Role of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) in aquaculture production systems

Figures & data

Figure 1. World aquaculture production trends of common carp, grass carp and silver carp.

Figure 2. Major common carp-producing countries (except China) and their production in 2010 (FAO 2013).

Table 1. Water quality in systems with various densities of common carp.

Variable	System	Common carp density	Average value	Reference
DO (mg l^−1)	Pond	0	7.1	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	0.5 m^−2	6.4	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	1 m^−2	6.1	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Simulated pond	0	6.2	Rahman et al. (2008d)
	Simulated pond	1 m^−2	5.9	Rahman et al. (2008d)
	Simulated pond	2 m^−2	5.5	Rahman et al. (2008d)
pH range	Pond	0	7.2–8.4	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	0.5 m^−2	6.5–8.3	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	1 m^−2	6.5–8.2	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Simulated pond	0	6.6–9.2	Rahman et al. (2008d)
	Simulated pond	1 m^−2	6.7–9.3	Rahman et al. (2008d)
	Simulated pond	2 m^−2	6.5–8.4	Rahman et al. (2008d)
NO3-N (mg l^−1)	Pond	0	0.78	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	0.5 m^−2	0.96	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	1 m^−2	0.95	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	0	0.03	Zambrano et al. (1999)
	Pond	> 2 m^−2	0.02	Zambrano et al. (1999)
	Pond	> 50 kg ha^−1	0.05	Kloskowski (2011a)
	Pond	170–240 kg ha^−1	0.36	Kloskowski (2011a)
	Simulated pond	0	0.38	Rahman et al. (2008d)
	Simulated pond	1 m^−2	0.43	Rahman et al. (2008d)
	Simulated pond	2 m^−2	0.43	Rahman et al. (2008d)
TAN (mg l^−1)	Pond	0	0.25	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	0.5 m^−2	0.32	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	1 m^−2	0.31	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	0	0.06	Zambrano et al. (1999)
	Pond	> 2 m^−2	0.45	Zambrano et al. (1999)
	Simulated pond	0	0.13	Rahman et al. (2008d)
	Simulated pond	1 m^−2	0.15	Rahman et al. (2008d)
	Simulated pond	2 m^−2	0.16	Rahman et al. (2008d)
TN (mg l^−1)	Pond	0	1.52	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	0.5 m^−2	1.93	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	1 m^−2	1.81	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	0	1.39	Zambrano et al. (1999)
	Pond	> 2 m^−2	2.32	Zambrano et al. (1999)
	Simulated pond	0	0.73	Rahman et al. (2008d)
	Simulated pond	1 m^−2	0.78	Rahman et al. (2008d)
	Simulated pond	2 m^−2	0.83	Rahman et al. (2008d)
PO4-P (mg l^−1)	Pond	0	0.74	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	0.5 m^−2	1.07	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	1 m^−2	1.00	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	0	0.03	Zambrano et al. (1999)
	Pond	> 2 m^−2	0.10	Zambrano et al. (1999)
	Pond	> 50 kg ha^−1	1.6	Kloskowski (2011a)
	Pond	170–240 kg ha^−1	2.0	Kloskowski (2011a)
	Simulated pond	0	0.23	Rahman et al. (2008d)
	Simulated pond	1 m^−2	0.27	Rahman et al. (2008d)
	Simulated pond	2 m^−2	0.28	Rahman et al. (2008d)
TP (mg l^−1)	Pond	0	1.28	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	0.5 m^−2	1.67	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	1 m^−2	1.58	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	0	0.13	Zambrano et al. (1999)
	Pond	> 2 m^−2	0.26	Zambrano et al. (1999)
	Simulated pond	0	0.42	Rahman et al. (2008d)
	Simulated pond	1 m^−2	0.48	Rahman et al. (2008d)
	Simulated pond	2 m^−2	0.49	Rahman et al. (2008d)
Turbidity (NTU)	Enclosure	0	10.3	Parkos et al. (2003)
	Enclosure	174 kg ha^−1	34.2	Parkos et al. (2003)
	Enclosure	476 kg ha^−1	62.5	Parkos et al. (2003)
	100 litre glass aquarium	0.33 g l^−1	94	Sidorkewicj et al. (1999)
	100 litre glass aquarium	0.70 g l^−1	254	Sidorkewicj et al. (1999)
	100 litre glass aquarium	1.05 g l^−1	329	Sidorkewicj et al. (1999)
	Enclosure	0	2.1	Lougheed et al. (1998)
	Enclosure	1042 kg ha^−1	26.1	Lougheed et al. (1998)
	Pond	> 50 kg ha^−1	3.2	Kloskowski (2011a)
	Pond	170–240 kg ha^−1	7.7	Kloskowski (2011a)
Turbidity (Secchi depth) (cm)	Pond	0.3 m^−2	105.0	Zambrano & Hinojosa (1999)
	Pond	0.5 m^−2	100.0	Zambrano & Hinojosa (1999)
	Pond	1.7 m^−2	65.0	Zambrano & Hinojosa (1999)
	Pond	3.8 m^−2	62.0	Zambrano & Hinojosa (1999)

Note: DO = dissolved oxygen; NO₃-N = nitrate nitrogen; TAN = total ammonia nitrogen; TN = total nitrogen; PO₄-P = phosphate phosphorus; TP = total phosphorus.

Table 2. Total phytoplankton and zooplankton biomass in systems with various densities of common carp.

Variable	System	Common carp density	Average value	Reference
Total phytoplankton	Pond	0	0.27 (mm^3 l^−1)	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	0.5 m^−2	0.35 (mm^3 l^−1)	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	1 m^−2	0.29 (mm^3 l^−1)	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond (c.a)	0	1.0 (µg l^−1)	Zambrano et al. (1999)
	Pond (c.a)	> 2 m^−2	24.3 (µg l^−1)	Zambrano et al. (1999)
	Pond (c.a)	> 50 kg ha^−1	12.5 (µg l^−1)	Kloskowski (2011a)
	Pond (c.a)	170–240 kg ha^−1	53.5 (µg l^−1)	Kloskowski (2011a)
	Simulated pond	0	0.06 (mm^3 l^−1)	Rahman et al. (2008d)
	Simulated pond	1 m^−2	0.14 (mm^3 l^−1)	Rahman et al. (2008d)
	Simulated pond	2 m^−2	0.13 (mm^3 l^−1)	Rahman et al. (2008d)
Total zooplankton	Pond	0	0.04 (mm^3 l^−1)	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	0.5 m^−2	0.07 (mm^3 l^−1)	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	1 m^−2	0.06 (mm^3 l^−1)	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	0	21.2 (n l^−1)	Zambrano et al. (1999)
	Pond	> 2 m^−2	12.9 (n l^−1)	Zambrano et al. (1999)
	Simulated pond	0	0.48 (mm^3 l^−1)	Rahman et al. (2008d)
	Simulated pond	1 m^−2	1.56 (mm^3 l^−1)	Rahman et al. (2008d)
	Simulated pond	2 m^−2	1.08 (mm^3 l^−1)	Rahman et al. (2008d)
	Enclosure	0	0.26 (mg l^−1)	Parkos et al. (2003)
	Enclosure	174 kg ha^−1	0.44 (mg l^−1)	Parkos et al. (2003)
	Enclosure	476 kg ha^−1	0.11 (mg l^−1)	Parkos et al. (2003)
	Enclosure	0	266 (no. l^−1)	Parkos et al. (2003)
	Enclosure	174 kg ha^−1	413 (no. l^−1)	Parkos et al. (2003)
	Enclosure	476 kg ha^−1	233 (no. l^−1)	Parkos et al. (2003)
Benthic macroinvertebrates	Pond	0	6.2 (cm^3 m^−2)	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	0.5 m^−2	3.7 (cm^3 m^−2)	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	1 m^−2	3.2 (cm^3 m^−2)	Rahman et al. (2008a)
	Pond	0	4.0 (no. m^−2)	Zambrano & Hinojosa (1999)
	pond	3.8 m^−2	82.0 (no. m^−2)	Zambrano & Hinojosa (1999)
	Pond	0	3847 (n m^−3)	Zambrano et al. (1999)
	Pond	> 2 m^−2	3034 (n m^−3)	Zambrano et al. (1999)
Aquatic macrophytes (% cover)	Enclosure	0	96.3	Parkos et al. (2003)
	Enclosure	174 kg ha^−1	44.6	Parkos et al. (2003)
	Enclosure	476 kg ha^−1	17.1	Parkos et al. (2003)
	Pond	0	89	Zambrano et al. (1999)
	Pond	> 2 m^−2	31	Zambrano et al. (1999)
	Lake	300 kg ha^−1	≈ 5.5	Bajer & Sorensen (2015)
	Lake	40 kg ha^−1	≈ 45.5	Bajer & Sorensen (2015)

Note: c.a = chlorophyll a.

Figure 3. Schematic representation of the effects of common carp on nutrients (PO₄-P, PO₄-P, NO₃-N, NO₂-N, total ammonia nitrogen) and natural food availability. + and – indicate positive and negative effects, respectively. Filled ovals indicate processes and states that illustrate the influence of common carp on primary production.

Figure 4. Comparison of the effect of culture systems with common carp (CC) (polyculture of rohu and common carp) and without CC (monoculture of rohu) on nitrogen and phosphorus accumulation (%) in bottom soil and fish. Nitrogen and phosphorus retention efficiencies with no letters in common among three attached bars are significantly different (p < 0.05). Retention efficiency is calculated based on total input nutrients, higher total nutrient input and total fish (data from Rahman et al. 2008a).

Table 3. Growth and production of fish in systems with various densities of common carp.

Variable	System	Common carp density	Average value	Reference
SGR of rohu (% day^−1)	Pond	0	1.39	Rahman et al. (2006)
	Pond	0.5 m^−2	1.55	Rahman et al. (2006)
	Pond	1 m^−2	1.35	Rahman et al. (2006)
	Simulated pond	0	0.9	Rahman et al. (2008d)
	Simulated pond	1 m^−2	1.2	Rahman et al. (2008d)
	Simulated pond	2 m^−2	1.1	Rahman et al. (2008d)
Rohu production (kg ha^−1 137 days^−1)	Pond	0	1747	Rahman et al. (2006)
	Pond	0.5 m^−2	2473	Rahman et al. (2006)
	Pond	1 m^−2	1716	Rahman et al. (2006)
Total fish production (kg ha^−1 137 days^−1)	Pond	0	1747	Rahman et al. (2006)
	Pond	0.5 m^−2	3532	Rahman et al. (2006)
	Pond	1 m^−2	3030	Rahman et al. (2006)
Total fish production (kg ha^−1 135 days^−1)	Pond	0.5 m^−2	2123	Rahman et al. (2008e)

Note: SGR = specific growth rate.

Figure 5. Mean (bar: ± standard deviation) grazing and swimming activity of common carp (data calculated from Rahman et al. 2008d).

Figure 6. Mean (bar: ± standard deviation) grazing and swimming activity of common carp in simulated ponds with only plankton (P) and simulated ponds with plankton and benthic macroinvertebrates (PBM) (data calculated from Rahman & Meyer 2009).

FAO. 2013. Fishstate plus: Universal software for fishery statistical time series (available at: www.fao.org/fi/statist/fisoft/fishplus.asp).

 Google Scholar

Rahman MM, Verdegem MCJ, Nagelkerke LAJ, Wahab MA, Milstein A, Verreth JAJ. 2008a. Effects of common carp Cyprinus carpio (L.) and feed addition in rohu Labeo rohita (Hamilton) ponds on nutrient partitioning among fish, plankton and benthos. Aquacult Res. 39:85–95. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2109.2007.01877.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rahman MM, Verdegem MCJ, Wahab MA, Hossain MY, Jo Q. 2008d. Effects of day and night on swimming, grazing and social behaviours of rohu Labeo rohita (Hamilton) and common carp Cyprinus carpio (L.) in simulated ponds. Aquacult Res. 39:1383–1392. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2109.2008.02007.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zambrano L, Perrow MR, Macias-Garcia C, Aguirre-Hidalgo V. 1999. Impact of introduced carp (Cyprinus carpio) in subtropical shallow ponds in Central Mexico. J Aquat Ecosyst Stress Recovery. 6:281–288. doi: 10.1023/A:1009958914016

 Google Scholar

Kloskowski J. 2011a. Impact of common carp Cyprinus carpio on aquatic communities: direct trophic effects versus habitat deterioration. Fundam Appl Limnol. 178:245–255. doi: 10.1127/1863-9135/2011/0178-0245

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Parkos JJ, Santucci VJJr., Wahl DH. 2003. Effects of adult common carp (Cyprinus carpio) on multiple trophic levels in shallow mesocosms. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 60:182–192. doi: 10.1139/f03-011

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sidorkewicj NS, Freije H, López Cazorla AC. 1999. Effects of young common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) on seston dynamics in experimental culture. Ecol Environ Conserv. 5:35–39.

 Google Scholar

Lougheed LV, Crosbie B, Chow-Fraser P. 1998. Predictions on the effect of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) exclusion on water quality, zooplankton, and submergent macrophytes in a Great Lakes wetland. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 55:1189–1197. doi: 10.1139/f97-315

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zambrano L, Hinojosa D. 1999. Direct and indirect effects of carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) on macrophyte and benthic communities in experimental shallow ponds in central Mexico. Hydrobiologia. 408/409:131–138. doi: 10.1023/A:1017085129620

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bajer PG, Sorensen PW. 2015. Effects of common carp on phosphorus concentrations, water clarity, and vegetation density: a whole system experiment in a thermally stratified lake. Hydrobiologia. 746:303–311. doi: 10.1007/s10750-014-1937-y

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rahman MM, Verdegem MCJ, Nagelkerke LAJ, Wahab MA, Milstein A, Verreth JAJ. 2006. Growth, production and food preference of rohu Labeo rohita (H.) in monoculture and in polyculture with common carp Cyprinus carpio (L.) under fed and non-fed ponds. Aquaculture. 257:359–372. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.03.020

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rahman MM, Verdegem MCJ, Wahab MA. 2008e. Effects of tilapia (Oreochromis nilotica L.) addition and artificial feeding on water quality, and fish growth and production in rohu-common carp bi-culture ponds. Aquacult Res. 39:1579–1587. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2109.2008.02007.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rahman MM, Meyer CG. 2009. Effects of food type on diel behaviours of common carp Cyprinus carpio L. in simulated aquaculture pond conditions. J Fish Biol. 74:2269–2278. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02236.x

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar