4.1 Editorial Material

Black Carp in North America: a Description of Range, Habitats, Time of Year, and Methods of Reported Captures

Journal

NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
Volume 39, Issue 5, Pages 1046-1055

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nafm.10340

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
  2. U.S. Geological Survey
  3. Illinois Department of Natural Resources
  4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of Southern Illinois University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Black Carp Mylopharyngodon piceus are considered invasive in North America. Since the first wild capture in 2003, collection records have increased, yet information summarizing successful collection methods is lacking. Reported capture methods throughout the Black Carp's native and introduced ranges vary providing minimal aid for determining control and monitoring methods. Here, we describe the current species range and the spatial and temporal variation among captures. The size of fish can affect capture; thus, we report captured fish and gear dimensions and recommend appropriate scientific collection methods. We focus on collection data from 302 Black Carp ranging from 410 to 1,607 mm total length received from 2011 to February 2019. The reported range of Black Carp has expanded in the Cumberland, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, and Tennessee rivers. Captures most frequently occurred in channel (41%), side-channel (24%), and backwater (22%) habitat types, with increased records in May, June, and July. Most records were commercial captures, of which hoop net (51%) and gill net (26%) were most common. Results suggest that standard scientific methods for sampling fish in large rivers and standing water by hoop net and gill net may be used to monitor Black Carp, but a robust study design needs to be applied to determine gear selectivity and to determine if catch rates are density dependent or incidental.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available