Cyprinus carpio - Linnaeus, 1758
Common Carp
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus, 1758 (TSN 163344)
French Common Names: carpe
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.105636
Element Code: AFCJB08010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Fishes - Bony Fishes - Minnows and Carps
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Actinopterygii Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Cyprinus
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Concept Reference: Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 20. 183 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B91ROB01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Cyprinus carpio
Taxonomic Comments: Two subspecies (C. carpio carpio, the European Carp; and C. carpio haematopterus, the Amur Carp) are recognized by authors investigating the species (such as Zhou et al. 2003, Mabuchi 2005, and Kohlmann 1999). The Amur Carp is considered as an east Asian species whereas the ssp. carpio evolved in Europe.
Common carp is one of the most frequently cultivated fish species worldwide (Mabuchi 2005, Zhou 2003) and many domesticated forms are present, either bred for food or aquarium purposes (i.e. Japanese Ornamental Carp or Koi). Balon (1995) also reviews the origin and domestication and considers that carp were first domesticated by the Romans as a food source.
Conservation Status

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 13Sep1996
Global Status Last Changed: 13Sep1996
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Worldwide range; very abundant; no significant threats.
Nation: United States
National Status: NNA (05Dec1996)
Nation: Canada
National Status: NNA (26Jan2012)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Alabama (SNA), Arizona (SNA), Arkansas (SNA), California (SNA), Colorado (SNA), Connecticut (SNA), Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (SNA), Florida (SNA), Georgia (SNA), Idaho (SNA), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Iowa (SNA), Kansas (SNA), Kentucky (SNA), Louisiana (SNA), Maine (SNA), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (SNA), Michigan (SNA), Minnesota (SNA), Mississippi (SNA), Missouri (SNA), Montana (SNA), Navajo Nation (SNA), Nebraska (SNA), Nevada (SNA), New Hampshire (SNA), New Jersey (SNA), New Mexico (SNA), New York (SNA), North Carolina (SNA), North Dakota (SNA), Ohio (SNA), Oklahoma (SNA), Oregon (SNA), Pennsylvania (SNA), Rhode Island (SNA), South Carolina (SNA), South Dakota (SNA), Tennessee (SNA), Texas (SNA), Utah (SNA), Vermont (SNA), Virginia (SNA), Washington (SNA), West Virginia (SNA), Wisconsin (SNA), Wyoming (SNA)
Canada British Columbia (SNA), Manitoba (SNA), Ontario (SNA), Quebec (SNA), Saskatchewan (SNA)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: VU - Vulnerable

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Native to temperate Eurasia; has been domesticated and selectively bred for human food for several centuries in Asia and Europe. The first stockings of carp in the United States occurred around 1872 and for the next 25 years the fish were stocked throughout the United States (Lachner et al. 1970, Phillips et al. 1982). At first, carp were a popular game and food fish, but by the turn of the century, the fish had become so well established and abundant in many waterways that stocking programs were discontinued. Carp are now found in every state except Hawaii and Alaska, in five Canadian provinces, and on every continent except Antarctica (Scott and Crossman 1973, Jester 1974, Edwards and Twomey 1982).

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300

Population Size: 10,000 to >1,000,000 individuals

Overall Threat Impact Comments: No significant threats.

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Protection Needs: None.

Global Range: Native to temperate Eurasia; has been domesticated and selectively bred for human food for several centuries in Asia and Europe. The first stockings of carp in the United States occurred around 1872 and for the next 25 years the fish were stocked throughout the United States (Lachner et al. 1970, Phillips et al. 1982). At first, carp were a popular game and food fish, but by the turn of the century, the fish had become so well established and abundant in many waterways that stocking programs were discontinued. Carp are now found in every state except Hawaii and Alaska, in five Canadian provinces, and on every continent except Antarctica (Scott and Crossman 1973, Jester 1974, Edwards and Twomey 1982).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States ALexotic, ARexotic, AZexotic, CAexotic, COexotic, CTexotic, DCexotic, DEexotic, FLexotic, GAexotic, IAexotic, IDexotic, ILexotic, INexotic, KSexotic, KYexotic, LAexotic, MAexotic, MDexotic, MEexotic, MIexotic, MNexotic, MOexotic, MSexotic, MTexotic, NCexotic, NDexotic, NEexotic, NHexotic, NJexotic, NMexotic, NNexotic, NVexotic, NYexotic, OHexotic, OKexotic, ORexotic, PAexotic, RIexotic, SCexotic, SDexotic, TNexotic, TXexotic, UTexotic, VAexotic, VTexotic, WAexotic, WIexotic, WVexotic, WYexotic
Canada BCexotic, MBexotic, ONexotic, QCexotic, SKexotic

Range Map
No map available.

Ecology & Life History
Basic Description: A large fish (carp).
General Description: From Scott and Crossman (1973), Jester (1974), and Pflieger (1975): adult length 12-25 in (30.5-63.5 cm) or more; large individuals may reach 20-60 lbs (9.1-27.2 kg); two barbels on each side of upper jaw, posterior pair more conspicuous; relatively small, toothless mouth, with the upper jaw slightly protruding; throat teeth 1,1,3-3,1,1, with teeth in main row broad and molar-like; lateral line complete, with 35 to 38 scales; one long dorsal fin with 17-21 soft rays, and a stout saw-toothed spine in front of dorsal and anal fins; pectoral fins with 14-17 rays; pelvic fins thoracic, originating beneath origin of dorsal fin, 8 or 9 rays; 1 anal fin with 5 branched rays; scales cycloid, large, thick; 35-36 vertebrae; 21-27 gill rakers on first gill arch; color variable: back and sides olivaceous, gold, greenish-olive, reddish-brown, or blackish-red, silver or yellowish-white below; fins dusky, often with red on tail fin and yellow or orange on lower fins; peritoneum gray, often more or less speckled.
Reproduction Comments: Spawning occurs in spring and summer. Optimal water temperature for spawning is 18-22 C, although spawning can occur at water temperatures of 16-26 C (Shields 1957, Sigler 1958, Swee and McCrimmon 1966, Jester 1974). In South Dakota, a combination of rapidly rising water levels that inundated spawning areas and water temperatures above 62 F (16.5 C) were the primary stimulants for spawning (Shields 1957). Carp spawn from April through early August in Wisconsin (Miller 1952), mid-May through early August in Ontario (Swee and McCrimmon 1966), and late March through early fall in Missouri (Pflieger 1975) and New Mexico (Jester 1974).

The spawning act begins by the segregation of carp into small groups of 4-20 individuals, led by a large female. With their backs and dorsal fins sticking above the water, the female broadcasts her eggs while swimming and splashing and several males release milt into the water. The sticky eggs adhere to plants, logs, and rocks and harden in 15-25 minutes. In Ontario, 90% of the eggs attached to vegetation were fertile (Swee and McCrimmon 1966). The average number of eggs per female in New Mexico is 47,134 (Jester 1974) and 902,942 in Ontario (Swee and McCrimmon 1966). There is a direct relationship between the number of eggs produced and the length (and age) of the female. Very large (19.1-23.3 lbs, 8.7-10.1 kg) and old (16-18 years) females can produce 1-2 million eggs (Swee and McCrimmon 1966, Jester 1974). Many females retain as much as 20% of their eggs for a second spawn, and males spawn with several females throughout the season (Swee and McCrimmon 1966).

The eggs hatch in 3-16 days, depending on the water temperature, and the newly hatched fry are approximately 3 mm long (Swee and McCrimmon 1966).

The age of sexual maturity varies with water temperature. Males become sexually mature at 2-3 years in Wisconsin, South Dakota, and New Mexico, and at 3-4 years in Ontario (Threinen 1949, Shields 1957, Swee and McCrimmon 1966, Jester 1974). Females mature approximately one year later.

In Elephant Butte Lake, New Mexico, carp had an average life span of 1.3 years (Jester 1974). The maximum lifespan for males appears to be 8-10 years and 16-18 years for females (Swee and McCrimmon 1966, Jester 1974).

Ecology Comments: Carp have well-defined home ranges in both summer and winter but do not use the same ranges from season to season or from year to year (Otis and Weber 1982). In Wisconsin, winter home ranges, were one-third the size of summer ranges, and most of the everyday activities occurred in an area encompassing about 45% of the home range (Otis and Weber 1982).

Extensive movements sometimes occur. In a mark-recapture study in Missouri, 51.3% of the carp were recaptured within 1 mile of their release site and 90% stayed within 25 miles, but one individual was recaptured over 200 miles away (Funk 1955). In a Wisconsin lake, most anchor-tagged carp were recaptured within 2 miles of their release site, but one carp moved 7.5 miles (12.1 km) in 18 days and one was recaptured 19.5 miles (31.4 km) away after 72 days (Otis and Weber 1982). A carp tagged near Columbia, Missouri, was recaptured 28 months later in South Dakota, a distance of 676 stream miles (1090 km) (Pflieger 1975).

Adult carp have few enemies except humans; some juveniles are prey for predatory fishes, birds, and mammals. Sometimes, in shallow lakes and ponds, large numbers are killed by severe winter conditions (Shields 1957, Jessen and Kuehn 1958, Threinen 1949). Large-scale destruction of eggs occurs when water levels drop after the major spring spawning period, exposing and desiccating millions of eggs (Shields 1957, Sigler 1958).

Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Estuarine Habitat(s): River mouth/tidal river
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, CREEK, Low gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Pool
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: Usually occurs in rivers, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, swamps, or low-salinity estuaries; usually in shallow water with abundant vegetation and little or no current; generally does not inhabit first-order, cold streams or deep lakes with little or no littoral zone. Tolerant of wide range in oxygen, salinity, turbidity, and bottom conditions. Fry, juveniles, and adults tolerate temperatures between 5 and 35 C; optimal growth occurs between 25 and 30 C (Edwards and Twomey 1982). Carp can live in water with turbidities in excess of 200 JTU and secchi disc visibilities less than 8 cm (3.2 in) (Jester 1974). A pH level greater than 10.5 or less than 5.0 is harmful (Edwards and Twomey 1982). Air gulping occurs when dissolved oxygen (DO) level is less than 0.5 mg/l; 6-7 mg/l DO is needed for optimum growth (Edwards and Twomey 1982). Some carp occur in areas with water currents as swift as 120 cm/sec, but much slower waters are preferred, such as less than 20 cm/sec in the Missouri River (Edwards and Twomey 1982).

Optimal river habitat is characterized by warm water (above 20 degrees C during the growing season, about mid-June through August), low gradient (above 1.5 m/km), shallow vegetated marshland available for spawning, at least 50% of the river area in pools or off-channel areas, adequate cover (logs, brush, etc.) in pools, and fertile conditions.

Optimal lake habitat has warm water (as defined above), at least 25% littoral area, aquatic or inundated vegetation for spawning, deeper waters for overwintering, and fertile conditions (Edwards and Twomey 1982). In winter, carp may occur in deeper water than used in summer. In Lake Winnebago, Wisconsin, adults spent the summer in 3-4 ft (0.9-1.2 m) of water and moved to 4-8 ft (1.2-2.4 m) in the winter (Otis and Weber 1982). Carp spent the winter in 5-7 m of water in Lake Mendota, Wisconsin (Johnson and Hasler 1977).

Usually, carp spawn in shallows and flooded areas in water depths of less than 0.5 m, but spawning has been observed in 1.8 m deep water (Edwards and Twomey 1982). Eggs are scattered and stick to submerged objects. Carp fry stay attached to the vegetation for about two days before dropping to the bottom, and they inhabit shallow (less than 2 m), warm sluggish water during their first summer (Edwards and Twomey 1982).

Adult Food Habits: Herbivore, Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore, Invertivore
Food Comments: Omnivorous; adults eat mainly invertebrates, detritus, fish eggs, and plant material (Jester 1974, Becker 1983, Sublette et al. 1990). Fry feed on zooplankton, such as cladocerns and COPEPOD NAUPLII (Buckley et al. 1976) but eat phytoplankton if zooplankton densities are low (Edwards and Twomey 1982).

Most stomach analyses indicate that adults eat more animal matter than plant material (Moen 1953, Sigler 1958). Carp from several northwest Iowa lakes had an average of 10% plant material (debris, dead plant material, green fragments of pondweeds and filamentous algae, seeds of aquatic plants) and 90% animal material (midge larvae, caddisfly larvae, and other insect larvae, small crustaceans, small gastropods) (Moen 1953). In contrast, in Elephant Butte Lake, New Mexico, carp stomach contents contained 43.5% plant material and 10.2% animal material, with the rest of the food being unrecognizable (Jester 1974). The clorophyta and chrysophyta plant phyla made up 32.5% of all the plant material; copepods and cladocerans were the predominant animal items.

Carp have been accused of eating large quantities of native fish eggs, but in both the Iowa and New Mexico, less than 1% of the food was fish eggs.

In winter, carp eat considerably less food than in the summer. In Iowa, all of the stomach material examined from fish in winter was animal matter, principally crustaceans and midge larvae (Moen 1953).

Foraging occurs on the bottom, on submerged objects, or at the surface (Jester 1974). When bottom feeding, carp swim slowly and steadily, in a head-down oblique position, with the mouth protruded, sucking up material and occasionally expelling it into the water column to pick out food items. Carp also "fan" the silt around rooted aquatic plants with their fins to uncover food items around the roots, and they sometimes pull up rooted vegetation for eating or uncovering food (Owen et al. 1981). Surface feeding is accompanied by a great deal of splashing and jumping from the water (Jester 1974).

Length: 122 centimeters
Economic Attributes
Economic Comments: Has been cultivated for food in Asia for centuries. Use as food in North America is limited but, when properly prepared, carp are considered good eating by many. Has been used in carcinogenesis testing (Metcalfe 1989). See Cooper (1987) for further information on utilization by humans.
Management Summary
Stewardship Overview: To manage carp populations, use an integrated approach combining chemical, mechanical, and biological methods, based on the physical and chemical characteristics of the water system being managed and on the degree of carp control desired. Give careful consideration to secondary effects of control methods used. Defend against reintroduction of carp.
Species Impacts: In most areas of North America, the common carp is considered an undesirable species because it increases the turbidity of the water by its feeding and spawning activities (Chamberlain 1948, Miller 1952, Threinen and Helm 1954), uproots and eats aquatic vegetation important to waterfowl and the young of native fishes (Threinen 1949, Rose and Moen 1952, Cahoon 1953), alters the quality of the water (Lamarra 1976), and feeds on the eggs of more desirable fishes.

Tyron (1954) conducted an experiment to test the effect of carp on aquatic vegetation by setting up screened carp exclosures in a Pennsylvania lake. The exclosures had an average of 3.9 g of dried plants/sq meter compared with 1.4 g/sq meter in adjacent open quadrats. King and Hunt (1967) used carp exclosures in a lake marsh and found a significantly higher weight of plant species inside the exclosures. Chara (CHARA sp.) was eaten and leafy pondweed (POTAMOGETON FOLIOSUS) was uprooted by the carp; sago pondweed (P. PECTINATUS) and crispus (P. CRISPUS) were not affected by carp activity. At carp densities less than 300 lb/acre (336 kg/ha), plant growth was most affected in early and late summer but, at higher carp densities, plants were adversely affected throughout the growing season.

Robel (1961) stocked enclosures with known numbers of carp in a Utah marsh and compared the amount of vegetation and turbidity levels with empty control enclosures. There was no difference in turbidity between control and experimental enclosures. Vegetative productivity in control enclosures was not different from that in enclosures with less than 200 lbs carp/acre (224 kg/ha) but was significantly higher than in enclosures with over 400 lb carp/acre (448 kg/ha).

The amount of turbidity caused by carp depends on the type of bottom substrate. Mraz and Cooper (1957) observed that ponds with the bottom covered with fibrous plant materials showed an increase in turbidity when carp were added, but ponds with loam bottoms became very turbid.

Lamarra (1976) proposed that carp densities of 200 kg/ha are high enough to possibly cause serious levels of eutrophication through carp feeding and digestion. Carp densities of 200 kg/ha in two Minnesota ponds were sufficient to increase the amount of chlorophyll a, net community production, and community respiration. From in situ experiments, Lamarra concluded that these increases were caused by the rapid recycling of nutrients, especially phosphorus, by carp.

In conclusion, the magnitude of carp destruction of aquatic habitats primarily depends on the density of carp. Other factors, such as type of bottom substrate, the plant species present, and the season also affect the impact of carp presence.

Management Requirements: Carp have become successfully established in most waterways with appropriate habitat because of their ability to migrate long distances, high fecundity, omnivorous feeding habits, and tolerance of poor water quality. In areas with optimal habitat, carp can multiply to high densities without management and become a problem by destroying vegetation used by waterfowl and young gamefish or increasing turbidity and eutrophication. In some areas, such as deep lakes with little littoral zone, the carp population maintains itself at low densities with no management and no problems (Threinen 1949; Henneger, pers. comm.). Carp will never be eradicated from most water systems and hence require careful, often continuous management. The goal of carp management is to keep carp densities low and to maintain a population which has a balance of individuals in every age class instead of all individuals in one or two age classes (Henneger, pers. comm.). With this type of population structure, the carp population is less likely to increase to harmful densities. In a few cases (e.g., in a small marsh, small lake, or farm pond), it may be desirable and feasible to eradicate all carp. This option is exercised when large amounts of aquatic vegetation are needed for waterfowl (Henneger, pers. comm.). If carp are completely eradicated, great care must be taken to prevent the reintroduction of carp into the water system.

The most effective approach to carp control is an integrated approach combining chemical, mechanical, and biological methods (Marking and Bills 1981; Priegel, pers. comm.). Mechanical methods include electric wires, water drawdown, seining, trapping, and fishing. Biological methods include the stocking of predatory fishes, improving water quality, and prohibiting the use of live carp as bait. The effectiveness of all procedures is increased if there is a good knowledge of the carp habitat and movements in the water system being managed (Jester 1974). The methods chosen, and the effectiveness of these methods, depend on whether partial or complete carp eradication is desired. Some methods, especially chemicals, water drawdowns, and electrofishing, are not species-specific; if large numbers of fishes, besides carp, are in the water system, these methods may not be appropriate. Some methods, such as seining, trapping, and netting may be cost-effective in that the captured carp can be sold.

SEINES: Seining is probably the most commonly used mechanical method. Seines are most effective in spring and fall when the fish bunch up and in early mornings and late afternoons (Threinen 1949, Cahoon 1953). Seines vary in length and depth and stretch mesh sizes generally range from 2 to 5 in (5.1-12.7 cm). Catches of up to 500,000 lbs per pull have been reported with seines (Threinen 1949). Areas to be seined sometimes are baited with grain to increase the carp catch (Cahoon 1953). Usually, commercial fisheries personnel are contracted to seine for carp, especially in large water systems.

TRAPS: Wooden carp traps are most effective in narrow bodies of water such as rivers, inlet and outlet streams, and narrow bays. They are most productive in the spring and fall when maximum carp movement occurs (Threinen 1949, Miller 1952). Some Wisconsin traps have produced up to 1000,000 lbs of carp in a season (Threinen 1949).

NETS: Threinen (1949) reported that gill nets catch fewer pounds of carp than seines in Wisconsin lakes in the summer, but he noted that gill nets can be used effectively in the winter under the ice. However, Jester (1974) found that gill nets with 4 and 5 in (10.2 and 12.7 cm) stretch mesh were more effective at harvesting carp in Elephant Butte Lake, New Mexico, than were seines or traps. Gill nets that are yellow, blue, brown, white, or clear all successfully catch carp, but red, green, and violet nets seem to repel carp (Jester 1973). Mayhew (1973) experimentally tested the attractiveness of various baits in 61 cm diameter hoop nets with 3.8 cm stretch mesh in Red Rock Reservoir, Iowa. Soybean cake bait attracted the most carp, a soybean and cheese combination bait attracted fewer carp, and cheese bait and empty nets were ineffective. Mayhew (1973) caught the highest number of carp in August, followed by July, September, and June.

WATER DRAWDOWN: For water systems such as reservoirs, where the water level can be easily manipulated, lowering the water level during spawning (to dry out eggs laid in the shallows) (Shields 1957) or at other times, to suffocate the fish (Haglund, pers. comm.), is an option. Drawdowns designed to dry out eggs are difficult because the timing must be perfect (Shields 1957; Henneger, pers. comm.). The most frequent use of water drawdowns is a partial drawdown used in conjunction with a chemical, with the objective of reducing the volume of water and, therefore, reducing the amount of toxicant needed (Hacker 1971; Henneger, pers. comm.).

ELECTROFISHING: Electrical devices are rarely used because they are extremely dangerous to people and because other mechanical devices are just as effective (Henneger, pers. comm.). One application is to extend electric wires in the water just above a dam and then collect the stunned and dead fish just below the dam (Henneger, pers. comm.). Electrical currents are most effective as a carp barrier. Electric weirs or wires create an electrical field that carp will not pass through and so, carp can be kept from migrating into unwanted areas (Henneger, pers. comm.).

BIOLOGICAL: Biological methods can contribute to carp control when used with other control methods. Theoretically, stocking water systems with predatory fishes should help maintain a healthy population of carp at low densities, if the predators are stocked after carp densities have been reduced by another method (Miller 1952; Lennon et al. 1970; Priegel, pers. comm.). However, it is difficult to ascertain the effect of stocking predators on carp populations. Carp are tolerant of poor water conditions and are usually abundant in areas that have been fertilized by raw sewage, fertilizer runoff, or other organic pollutants (Pflieger 1975, Owen et al. 1981). Improving water quality, in conjunction with other methods, should reduce carp numbers (Priegel, pers. comm.). Finally, prohibiting the use of carp as live bait can prevent introduction of carp in areas that have been cleared of carp (Sigler 1958, Lennon et al. 1970).

CHEMICAL: Partial (spot) or complete treatment of water systems with fish toxicants is the most effective method of carp control, especially when used with another method (Priegel, pers. comm.). Two chemicals are registered in the United States for use as fish toxicants: antimycin and rotenone (Lennon et al. 1970, Marking and Bills 1981). Neither chemical is very effective below depths of 15 feet (Lennon et al. 1970). Both chemicals act by inhibiting cellular respiration in fish (Lennon et al. 1970).

Antimycin is pH sensitive; it degrades rapidly in waters with a pH greater than 8.5 and degrades within 7-10 days in more acidic waters. The toxicant is packaged as a controlled-release coating on sand grains and as a water-soluble liquid. Depending on the formulation used, sand grains release the poison within the first 5-15 feet (1.5-4.6 m) of depth. The sand formulations are more effective than the liquid form in areas choked with aquatic non-emergent vegetation. Liquids tend to stick to the vegetation and do not effectively penetrate all vegetated areas. Gilderhus et al. (1969) and Lennon and Berger (1970: table 5) reported the results of over 50 field tests of antimycin.

Rotenone is available in both a liquid and a powdered form. Liquid rotenone is malodorous and repels fish. Therefore, the target fish must be prevented from escaping. Another problem is that rotenone is reversible; a poisoned fish can recover if it finds a non-poisoned area. Under ideal conditions, a concentration of 0.5 mg/l (ppm) is recommended, but concentrations up to 5.0 mg/l are used (Sigler 1958, Bonn and Holbert 1961, Lennon et al. 1970). Except in very soft water, rotenone degrades within two weeks of application. When used together, rotenone and antimycin have an additive effect on fishes (Howland 1969). Smith (1950) and Lennon et al. (1970) reviewed studies that have used rotenone to reclaim lakes and steams and some carp data is included.

Population/Occurrence Delineation
Group Name: Large Cyprinids

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a given location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals (including eggs and larvae) in appropriate habitat.
Separation Barriers: Dam lacking a suitable fishway; high waterfall; upland habitat.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 20 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 20 km
Separation Justification: Data on dispersal and other movements generally are not available. In some species, individuals may migrate variable distances between spawning areas and nonspawning habitats.

Separation distances (in aquatic kilometers) for cyprinids are arbitrary but reflect the presumption that movements and appropriate separation distances generally should increase with fish size. Hence small, medium, and large cyprinids, respectively, have increasingly large separation distances. Separation distance reflects the likely low probability that two occupied locations separated by less than many kilometers of aquatic habitat would represent truly independent populations over the long term.

Because of the difficulty in defining suitable versus unsuitable habitat, especially with respect to dispersal, and to simplify the delineation of occurrences, a single separation distance is used regardless of habitat quality.

Occupied locations that are separated by a gap of 10 km or more of any aquatic habitat that is not known to be occupied represent different occurrences. However, it is important to evaluate seasonal changes in habitat to ensure that an occupied habitat occurrence for a particular population does not artificially separate spawning areas and nonspawning areas as different occurrences simply because there have been no collections/observations in an intervening area that may exceed the separation distance.

Date: 21Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.
Population/Occurrence Viability
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 11Dec1995
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Drilling, N., and G. Hammerson
Management Information Edition Date: 02Oct1985
Management Information Edition Author: N.E. DRILLING
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 11Dec1995
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

  • Aquin, P. 1999. Évaluation de la situation des groupes taxonomiques des poissons du Québec. Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune. 9 pages.

  • Atton, F.M. and J.J. Merkowsky. 1983. Atlas of Saskatchewan Fish. Saskatchewan Department of Parks and Renewable Resources, Fisheries Branch Technical Report 83-2. 281pp.

  • Balon, E.K. 1974. Domestication of the carp, CYPRINUS CARPIO L., Misc. Publ. Roy. Ontaria Mus. Life Sci. 37 pp.

  • Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 1,052 pp.

  • Bonn, E. W. and L. R. Holbert. 1961. Some effects of retenone products on municipal water supplies. Transactions American Fisheries Society 90:287-97.

  • Buckley, R. V., V. L. Spykermann and L. E. Inman. 1976. Food of the pelagic young of walleyes and five cohabiting fish species in Clear Lake, Iowa. Transactions American Fisheries Society. 105:77-83.

  • Cahoon, W. G. 1953. Commercial carp removal at Lake Mattamusket, North Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management. 17:312-7.

  • Chamberlain, E. B. 1948. Ecological factors influencing the growth and management of certain waterfowl food plants on Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Transactions North American Wildlife Conference. 13:347-56.

  • Cooper, E. L., ed. Carp in North America. Am. Fisheries Soc., Bethesda, Maryland. 84 pp.

  • Edwards, E. A. and K. Twomey. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: common carp. Biological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. OBS-82/10.12.

  • Frey, D. G. 1940. Growth and ecology of the carp, CYPRINUS CARPIO (Linnaeus), in four lakes of the Madison region, Wis-consin. PhD. Thesis. 248 pp.

  • Funk, J. L. 1955. Movement of stream fishes in Missouri. Transactions American Fisheries Society. 85:39-57.

  • Gilderhus, P. A., B. L. Berger and R. E. Lennon. 1969. Field trials of antimycin a as a fish toxicant. Investigations in Fish Control, No. 27, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 21 pp.

  • Hacker, V. 1971. Breakthrough in carp control? Wisconsin Conservation Bulletin. 36(3):3-5.

  • Howland, R. M. 1969. Interaction of antimycin a and rotenone in fish bioassays. Progressive Fish Culturist. 31:33-4.

  • Jessen, R. L. and J. H. Kuehn. 1958. A preliminary report on the effect of the elimination of carp on submerged vegetation. Game Investigational Report No. 2, Division of Game and Fish, Minnesota Department of Conservation. 11 pp.

  • Jester, D. B. 1973. Variations in catchability of fishes with color of gill nets. Transactions American Fisheries Society. 102:109-15.

  • Jester, D. B. 1974. Life history, ecology, and management of the carp, CYPRINUS CARPIO (Linnaeus), in Elephant Butte Lake. N. M. State Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Rep. No. 273. 80 pp.

  • Johnson, P. B. and A. D. Hasler. 1977. Winter aggregations of carp (CYPRINUS CARPIO) as revealed by ultrasonic tracking. Transactions American Fisheries Society. 106:556-9.

  • King, D. R. and G. S. Hunt. 1967. Effect of carp on vegetation in a Lake Erie Marsh. Journal of Wildlife Management. 31:181-8.

  • Lachner, E. A., C. R. Robins and W. R. Courtenay. 1970. Exotic fishes and other aquatic orgainisms introduced into North America. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 59. 29 pp.

  • Lamarra. V. A. 1976. Experimental studies of the effect of carp (CYPRINUS CARPIO L.) on the chemistry and biology of lakes. University of Minnesota. Ph.D. Diss. 326 pp.

  • Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.

  • Legendre, V. et J.F. Bergeron. 1977. Liste des poissons d' eau douce du Québec. MLCP, Service Aménage. Expl. Faune. Rap. dact. 6

  • Lennon, R. E. and B. L. Berger. 1970. A resume on field applications of antimycin a to control fish. Investigations in Fish Control, No. 40., U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 19 pp.

  • Lennon, R. E., J. B. Hunn, R. A. Schnick and R. M. Burress. 1970. Reclamation of ponds, lakes and streams with fish toxicants: a review. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 100. 99 pp.

  • Manooch, C. S., III. 1984. Fisherman's guide. Fishes of the southeastern United States. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. 362 pp.

  • Marking, L. L. and T. D. Bills. 1981. Sensitivity of four species of carp to selected fish toxicants. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 1:51-4.

  • Mayhew, J. 1973. Variations in the catch success of channel catfish and carp in baited hoop nets. Proceedings Iowa Academy of Sciences. 80:136-9.

  • Metcalfe, C. D. 1989. Tests for predicting carcinogenicity in fish. Reviews in Aquatic Sciences 1(1):111-129.

  • Miller, N. J. 1952. Carp: control and utilization. Wisconsin Conservation Bulletin. 17(5):3-7.

  • Moen, T. 1953. Food habits of the carp in northwest Iowa lakes. Proceedings Iowa Academy of Sciences. 60:665-86.

  • Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. Revised and expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley. xv + 502 pp.

  • Mraz, D. and E. L. Cooper. 1957. Reproduction of carp, largemouth bass, bluegills, and black crappies in small rearing ponds. Journal of Wildlife Management. 21:127-33.

  • Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.

  • Ness, J. C., W. T. Helm and C. W. Threinen. 1957. Some vital statistics in a heavily exploited population of carp. Journal of Wildlife Management. 21:279-92.

  • Otis, K. J. and J. J. Weber. 1982. Movement of carp in the Lake Winnebago system determined by radio telemetry. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin, No. 134. 16 pp.

  • Owen, J. B., D. S. Elsen and G. W. Russell. 1981. Distribution of fishes in North and South Dakota basins affected by the Garrison Diversion Unit. University of North Dakota Press, Grand Forks, North Dakota. 211 pp.

  • Page, L. M., H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, N. E. Mandrak, R. L. Mayden, and J. S. Nelson. 2013. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Seventh edition. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 34, Bethesda, Maryland.

  • Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.

  • Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 2011. Peterson field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston. xix + 663 pp.

  • Pflieger, W. L. 1975. The fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation. Columbia, Missouri. viii + 343 pp.

  • Phillips, G. L., W. D. Schmid and J. C. Underhill. 1982. Fishes of the Minnesota Region. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. 248 pp.

  • Robel, R. J. 1961. The effects of carp populations on the production of waterfowl food plants on a western waterfowl marsh. Transactions North American Wildlife Conference. 26:147-59.

  • Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 20. 183 pp.

  • Rose, E. T. and T. Moen. 1952. The increase in game fish populations in East Okoboji Lake, Iowa, following intensive removal of rough fish. Transactions American Fisheries Society. 82:104-114.

  • Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management. 1996. The Fisheries Regulations being Chapter F-16.1 Reg 1 (effective 9 May 1995) as ammended by Saskatchewan Regulations 13/96.

  • Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 184. 966 pp.

  • Shields, J. T. 1957. Experimental control of carp reproduction through water drawdowns in Fort Randall Reservoir, South Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management. 87:23-33.

  • Sigler, W. F. 1958. The ecology and use of carp in Utah. Utah State Univ. Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, No. 405. 63 pp.

  • Smith, M. W. 1950. The use of poisons to control undesirable fish in Canadian fresh waters. Canadian Fish-Culturist. 8:17-29.

  • Sublette, J. E., M. D Hatch, and M. Sublette. 1990. The fishes of New Mexico. University New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 393 pp.

  • Swee, U. B. and H. R. McCrimmon. 1966. Reproductive biology of the carp, CYPRINUS CARPIO L., in Lake St. Lawrence, Ontario. Tranactions American Fisheries Society. 95:372-80.

  • Threinen, C. W. 1949. An analysis and appraisal of the roughfish problem of Wisconsin. Investigational Report, No. 715, Division of Fish Management, Wisconsin Conservation Department. 19 pp.

  • Threinen, C. W. and W. T. Helm. 1954. Experiments and observations designed to show carp destruction of aquatic vegetation. Journal of Wildlife Management. 18:247-51.

  • Tyron, C. A. 1954. The effect of carp exclosures on growth of submerged and aquatic vegetation in Pymatuning Lake, Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management. 18:251-4.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of November 2016.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2017 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.