An Evaluation of Attractants to Increase Catch Rates and Deplete Age‐0 Common Carp in Shallow South Dakota Lakes

Abstract

Common Carp Cyprinus carpio is a highly invasive species that can alter shallow aquatic ecosystems from clear to turbid water. Although mechanical removals are commonly used to control abundance of adult Common Carp, harvest models suggest that removing age‐0 Common Carp also reduces recruitment. Attractants often improve fisheries sampling and commercial harvest and may provide a tool to increase catch rates of age‐0 Common Carp. However, techniques and attractants that target age‐0 Common Carp have not been evaluated. Our objective was to compare catch rates and size distribution of age‐0 Common Carp captured in cloverleaf traps with and without bait (fish meal or bloodworms) or light attractants. To assess whether trapping decreased the abundance of age‐0 Common Carp, we also evaluated (1) the total number and proportion of age‐0 Common Carp removed from the populations and (2) whether catch rates declined temporally as a result. Traps were fished in emergent vegetation for 5–6 nights in two shallow lakes in South Dakota during August 2010. Catch rates of age‐0 Common Carp did not differ among attractants and the control. However, catch rates declined through time, and 3,102 age‐0 Common Carp were removed from the two lakes. Depletion population estimates indicated at least 83% of age‐0 Common Carp from Brant Lake and 21% (lower limits, 95% confidence intervals) of age‐0 Common Carp from Whitewood Lake were removed, suggesting trapping may be successful at depleting abundance. Lighted traps caught larger age‐0 Common Carp than did control traps or traps baited with bloodworms or fish meal. These results suggest that the attractants evaluated here do not increase catch rates of age‐0 Common Carp. Nonetheless, cloverleaf traps may reduce abundance of age‐0 Common Carp and have value in integrated management plans for this species. Received August 6, 2015; accepted January 6, 2016 Published online May 16, 2016

Variation in Bluegill Catch Rates and Total Length Distributions among Four Sampling Gears Used in Two Wisconsin Lakes Dominated by Small Fish

“…; Carl et al. ) relative to the other gears used herein (>300 s for deployment and retrieval; Collins et al. ), the ability to be deployed in areas hard to sample with other gears (e.g., complex habitats), and the minimal investment cost per trap (~$150/trap) suggests that cloverleaf traps provide a cost‐ and time‐efficient gear for sampling substock‐length Bluegill.…”

“…Cloverleaf traps are commonly deployed in vegetated areas (e.g., Weber and Brown ; Carl et al. ), but these habitats are unable to be successfully sampled using other gears such as boat electrofishing (e.g., Serafy et al. ), mini‐fyke nets, and beach seines (e.g., Bonar et al.…”

“…Cloverleaf traps have been used to capture age‐0 and juvenile Yellow Perch (Brown and St. Sauver ) and Common Carp (Carl et al. ) as well as age‐0 Bluegill (Weber and Brown ; Kaemingk et al. ), but this is the first study to evaluate cloverleaf traps for their relative abilities to sample Bluegill populations in littoral areas of Midwestern lakes.…”

“…; Weber and Brown ; Carl et al. ). Bluegill primarily use complex littoral habitats throughout their life (Mittelbach ; Werner and Hall ; Paukert and Willis ), which are difficult to sample using other gears (e.g., beach seines or mini‐fyke nets), but cloverleaf traps have effectively sampled fish occupying these habitats (e.g., Weber and Brown ).…”

Mark retention and fish survival associated with a low‐cost marking technique for common carp Cyprinus carpio (Linnaeus, 1758)

“…Common carp ( C. carpio , [Linnaeus, 1758]) are native to Asia and Europe, and have become widely distributed across the globe as a result of intentional stockings for aquaculture and recreational angling (Carl, Weber, & Brown, 2016; Penne & Pierce, 2008; Weber & Brown, 2011; Weber, Hennen, & Brown, 2011). Since their arrival in the United States in the late 1,800's (Balon, 1995), the distribution of common carp has expanded due to its wide tolerance to temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen concentrations, and its ability to adapt to different habitats (Bajer & Sorensen, 2010).…”