C 19, mostly fresh water 13 18 33 26 16 8 27 9 34 29 30 35 36 28 37 17 12 31 38 32, but already introduced in estuaries 39, average: 1.5 g/L 29, average 0.8-1.3 ppt 36, 2-4 ppt 35.
FARM: fresh water 22. For details of holding systems ➝ W1 and W2.
LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

WILD: non-native waters: repeatedly migrating between foraging and overwintering habitats each year 15, move deeper in autumn and winter than in spring and summer 17 19, caught more in the littoral in spring 16, site fidelity 9. Fresh water 20. Non-native waters: 9-15 h PHOTOPERIOD 19 25, 0.1-33 °C 18 26 16 8 27 9 28 29 30 17 12 31 32 with preference for warm waters 18 19, apparently (higher catch per unit effort) for 23.2-26.9 °C 19, probably increasing vulnerability >23 °C 8, mostly fresh water 13 18 33 26 16 8 27 9 34 29 30 35 36 28 37 17 12 31 38 32, but already introduced in estuaries 39, average: 1.5 g/L 29, average 0.8-1.3 ppt 36, 2-4 ppt 35.
FARM: fresh water 22. For details of holding systems ➝ W1 and W2.
LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: non-native waters: no spawning migration in some populations 40, in other populations, spawning migration from principal river channels to off-stream habitats 41 42, repeatedly migrating between spawning, foraging, and overwintering habitats each year 15. Non-native waters: moderate site fidelity, but also migrate on large scales 21, with most IND migrating >50 km, usually restricted to 120 km (but some migrated ≤135 km) 15. Non-native waters: spawning migrations 24 15 25: migrate into spawning marsh/wetlands when water temperature rises 24 15 25 (especially >10 °C 15 25), mainly moving against the direction of flow 25. Non-native waters: vertical migration: IND stayed in shallower water near riverbanks during the night, but scattered in deep waters near the river center during the day 21. Non-native waters: 11-15 h PHOTOPERIOD 21 25, 15-27.6 °C 13 39 20 27 30 17 31 32 21, reproducing in shallow waters of 18-20 °C 19, fresh water 21 25.
FARM: spawning ponds: 18-20 °C 6; tanks: 22-24 °C 5. Fresh water 22. For details of holding systems ➝ W1 and W2.
LAB: no data found yet.

4 Reproduction

A species reproduces at a certain age, season, and sex ratio and possibly involving courtship rituals.

What is the probability of the species reproducing naturally in captivity without manipulation of theses circumstances?

It is low for minimal farming conditions, as the species is manipulated (separation by sex, hormonal manipulation, stripping). It is high for high-standard farming conditions, as natural breeding is possible and verified for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a high amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY: does not apply.

JUVENILES: does not apply.

ADULTS: does not apply.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: reach maturity at different ages (1-5+), males can mature 1-2 years earlier than females, depending on climatic conditions and on the region 5. Spawning season: spring-summer 5. Spawning rate: 2-3 spawns over 10-14 days 20, multiple times within spawning season 5. Non-native waters: maturity: males and females: 2-3+ years 39 30 37 31 32; spawning season: spring-summer 13 39 30 17 31 19 15 or twice a year during spring and autumn 4 or all year round 4 27 32 in tropical waters 4 with peak in warm season 4 27 32 and autumn 4; spawning rate: some females spawn once, other multiple times within spawning season 27; courtship: male follows female and slightly touches her belly with nose 13. For spawning substrate ➝ W3.
FARM: ponds: breeding naturally in simulated natural habitat is possible 4 43 22 5. Hormonal manipulation to induce spawning, followed by stripping eggs 43 22. IND are separated by sex 4 5, either segregated in different ponds or in screened-off partitions in same pond 4. Ovulating females are captured and the eggs stripped, followed by artificial fertilisation 5. Hormonal manipulation to induce spawning – including anaesthesia and suturing the genital opening to prevent losing eggs – followed by stripping eggs 4 5 and artificial fertilisation 5. Quiet surroundings, constant tank water temperature, and high oxygen concentration in the water (5-6 mg/L) should be maintained until stripping to avoid stress 5.
LAB: earthen ponds: male followed female for a few seconds, lagged behind, followed her again, sometimes touching her genital, flank, or cheek with his snout; male and female supported each other with pectoral fins, splashed caudal fins, then releasing eggs and sperm in water 44. Hormonal manipulation to induce spawning followed by stripping eggs and collecting milt via syringe 45 46.

5 Aggregation

Species differ in the way they co-exist with conspecifics or other species from being solitary to aggregating unstructured, casually roaming in shoals or closely coordinating in schools of varying densities.

What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the aggregation behaviour of the species?

It is low for minimal farming conditions, as – even in the absence of density data in the wild – we may conclude from studies in farms or labs that densities in some ponds and RAS are potentially stress inducing. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as lower stress at stocking densities in other ponds and RAS is possible, but needs to be verified for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as wild information is missing in almost all age classes.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: LARVAE: holding jars: 2,500 IND/L 5; ponds: monoculture: 10-20 IND/m², semi-intensive conditions: 30-400 IND/m², polyculture with 3 other carp species in extensive conditions: 10-15 IND/m² of overall density of 17-27 IND/m², polyculture with 3 other carp species in semi-intensive conditions: 20-50 IND/m² of overall density of 35-100 IND/m² 6. FRY: ponds: 100-600 IND/m² 5, monoculture: 4-6 IND/m², semi-intensive conditions: 6-12 IND/m², polyculture with 3 other carp species in extensive conditions: 3.5-5 IND/m² of overall density of 5-7.5 IND/m², polyculture with 3 other carp species in semi-intensive conditions: 6-8 IND/m² of overall density of 9-13 IND/m², wintering ponds: 80-400 IND/m² 6; RAS: increasing growth and survival with decreasing density (2.1 ➝ 0.5 IND/L or 3.5 ➝ 0.9 kg/m³) with best growth at 0.5 IND/L or 0.9 kg/m³ respectively 7. For carps in general, earthen ponds: 1,000 IND/m² for LARVAE in nursery ponds, 12.5-25 IND/m² for FRY in breeding ponds 4. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to C. carpio as well.
LAB: FRY: increasing growth and survival with decreasing density (6.4 ➝ 0.2 IND/L) with best growth at 0.2 IND/L 47.

JUVENILES:

WILD: non-native waters: shoaling 48, aggregations in May-June 17.
FARM: ponds: graze individually during day, but school at night 49, monoculture: 0.5-0.7 IND/m², semi-intensive conditions: 1-1.5 IND/m², polyculture with 3 other carp species in extensive conditions: 0.4-0.6 IND/m² of overall density of 0.6-0.9 IND/m², polyculture with 3 other carp species in semi-intensive conditions: 0.8-1.0 IND/m² of overall density of 1.2-1.7 IND/m², wintering ponds: 40-60 IND/m² 6. Earthen ponds: better growth at 0.7 than 1.4 than 2.1 IND/m² 50. RAS: better growth at 32 than 64 kg/m³ 10.
LAB: schooling 51. Better growth in polyculture with Oreochromis aureus at a ratio of 40:60 compared to monoculture or at a ratio of 60:40 at 15 IND/tank, also for Oreochromis aureus, but schooling behaviour under monoculture was disrupted in polyculture 52. Stressed by crowding a) after 15 h at 113.6 kg/m³ than 28.4 kg/m³, b) even more so after additional 1 h confinement, and c) given additional confinement at more measuring times after 15 h, 39 h, 87 h crowding 53. Increased stress at 0.7 IND/L than at 0.2 IND/L 54. Better growth at 3 kg/m³ than at 10 kg/m³, a high density that also stressed IND, an effect minimised by Artemisia annua in the diet (5 g/kg) for 70 days, besides other benefits for FISHES 55. Apparently strongly stressed when isolated 51 56. Concrete ponds: more feeding, air breathing, aggression and less resting – indicating stress – at 1.5 IND/m³ than 0.5-1.0 IND/m³ 57.

ADULTS:

WILD: non-native waters: shoaling 48, aggregations 18 in autumn/winter 17 24 15 and during pre-spawning in May-June 17.
FARM: ponds: graze individually during day, but school at night 49, monoculture: 0.06-0.08 IND/m², semi-intensive conditions: 0.1-0.3 IND/m², polyculture with 3 other carp species in extensive conditions: 0.05-0.07 IND/m² of overall density of 0.08-0.1 IND/m², polyculture with 3 other carp species in semi-intensive conditions: 0.09-0.2 IND/m² of overall density of 0.1-0.3 IND/m², wintering ponds: 7-10 IND/m² 6. For ADULTS to become SPAWNERS: ponds: 0.01-0.03 IND/m² 58 5, wintering ponds: hundreds of IND can be kept in ponds of 600-1,000 m² 5.
LAB: schooling 51.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: group mating 5, aggregate in large numbers 20. Non-native-waters: several hundred females on <1 acre (ca 4,000 m²) 13, aggregate in large numbers 15.
FARM: for ADULTS to become SPAWNERS ➝ ADULTS. Ponds: 2-3 females and 4-5 males in 120-300 m² spawning ponds 6, 3-4 females and 2-3 males stocked for spawning 5, 0.01-0.03 IND/m² for females during summer 6.
LAB: no data found yet.

6 Aggression

There is a range of adverse reactions in species, spanning from being relatively indifferent towards others to defending valuable resources (e.g., food, territory, mates) to actively attacking opponents.

What is the probability of the species being non-aggressive and non-territorial in captivity?

It is high for minimal and high-standard farming conditions, as there is no aggression (and for most cases also no competition) with a lot of species. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence, as we are lacking studies specifically addressing aggression (or lack thereof).

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: ponds: no aggression reported 49, experimental and irrigation ponds: decreasing Cambarellus montezumae with increasing C. carpio density 34, no aggression reported in pond polycultures with Labeo rohita, Labeo catla, and Barbonymus gonionotus 59 and in pond polycultures with Oreochromis niloticus and Hypophthalmichthys molitrix 60. No competition for food in polycultures with Hypophthalmichthys nobilis – intraspecific competition probably plays greater role 61. No aggression reported in ricefield polycultures with B. gonionotus and O. niloticus 62. No aggression reported in pen polycultures with Cirrhinus mrigala, Ctenopharyngodon idella, H. molitrix, L. catla, L. rohita, and Osteobrama belangeri 11.
LAB: no aggression reported 63 49 51, but some IND are competitive 51. C. carpio displace C. montezumae by separating them from macrophytes and probably by increasing turbidity when foraging and decreasing macrophyte density that C. montezumae depend on 34.

ADULTS:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: ponds: no aggression reported 49. No aggression reported in pond polycultures with Leptobarbus hoevenii and L. rohita 64 65 (for ADULTS to become SPAWNERS).
LAB: no aggression reported 63 51.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: for ADULTS to become SPAWNERS ➝ ADULTS.
LAB: no data found yet.

7 Substrate

Depending on where in the water column the species lives, it differs in interacting with or relying on various substrates for feeding or covering purposes (e.g., plants, rocks and stones, sand and mud, turbidity).

What is the probability of providing the species' substrate and shelter needs in captivity?

It is low for minimal farming conditions, as the species uses substrate, but Zuger jars, holding jars, net pens, and RAS are devoid of it. It is high for high-standard farming conditions a) given hatching substrate for eggs and LARVAE as well as ponds for FRY, JUVENILES, and ADULTS and b) given natural reproduction in ponds for SPAWNERS in earthen ponds which are not replaced by concrete or stone bottom. Our conclusion is based on a high amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs:

WILD: stick to vegetation 3 58 66.
FARM: artificial substrates 5; Zuger jars 5. Traditional methods to add substrate for egg adhesion: Sudanese method: floating structure made of long strips of plant fibers joined lengthwise between two bamboo planks 4, Rantjapaku method (variant of Sudanese method): newly cut floating grass 4, Central Sumatra method (variant of Sudanese method): scattered plant fibers 4, Chinese method: weeds 4, Indian method: breeding hapa with aquatic vegetation 4. Ponds provide substrate 43 58 and submerged aquatic plants 43. For controlled breeding, removing the natural adhesive substance of eggs by using solutions 4 5. For carps in general, double-walled hapa nets (e.g., mosquito netting and whole cloth) to protect from predators 4. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to C. carpio as well. For details of holding systems ➝ W1 and W2.
LAB: no data found yet.

LARVAE and FRY:

WILD: LARVAE hang on grass blades for about 2 days after hatching 67-3. Non-native waters: found in the vicinity of bog-rush (Juncus), algae, pondweed (Potamogeton) 13.
FARM: ponds provide substrate 43 58. For details of holding systems ➝ W1 and W2.
LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES:

WILD: dig and burrow into pond embankments and sides in search of organic matter 4. Non-native waters: probably bottom feeding 68; plants: found near hornwort (Ceratophyllum) 13, between reed and submerged macrophytes 68 and in areas with dead trees 8, being reported to prefer beds of emergent vegetation 17; substrate: mainly in areas with gravel or with sand and mud 8, but also observed over silt and sand, especially in shallow water and spring, avoiding rocky areas 17; turbidity: Secchi disc 5-<50 cm 8 29 12.
FARM: ponds provide substrate 43 58. For details of holding systems ➝ W1 and W2.
LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

WILD: forage on BENTHIC invertebrates 69. Dig and burrow into pond embankments and sides in search of organic matter 4. Non-native waters: found in areas with dead trees 8, reported to prefer beds of emergent vegetation 17; substrate: mainly in areas with gravel or with sand and mud 8, but also observed over silt and sand, especially in shallow water and spring, avoiding rocky areas 17; turbidity: Secchi disc 5-<50 cm 8 29 12.
FARM: ponds provide substrate 69 43 58. For details of holding systems ➝ W1 and W2.
LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: obligatory plant spawners 70-3 71-3 72-3. Spawn in inundated grassland 20, shallow waters covered with aquatic weeds or within freshly flooded grass 5. Non-native waters: inundated grasslands 17, overflowed fields and marshes with submerged vegetation 13 21, near a sand bar, despite preferences varying among IND 21.
FARM: ponds provide substrate 69 43 58. Breeding ponds: a crop of grass or other vegetation 22. Traditional spawning ponds: hard bottom with no mud and silt 4, bottom with sand and gravel 4, grown grasses on the bottom or special grass-covered spawning board placed in the pond center 4, breeding hapa with aquatic vegetation 4; more recent methods: grassy ponds 5. For details of holding systems ➝ W1 and W2.
LAB: spawned in earthen ponds close to ribbons of Hyzex sheets 44.

8 Stress

Farming involves subjecting the species to diverse procedures (e.g., handling, air exposure, short-term confinement, short-term crowding, transport), sudden parameter changes or repeated disturbances (e.g., husbandry, size-grading).

What is the probability of the species not being stressed?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions, as some of the many innovations to reduce stress need to be verified for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: stressed to the point of mortality by abrupt transfer from 22-23 °C to ≥28 °C 73.

LARVAE and FRY:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: FRY: stressed by abrupt transfer to 15 g/L salinity which may be reduced by adding 1-3% fructo-oligosaccharides to diet 74.

JUVENILES:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: low survival by unstable water parameters in ricefield polycultures 62. Stressed to the point of mortality by not allowing to empty guts prior to transport, abrupt temperature change from pond to storage pond, and low oxygen levels 75. Stressed by confinement prior to 10 h transport at 300 kg/m³ and stressed by 2 h transport at 250 kg/m³ 75. Probably more stressed by pre-transport hauling, netting, handling, loading than by 12 h transport (at 334 kg/m³) itself 76 77. Stressed by 3-6 h of transportation in plastic bags inflated with oxygen at 1-4 IND/L or 30 g/L 78 79 80 81. 1% of turmeric in the diet for 2 weeks or 5-10 g/kg glycine in the diet for 8 weeks before transportation, or Myrcene at 20-30 μL/L or salt at 3 g/L, can minimise transportation stress, besides having some other benefits 78 79 80 81, including improving water quality during transportation 78 80 81.
LAB: probably stressed by air exposure which may be reduced by anaesthesia 75. Stressed by confinement from 30 min on 82 83 even more so at accustomed compared to low-feeding regime beforehand 83. Stressed by net-confinement crowding for 3 h 84, which was minimised by 1-3% of rosemary leaf in the diet for 65 days, besides improving growth and having other benefits (better results with 3%) 84. More stressed by 20 min transport than by netting beforehand 85. Stressed by fluctuating noise (in amplitude and frequency) 86 and noise rapidly increasing to maximum sound pressure level 87. Short-term anomalous behaviour after 5-10% concentrations of acid injected into lips 88. IND scoring high in risk avoiding displayed more stress 51. Stressed by black 89 90 and red 90 tank colour which may be reduced by white 89 90 or yellow colour 90. Stressed by feeding by hand probably due to anticipation of food which may be reduced by demand-feeding via self-feeder 91. For stress and stocking density ➝ W4.

ADULTS:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: stressed to the point of mortality by not allowing to empty guts prior to transport, abrupt temperature change from pond to storage pond, and low oxygen levels 75. Stressed by confinement prior to 10 h transport at 300 kg/m³ and stressed by 2 h transport at 250 kg/m³ 75. Probably more stressed by pre-transport hauling, netting, handling, loading than by 12 h transport (at 334 kg/m³) itself 76 77.
LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: stressed by handling 5. For stress and reproduction ➝ W5.
LAB: no data found yet.

9 Malformations

Deformities that – in contrast to diseases – are commonly irreversible may indicate sub-optimal rearing conditions (e.g., mechanical stress during hatching and rearing, environmental factors unless mentioned in crit. 3, aquatic pollutants, nutritional deficiencies) or a general incompatibility of the species with being farmed.

What is the probability of the species being malformed rarely?

It is low for minimal farming conditions, as malformation rates exceed 10%. It is low for high-standard farming conditions, as malformations do not seem to result from conditions that may be changed (handling, heritability). Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: no data found yet.

LARVAE and FRY:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: for carps in general, malformations due to insufficient nutrition 4. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to C. carpio as well.
LAB: LARVAE: abnormalities in 1.7-2.1% after spawning induction by gradually increasing the temperature followed by hormonal manipulation in season or out of season 45.

JUVENILES:

WILD: no bone deformities 92.
FARM: bone deformities in 15-23% 93 92.
LAB: head and body abnormalities in 24.9% (37.6% semi-operculum, 18.2% spinal deformity, 17.4% head deformity, 4.2% stumpbody, 11.4% multiple deformities, 11.2% eye deformities), besides slower growth and abnormal swimming) 94.

ADULTS:

WILD: no bone deformities 92.
FARM: malformations of head in 15-25% 93, bone deformities in 15-23% 93 92.
LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: no data found yet.
FARM: no data found yet.
LAB: no data found yet.

10 Slaughter

The cornerstone for a humane treatment is that slaughter a) immediately follows stunning (i.e., while the individual is unconscious), b) happens according to a clear and reproducible set of instructions verified under farming conditions, and c) avoids pain, suffering, and distress.

What is the probability of the species being slaughtered according to a humane slaughter protocol?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is high for high-standard farming conditions, as electrical plus percussive stunning, followed by evisceration, gill cut or destruction of the heart, induces unconsciousness fast, kills while still unconscious, and is verified for the farming context. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence, as more evidence is missing.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY: does not apply.

JUVENILES:

WILD: does not apply.
FARM: common slaughter method: 85% are sold alive, of the 15% processed in plants 95, the common methods are a) asphyxia (followed by evisceration 95 or percussive killing 96), b) percussive stunning (followed by evisceration 95 97, gill cut or destruction of the heart 97), and c) electrical stunning (followed by evisceration 95 97, gill cut or destruction of the heart 97). High-standard slaughter method: electrical plus percussive stunning (followed by evisceration, gill cut or destruction of the heart) 97 or immersion in clove oil (followed by percussive killing 96) were most effective. Further research needed for a specific protocol.
LAB: behavioural indicators of consciousness recovered 50 s-10 min after electrical current, but visually-evoked responses recorded at around 30 s post stunning, indicating a fast recovery from electrical stunning of commercially available current densities 97. Higher stress when stunned by chilling in ice slurry than by percussion, with CO2 asphyxiation in between 85. Further research needed to confirm for farming conditions.

ADULTS:

WILD: does not apply.
FARM: ➝ JUVENILES.
LAB: behavioural indicators of consciousness recovered 50 s-10 min after electrical current, but visually-evoked responses recorded at around 30 s post stunning, indicating a fast recovery from electrical stunning of commercially available current densities 97. Higher stress when stunned by chilling in ice slurry than by percussion, with CO2 asphyxiation in between 85. Higher stress when stunned by asphyxia were more stressed compared to electrical stunning, compared to percussive stunning 98. Further research needed to confirm for farming conditions.

SPAWNERS:

WILD: does not apply.
FARM: ➝ JUVENILES.
LAB: no data found yet.

Side note: Domestication

Teletchea and Fontaine introduced 5 domestication levels illustrating how far species are from having their life cycle closed in captivity without wild input, how long they have been reared in captivity, and whether breeding programmes are in place.

What is the species’ domestication level?

DOMESTICATION LEVEL 5 99 100, fully domesticated. The first records of aquaculture are from China about 2,500 years ago 22 43.

Side note: Forage fish in the feed

450-1,000 milliard wild-caught fishes end up being processed into fish meal and fish oil each year which contributes to overfishing and represents enormous suffering. There is a broad range of feeding types within species reared in captivity.

To what degree may fish meal and fish oil based on forage fish be replaced by non-forage fishery components (e.g., poultry blood meal) or sustainable sources (e.g., soybean cake)?

All age classes:

WILD: omnivorous 43 66 101. Non-native waters: detritivorous 16, omnivorous 16 21 15.
FARM: traditional methods: SPAWNERS are fed with rice bran, kitchen refuse, corn, etc 4 (i.e., sustainable sources without fish meal).
LAB: 5% soluble fish protein concentrate in feed of first-feeding FRY may be completely* replaced by sustainable sources 102. Fish meal may be partly* 103 104 105 to mostly* 105replaced by non-forage fishery components. Fish meal may be mostly* replaced by sustainable sources 106.

^{*partly = <51% – mostly = 51-99% – completely = 100%}

Glossary

ADULTS = mature individuals, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
BENTHIC = living at the bottom of a body of water, able to rest on the floor
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 5 = selective breeding programmes are used focusing on specific goals 99
EXTENSIVE = low degree of intensification of fish farming in which no additional feed is provided to the fishes, and they solely rely on the natural feed produced in the system; often practised in traditional rice-fish cultures, cage and pen cultures in eutrophic waters, culture in lakes and reservoirs, etc. 1 2
FARM = setting in farming environment or under conditions simulating farming environment in terms of size of facility or number of individuals
FINGERLINGS = early juveniles with fully developed scales and working fins, the size of a human finger; for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogentic development
FISHES = Using "fishes" instead of "fish" for more than one individual - whether of the same species or not - is inspired by Jonathan Balcombe who proposed this usage in his book "What a fish knows". By referring to a group as "fishes", we acknowledge the individuals with their personalities and needs instead of an anonymous mass of "fish".
FRY = larvae from external feeding on, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
IND = individuals
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
PHOTOPERIOD = duration of daylight
POTAMODROMOUS = migrating within fresh water
RAS = Recirculating Aquaculture System - almost completely closed system using filters to clean and recirculate water with the aim of reducing water input and with the advantage of enabling close control of environmental parameters to maintain high water quality
SEMI-INTENSIVE = medium degree of intensification of fish farming in which additional feed is provided to the fishes through fertilisation and/or a small amount of additional feed; often practised in most integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems, some integrated peri-urban-aquaculture systems 1 2
SPAWNERS = adults during the spawning season; in farms: adults that are kept as broodstock
WILD = setting in the wild

Bibliography

1 Edwards, Peter, Roger S. V. Pullin, and J. A. Gartner. 1988. Research and Education for the Development of Integrated Crop-Livestock-Fish Farming Systems in the Tropics. WorldFish.
2 Hambrey, J., P. Edwards, and B. Belton. 2008. An ecosystem approach to freshwater aquaculture: a global review. In FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings, 14:117–121. Rome, Italy: FAO.
3 Balon, Eugene K. 1995. Origin and domestication of the wild carp, Cyprinus carpio: from Roman gourmets to the swimming flowers. Aquaculture 129. The Carp: 3–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(94)00227-F.
4 Jhingran, V.G., and R.S.V. Pullin. 1985. A hatchery manual for the common, Chinese and Indian major carps. Vol. 252. ICLARM Studies and Reviews 11. Asian Development Bank and International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.
5 Jeney, Z., and V. Bekh. 2020. Technical manual on broodstock management of common carp and Chinese herbivorous fish. Ankara, Turkey: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
6 Horvath, L., G. Tamas, and C. Seagrave. 2002. Carp and Pond Fish Culture: Including Chinese Herbivorous Species, Pike, Tench, Zander, Wels Catfish, Goldfish, African Catfish and Sterlet. 2nd Edition.
7 Cordeli, A. N., L. Oprea, M. Crețu, and M. Mocanu. 2021. The influence of stocking densities on growth performance of common carp (cyprinus carpio, Linne 1758) reared in a recirculating aquaculture system. Scientific Papers. Series D. Animal Science 64: 509–516.
8 Økland, Finn, Clinton J. Hay, Tor F. Næsje, Eva B. Thorstad, and Nande Nickandor. 2001. Movements and habitat utilisation of radio tagged carp (Cyprinus carpio) in a reservoir in the Fish River, Namibia. NINA NAKU Project Report 013. Trondheim, Norway.
9 Crook, David A. 2004. Is the home range concept compatible with the movements of two species of lowland river fish? Journal of Animal Ecology 73: 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00802.x.
10 Enache, Ionica, Victor Cristea, Tudor Ionescu, and Sandita Ion. 2011. The influence of stocking density on the growth of common carp, Cyprinus carpio, in a recirculating aquaculture system. Aquaculture, Aquarium, Conservation & Legislation 4: 146–153.
11 Yengkokpam, S., D. Debnath, B. K. Bhattacharya, A. K. Yadav, P. Das, K. K. Sarma, and B. K. Das. 2019. Polyculture of Osteobrama belangeri with major carps in pen enclosures in Takmu lake of Manipur. Journal of the Inland Fisheries Society of India 51: 125–132. https://doi.org/10.47780/jifsi.51.2.2019.106697.
12 Bajer, Przemyslaw G., Hangkyo Lim, Mario J. Travaline, Brett D. Miller, and Peter W. Sorensen. 2010. Cognitive aspects of food searching behavior in free-ranging wild Common Carp. Environmental Biology of Fishes 88: 295–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-010-9643-8.
13 Richardson, R. E. 1913. Observations on the Breeding of the European Carp in the Vicinity of Havana, Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 9: 384–405.
14 Flajšhans, M., and G. Hulata. 2017. Common Carp - Cyprinus carpio Biology, ecology and genetics. Genimpact final scientific report.
15 Watkinson, D. A., C. Charles, and E. C. Enders. 2021. Spatial ecology of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) in Lake Winnipeg and its potential for management actions. Journal of Great Lakes Research 47: 583–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2021.03.004.
16 García-Berthou, Emili. 2001. Size- and depth-dependent variation in habitat and diet of the common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Aquatic Sciences 63: 466–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-001-8045-6.
17 Penne, Christopher R., and Clay L. Pierce. 2008. Seasonal Distribution, Aggregation, and Habitat Selection of Common Carp in Clear Lake, Iowa. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137: 1050–1062. https://doi.org/10.1577/T07-112.1.
18 Cooke, S. J., and R. S. McKinley. 1999. Winter residency and activity patterns of channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus (Rafinesque), and common carp, Cyprinus carpio L., in a thermal discharge canal. Fisheries Management and Ecology 6: 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2400.1999.00175.x.
19 Dartay, M., T. Atessahİn, and E. Duman. 2017. Effects of water temperature and depth on the catch rate and catch per unit effort for mirror carp (Cyprinus carpio) caught by gillnets. Pakistan Journal of Zoology 49: 967–971. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/2017.49.3.967.971.
20 Balon, Eugene K. 1995. The common carp, Cyprinus carpio: its wild origin, domestication in aquaculture, and selection as colored nishikigoi. Guelph Ichthyology Reviews 3.
21 Zhang, Y., Y. Li, L. Zhang, Z. Wu, S. Zhu, J. Li, and X. Li. 2020. Site Fidelity, Habitat Use, and Movement Patterns of the Common Carp during Its Breeding Season in the Pearl River as Determined by Acoustic Telemetry. Water 12: 2233. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12082233.
22 Rouhani, Qurban. 2010. Manual Rural Freshwater Aquaculture. Rural Fisheries Programme Department of Ichthyology and Fisheries Science.
23 Newbold, L. R., and P. S. Kemp. 2015. Influence of corrugated boundary hydrodynamics on the swimming performance and behaviour of juvenile common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Ecological Engineering 82: 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.04.027.
24 Lechelt, J. D., M. J. Kocian, and P. G. Bajer. 2017. Low downstream dispersal of young-of-year common carp from marshes into lakes in the Upper Mississippi River region and its implications for integrated pest management strategies. Management of Biological Invasions 8: 485–495. https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2017.8.4.03.
25 Stott, N., and J. Miner. 2022. Environmental Cues of Spawning Migration into a Confined Wetland by Northern Pike and Common Carp in Lake Erie: Identifying Fine-Scale Patterns. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 42: 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1002/nafm.10742.
26 Alp, Ahmet, and Süleyman Balik. 2000. Growth Conditions and Stock Analysis of the Carp (Cyprinus carpio, Linnaeus 1758) Population in Gölhisar Lake. TURKISH JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY 24: 291–304.
27 Sivakumaran, Kathiravelu P., Paul Brown, Daniel Stoessel, and Annie Giles. 2003. Maturation and Reproductive Biology of Female Wild Carp, Cyprinus carpio, in Victoria, Australia. Environmental Biology of Fishes 68: 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1027381304091.
28 Karatas, Mehmet, Erdogan Cicek, Asiye Basusta, and Nuri Basusta. 2007. Age, Growth and Mortality of Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio Linneaus, 1758) Population in Almus Dam Lake (Tokat-Turkey). Journal of Applied Biological Sciences 1: 81–85.
29 Miller, S. A., and T. A. Crowl. 2006. Effects of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) on macrophytes and invertebrate communities in a shallow lake. Freshwater Biology 51: 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2005.01477.x.
30 Tempero, Grant W., Nicholas Ling, Brendan J. Hicks, and Matthew W. Osborne. 2006. Age composition, growth, and reproduction of koi carp (Cyprinus carpio) in the lower Waikato region, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 40: 571–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.2006.9517446.
31 Winker, Henning, Olaf L. F. Weyl, Anthony J. Booth, and Bruce R. Ellender. 2011. Life history and population dynamics of invasive common carp, Cyprinus carpio, within a large turbid African impoundment. Marine and Freshwater Research 62: 1270–1280. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF11054.
32 Hailu, Mathewos. 2013. Reproductive aspects of common carp (Cyprinus carpio L, 1758) in a tropical reservoir (Amerti, Ethiopia). Journal of Ecology and the Natural Environment 5: 260–264. https://doi.org/10.5897/JENE2013.0387.
33 Vilizzi, Lorenzo, and Keith F. Walker. 1999. Age and growth of the common carp, Cyprinus carpio, in the River Murray, Australia: validation, consistency of age interpretation, and growth models. Environmental Biology of Fishes 54: 77–106. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007485307308.
34 Hinojosa-Garro, Demián, and Luis Zambrano. 2004. Interactions of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) with benthic crayfish decapods in shallow ponds. Hydrobiologia 515: 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HYDR.0000027323.77213.39.
35 Demirkalp, F. Yildiz. 2007. Growth Characteristics of Carp (Cyprinus carpio L., 1758) in Liman Lake (Samsun, Turkey). Hacettepe Journal of Biology and Chemistry 35: 1–8.
36 Demirkalp, F. Yildiz. 2007. Some of The Growth Characteristics of Carp (Cyprinus carpio L., 1758) in Çernek Lake (Samsun, Turkey). Hacettepe Journal of Biology and Chemistry 35: 57–65.
37 Coulter, David P., Jeffrey C. Jolley, Kris R. Edwards, and David W. Willis. 2008. Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) population characteristics and recruitment in two Nebraska sandhill lakes. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies 31: 35–41.
38 Haynes, G. D., J. Gongora, D. M. Gilligan, P. Grewe, C. Moran, and F. W. Nicholas. 2012. Cryptic hybridization and introgression between invasive Cyprinid species Cyprinus carpio and Carassius auratus in Australia: implications for invasive species management. Animal Conservation 15: 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2011.00490.x.
39 Fernández-Delgado, Carlos. 1990. Life history patterns of the common carp, Cyprinus carpio, in the estuary of the Guadalquivir river in south-west Spain. Hydrobiologia 206: 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00018966.
40 Reynolds, L.F. 1983. Migration Patterns of Five Fish Species in the Murray-Darling River System. Marine and Freshwater Research 34.
41 Johnsen, Peter B., and Arthur D. Hasler. 1977. Winter Aggregations of Carp (Cyprinus carpio) as Revealed by Ultrasonic Tracking. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106: 556–559. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1977)106<556:WAOCCC>2.0.CO;2.
42 Rodriguez-Ruiz, A., and C. Granado-Lorencio. 1992. Spawning period and migration of three species of cyprinids in a stream with Mediterranean regimen (SW Spain). Journal of Fish Biology 41: 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1992.tb02682.x.
43 Peteri, A. 2004. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Cyprinus carpio. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
44 Hoda, S. M. Shamsul, and Hiroshi Tsukahara. 1971. Studies on the development and relative growth in the carp, Cyprinus carpio (Linné). Journal of the Faculty of Aquaculture, Kyushu University 16.
45 Kucharczyk, Dariusz, Katarzyna Targońska, Piotr Hliwa, Piotr Gomułka, Maciej Kwiatkowski, Sławomir Krejszeff, and Jacek Perkowski. 2008. Reproductive parameters of common carp (Cyprinus carpio L) spawners during natural season and out-of-season spawning. Reproductive Biology 8: 285–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1642-431X(12)60018-7.
46 Aliniya, Masoumeh, Hossein Khara, Shahrouz Baradaran Noveiri, and Hadiseh Dadras. 2013. Influence of Age of Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) Broodstock on Reproductive Traits and Fertilization. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 13: 19–25.
47 Huang, Wen-Bin, Yu-Chun Lin, and Tai-Sheng Chiu. 2003. Effects of Stocking Density on Growth, Survival, Production, and Size Variation of the Common Carp Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus (1758) Fry within Aquariums. J. Fish. Soc. Taiwan 30: 29–41.
48 Bajer, P. G., C. J. Chizinski, and P. W. Sorensen. 2011. Using the Judas technique to locate and remove wintertime aggregations of invasive common carp. Fisheries Management and Ecology 18: 497–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2011.00805.x.
49 Rahman, M. M., and C. G. Meyer. 2009. Effects of food type on diel behaviours of common carp Cyprinus carpio in simulated aquaculture pond conditions. Journal of Fish Biology 74: 2269–2278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02236.x.
50 Taher, Majid M, and Adel Y Al-Dubakel. 2020. Growth Performance of Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) in Earthen Ponds in Basrah Province, Iraq by Using Different Stocking Densities. Biological and Applied Environmental Research 4: 71–79.
51 Huntingford, G. Andrew, S. Mackenzie, D. Morera, S. M. Coyle, M. Pilarczyk, and S. Kadri. 2010. Coping strategies in a strongly schooling fish, the common carp Cyprinus carpio. Journal of Fish Biology 76: 1576–1591. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02582.x.
52 Papoutsoglou, S.E., H. Miliou, N.P. Karakatsouli, M. Tzitzinakis, and S. Chadio. 2001. Growth and physiological changes in scaled carp and blue tilapia under behavioral stress in mono- and polyculture rearing using a recirculated water system. Aquaculture International 9: 509–518. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020506814609.
53 Ruane, N M, E C Carballo, and J Komen. 2002. Increased stocking density influences the acute physiological stress response of common carp Cyprinus carpio (L.). Aquaculture Research 33: 777–784. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.2002.00717.x.
54 Ruane, Neil M, and Hans Komen. 2003. Measuring cortisol in the water as an indicator of stress caused by increased loading density in common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Aquaculture 218: 685–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(02)00422-2.
55 Hoseini, S. M., B. Aydın, S. H. Hoseinifar, T. Moonmanee, and H. Van Doan. 2022. Dietary Artemisia, Artemisia annua, supplementation improves common carp welfare under high stocking density. Aquaculture Research 53: 3494–3503. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.15855.
56 Mesquita, Flavia Oliveira, Fabio Luiz Borcato, and Felicity Ann Huntingford. 2015. Cue-based and algorithmic learning in common carp: A possible link to stress coping style. Behavioural Processes 115: 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2015.02.017.
57 Mizory, Firas A, Nizar J Hussein, Nareen S A Ali, and Salam R Hussein. 2020. Effect of Different Stocking Densities on Behavior of Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) in Duhok Province, Kurdistan Region, Iraq. International Journal of Scientific Research in Biological Sciences 7: 1–6.
58 Horvath, L., G. Tamas, A.G. Coche, E. Kovács, T. Moth-Poulsen, and A. Woynarovich. 2015. Training manual on the artificial propagation of carps. A handout for on-farm training workshops on artificial propagation of common carp and Chinese major carps in Central and Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. 978-92-5-108689–6. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
59 Azim, M. E., M. A. Wahab, A. H. M. Kamal, and Z. F. Ahmed. 2004. Feeding Relations of Silver Barb Barbodes gonionotus (Bleeker) with Major Indian and Common Carp and Its Effect on Fish Production in a Polyculture System. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 35: 100–108.
60 Abdelghany, A. E., and M. H. Ahmad. 2002. Effects of feeding rates on growth and production of Nile tilapia, common carp and silver carp polycultured in fertilized ponds. Aquaculture Research 33: 415–423. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.2002.00689.x.
61 Nelson, Kirsten, David H. Wahl, and Greg G. Sass. 2014. Competitive interactions between common carp and bighead carp. In . Québec, Canada: Afs.
62 Rothuis, A J, C Q Nam, C J J Richter, and F Ollevier. 1998. Polyculture of silver barb, Puntius gonionotus (Bleeker), Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (L.), and common carp, Cyprinus carpio L., in Vietnamese ricefields: fish production parameters. Aquaculture Research 29: 661–668. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.1998.00256.x.
63 Rahman, Mustafizur M., Marc C. J. Verdegem, Leopold A. J. Nagelkerke, Mohammad A. Wahab, and Johan A. J. Verreth. 2008. Swimming, grazing and social behaviour of rohu Labeo rohita (Hamilton) and common carp Cyprinus carpio (L.) in tanks under fed and non-fed conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113: 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.09.008.
64 Srithongthum, S., T. Amornsakun, P. Musikarun, P. Promkaew, A. H. Loong, G. Kawamura, M. T. M. Lal, and L.-S. Lim. 2020. Length-weight relationship and relative condition factor of the Sultan fish, Leptobarbus hoevenii broodstock farmed in earthen ponds. Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries 24: 53–59. https://doi.org/10.21608/ejabf.2020.91657.
65 Srithongthum, S., H.-L. Au, T. Amornsakun, P. Musikarun, W. J. Mok, N. F. A. Halid, G. Kawamura, and L. S. Lim. 2021. Reproductive Characteristics of the Pond-Farmed Sultan Fish (Leptobarbus hoevenii). Jurnal Ilmiah Perikanan dan Kelautan 13: 171–180. https://doi.org/10.20473/jipk.v13i2.27264.
66 Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2017. Cyprinus carpio summary page. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org.
67 Balon, E. K. 1958. Vyvoj dunajského kapra (Cyprinus curpio curpio L.) v priebehu predlarvalnej fazy a larvalnej periody (Development of the Danubian carp during the prelarval and larval period). Biol. Pr. 4: 5–54.
68 Vilizzi, Lorenzo. 1998. Observations on ontogenetic shifts in the diet of 0+ carp, Cyprinus carpio, from the River Murray, Australia. Folia Zoologica 47: 225–229.
69 Parkos III, Joseph J, Jr. Santucci Victor J, and David H Wahl. 2003. Effects of adult common carp (Cyprinus carpio) on multiple trophic levels in shallow mesocosms. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60: 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1139/f03-011.
70 Balon, Eugene K. 1975. Reproductive Guilds of Fishes: A Proposal and Definition. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32: 821–864. https://doi.org/10.1139/f75-110.
71 Balon, Eugene K. 1981. Additions and amendments to the classification of reproductive styles in fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 6: 377–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00005769.
72 Balon, Eugene K. 1990. Epigenesis of an epigeneticist: the development of some alternative concepts on the early ontogeny and evolution of fishes. Guelph Ichthyology Reviews 1: 1–48.
73 Korwin-Kossakowski, M. 2008. The influence of temperature during the embryonic period on larval growth and development in carp, Cyprinus carpio L., and grass carp, Ctenopharyngodon idella (Val.): Theoretical and practical aspects. Archiwum Rybactwa Polskiego 16: 231–314.
74 Hoseinifar, Seyed Hossein, Narges Soleimani, and Einar Ringø. 2014. Effects of dietary fructo-oligosaccharide supplementation on the growth performance, haemato-immunological parameters, gut microbiota and stress resistance of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) fry. British Journal of Nutrition 112: 1296–1302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114514002037.
75 Svobodová, Z., P. Kaláb, L. Dusek, B. Vykusová, Jitka KOLÁŘOVÁ, and D. Janousková. 1999. The Effect of Handling and Transport of the Concentration of Glucose and Cortisol in Blood Plasma of Common Carp. Acta Veterinaria Brno 68: 265–274.
76 Dobšíková, R., Z. Svobodová, J. Bláhová, H. Modrá, and J. Velíšek. 2006. Stress Response to Long Distance Transportation of Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). Acta Veterinaria Brno 75: 437–448. https://doi.org/10.2754/avb200675030437.
77 Dobšíková, R., Z. Svobodová, J. Bláhová, H. Modrá, and J. Velíšek. 2009. The effect of transport on biochemical and haematological indices of common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). Czech Journal of Animal Science 54: 510–518.
78 Taheri Mirghaed, Ali, and Melika Ghelichpour. 2019. Effects of anesthesia and salt treatment on stress responses, and immunological and hydromineral characteristics of common carp (Cyprinus carpio, Linnaeus, 1758) subjected to transportation. Aquaculture 501: 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.11.008.
79 Hoseini, S. M., N. Majidiyan, A. T. Mirghaed, S. H. Hoseinifar, and H. Van Doan. 2022. Dietary glycine supplementation alleviates transportation-induced stress in common carp, Cyprinus carpio. Aquaculture 551: 737959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.737959.
80 Hoseini, S. M., S. K. Gupta, M. Yousefi, E. V. Kulikov, S. G. Drukovsky, A. K. Petrov, A. T. Mirghaed, S. H. Hoseinifar, and H. Van Doan. 2022. Mitigation of transportation stress in common carp, Cyprinus carpio, by dietary administration of turmeric. Aquaculture 546: 737380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737380.
81 Mousavi, H.E., A.T. Mirghaed, S. M. Hoseini, M. Ghelichpour, A.A. Moghaddam, B. Gharavi, and B. Aydın. 2023. Myrcene as water conditioner, stress-reducing and antioxidant agent in transportation of common carp, Cyprinus carpio, with plastic bags. Aquaculture Reports 28: 101458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2022.101458.
82 Ruane, N. M., E. A. Huisman, and J. Komen. 2001. Plasma cortisol and metabolite level profiles in two isogenic strains of common carp during confinement. Journal of Fish Biology 59: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2001.tb02334.x.
83 Ruane, N. M, E. A Huisman, and J Komen. 2002. The influence of feeding history on the acute stress response of common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Aquaculture 210: 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00819-5.
84 Yousefi, M., S. M. Hoseini, Y. A. Vatnikov, E. V. Kulikov, and S. G. Drukovsky. 2019. Rosemary leaf powder improved growth performance, immune and antioxidant parameters, and crowding stress responses in common carp (Cyprinus carpio) fingerlings. Aquaculture 505: 473–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.02.070.
85 Varga, Dániel, András Szabó, Csaba Hanc, Zsigmond Jeney, László Ardó, Marcell Molnár, and Tamás Molnár. 2014. Impact of Handling and Pre-Mortal Stress on the Flesh Quality of Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). The Israeli Journal of Aquaculture - Bamidgeh 66: 1–6.
86 Wysocki, Lidia Eva, John P. Dittami, and Friedrich Ladich. 2006. Ship noise and cortisol secretion in European freshwater fishes. Biological Conservation 128: 501–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.020.
87 Kusku, Halit, Sebahattin Ergun, Sevdan Yilmaz, Betul Guroy, and Murat Yigit. 2018. Impacts of Urban Noise and Musical Stimuli on Growth Performance and Feed Utilization of Koi fish (Cyprinus carpio) in Recirculating Water Conditions. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 19: 513–523.
88 Reilly, Siobhan C., John P. Quinn, Andrew R. Cossins, and Lynne U. Sneddon. 2008. Behavioural analysis of a nociceptive event in fish: Comparisons between three species demonstrate specific responses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 114: 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.016.
89 Papoutsoglou, S. E, G Mylonakis, H Miliou, N. P Karakatsouli, and S Chadio. 2000. Effects of background color on growth performances and physiological responses of scaled carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) reared in a closed circulated system. Aquacultural Engineering 22: 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0144-8609(00)00056-X.
90 Ebrahimi, Ghaffar. 2011. Effects of Rearing Tank Background Color on Growth Performance in Juvenile Common Carp, Cyprinus carpio L. Agricultural Journal 6: 213–217.
91 Klaren, Peter H. M., Stephanie C. M. van Dalen, Wim Atsma, F. A. Tom Spanings, Jasper Hendriks, and Gert Flik. 2013. Voluntary timing of food intake increases weight gain and reduces basal plasma cortisol levels in common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). Physiology & Behavior 122: 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.08.020.
92 GJURČEVIĆ, E., S. KUŽIR, Z. PETRINEC, D. STANIN, Z. MATAŠIN, and Z. KOZARIĆ. 2007. Incidence of vertebral column deformities in farmed and wild co mmon carp Cyprinus carpio reared under same conditions. In Proceedings of the World Aquaculture, 343–344. San Antonio, Texas.
93 Kužir, S., L. Maleničić, D. Stanin, T.T. Vukičević, I. Alić, and E. Gjurčević. 2015. Description of head deformities in cultured common carp (Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus, 1758). VETERINARSKI ARHIV 85: 437–449.
94 Al-Harbi, A.H. 2001. Skeletal Deformities in Cultured Common Carp Cyprinus carpio L. Asian Fisheries Science 14: 247–254.
95 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2009. Species-specific welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing of farmed Carp. EFSA Journal 1013: 1–37. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1013.
96 Rahmanifarah, K., B. Shabanpour, and A. Sattari. 2011. Effects of Clove Oil on Behavior and Flesh Quality of Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) in Comparison with Pre-slaughter CO2 Stunning, Chilling and Asphyxia. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 11: 139–147.
97 Retter, Karina, Karl-Heinz Esser, Matthias Lüpke, John Hellmann, Dieter Steinhagen, and Verena Jung-Schroers. 2018. Stunning of common carp: Results from a field and a laboratory study. BMC Veterinary Research 14: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1530-0.
98 Daskalova, Aleksandra, Alexander Pavlov, Ralica Kyuchukova, and Hristo Daskalov. 2016. Humane Slaughter of Carp – A Comparison between Three Stunning Procedures. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 16: 753–758.
99 Teletchea, Fabrice, and Pascal Fontaine. 2012. Levels of domestication in fish: implications for the sustainable future of aquaculture. Fish and Fisheries 15: 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12006.
100 Teletchea, Fabrice. 2015. Domestication of Marine Fish Species: Update and Perspectives. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 3: 1227–1243. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse3041227.
101 Stergiou, K., D. C. Bobori, F. G. Ekmekçi, M. Gökoğlu, P. K. Karachle, G. Minos, Y. Özvarol, I. Salvarina, A. S. Tarkan, and L. Vilizzi. 2014. New Fisheries-related data from the Mediterranean Sea (April 2014). Mediterranean Marine Science 15: 213–224. https://doi.org/10.12681/mms.738.
102 Escaffre, Anne M., JoséL Zambonino Infante, Chantal L. Cahu, Muriel Mambrini, Pierre Bergot, and Sadasivam J. Kaushik. 1997. Nutritional value of soy protein concentrate for larvae of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) based on growth performance and digestive enzyme activities. Aquaculture 153: 63–80.
103 Hasan, M. R., D. J. Macintosh, and K. Jauncey. 1997. Evaluation of some plant ingredients as dietary protein sources for common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) fry. Aquaculture 151. Fish Nutrition and Feeding Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Feeding and Nutrition in Fish: 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(96)01499-8.
104 Siddhuraju, P., and K. Becker. 2001. Preliminary nutritional evaluation of Mucuna seed meal (Mucuna pruriens var. utilis) in common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.): An assessment by growth performance and feed utilisation. Aquaculture 196: 105–123.
105 Mazurkiewicz, Jan. 2009. Utilization of domestic plant components in diets for common carp Cyprinus carpio L. Archives of Polish Fisheries 17: 5–39. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10086-009-0001-4.
106 Gao, Qi, Shu-kui Sun, Zhen Han, Jian-he Xu, Zhu-jin Ding, and Han-liang Cheng. 2020. Effects of partial replacement of fishmeal with blood meal and dried porcine soluble on the growth, body composition and intestinal morphology of Cyprinus carpio. Aquaculture Research 51: 1712–1719. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.14518.

❮

❯

1 / 4

2 / 4

3 / 4

4 / 4

contents