Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella have been intentionally stocked for aquatic vegetation control across the Midwestern United States for several decades. During the 1970s, escapement of Grass Carp into the Missouri River facilitated their naturalization into much of the Mississippi River basin, including the Upper Mississippi River. Lock and Dam 19 (LD19) in Keokuk, Iowa, is a high-head dam that represents a focal point for naturalized Grass Carp management where populations may differ between upstream and downstream pools as result of limited upstream migration, but potential differences between populations have yet to be evaluated to the best of our knowledge. The objective of this study was to compare the relative abundance, size structure, condition, growth, and recruitment variability of Grass Carp collected upstream and downstream of LD19. We sampled Grass Carp monthly (April–October) during 2014 and 2015 from four locations in the Des Moines River (downstream of LD19) and five locations throughout the Skunk, Iowa, and Cedar rivers (upstream of LD19) using boat electrofishing and trammel net sets. We captured 29 Grass Carp upstream of LD19 compared with 179 individuals captured downstream. Trammel nets only captured Grass Carp downstream of LD19; trammel net catch per unit effort upstream of LD19 was low and ranged from 0.0 to 8.0 fish/net lift (mean ± SE = 0.39 ± 0.13). Electrofishing catch per unit effort ranged from 0.0 to 22.7 fish/h (1.49 ± 0.30) and was higher downstream (2.42 ± 0.30) of LD19 than upstream (0.57 ± 0.07). Grass Carp downstream of LD19 tended to be smaller, younger, of lower body condition, had higher mortality rates, and were slower growing compared with those collected upstream and to populations documented in other systems. Understanding and monitoring adult Grass Carp population characteristics upstream and downstream of LD19 is necessary to determine how they may change in response to ongoing harvest efforts for invasive carps in these river reaches.
Native to the region between northern Vietnam and the Amur River basin in southern Siberia, Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella are now common throughout much of the world (Cudmore and Mandrak 2004). Grass Carp <200 mm in length typically feed on chironomidae larvae and larger zooplankton (Cladocera and Copepoda; Opuszynski 1968; Watkins et al. 1981) but Grass Carp >270 mm in length are primarily herbivores, where micro- and macroflora material comprise the majority of diets (Michewicz et al. 1972; Opuszynski 1972; Colle et al. 1978). Adult Grass Carp diets rarely deviate from plant material unless food resources become scarce (Bain 1993), which can significantly reduce aquatic plant biomass (Bettoli et al. 1993; Schramm and Brice 2000). Reductions of micro- and macroflora resulting from Grass Carp herbivory can result in limnological changes, including increased nutrient and phytoplankton concentrations and algal biomass, and decreased water clarity (Maceina et al. 1992). These limnological changes may also affect native fishes through indirect pathways (e.g., reduction or elimination of micro- and macroflora) rather than directly (e.g., competition or predation). For example, native fishes that use vegetated littoral areas as predator refuge, for foraging, or as nursery habitats have experienced decreased population biomass (Shireman and Smith 1983; Chilton and Muoneke 1992) as well as increased mortality via double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus predation (Hubert 1994) following Grass Carp introduction.
Grass Carp show strong preference for aquatic vegetation, and so were commonly stocked throughout the United States from the 1960s to the early 1990s for biological control of aquatic plants (Mitchell and Kelly 2006; Kelly et al. 2011). Early stocking efforts targeted lakes or reservoirs that were open to stream or river systems, particularly throughout Arkansas, USA, and by the 1970s there were numerous reports of Grass Carp in the Missouri River (Courtenay et al. 1984). The ability of Grass Carp to migrate long distances (e.g., Gorbach and Krykhtin 1988) and tolerate a wide range of environmental conditions (e.g., Opuszynski 1967; Bettoli et al. 1985; Trimm et al. 1989) has since facilitated their introduction and naturalization into many large Midwestern rivers (Pflieger 1978), including the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) watershed (Pflieger 1978; NAS 2019). Naturalized populations of Grass Carp occur throughout much of the UMR watershed, particularly in river sections bordering Missouri, Illinois, and Iowa (Camacho 2016; Larson et al. 2017; NAS 2019). However, Grass Carp populations have yet to reach high densities, unlike other invasive carps inhabiting the UMR (e.g., Silver Carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix;Irons et al. 2007; Kolar et al. 2007; Sullivan et al. 2017). For example, fish community monitoring efforts from 1990 to 2017 in Mississippi River Pools 8, 13, and 26 using pulsed-DC boat electrofishing captured only 260 Grass Carp (<0.001% of total catch in number; LTRM 2019). In addition to low densities, Grass Carp are difficult to capture (Wanner and Klumb 2009a; Sullivan et al. 2019). As a result, limited information exists on naturalized Grass Carp populations despite their widespread distribution throughout the UMR watershed and negative effects (e.g., Maceina et al. 1992) on invaded ecosystems.
Throughout the UMR, a series of 29 lock and dams have been erected that regulate river discharge and form a series of slow-moving pools that are more lentic than the historical natural lotic discharge regime. Most notably, Lock and Dam 19 (LD19; Keokuk, Iowa) is a high-head dam that controls water levels at all flows, whereas most other UMR lock and dams (with the exception of Lock and Dam 1 near St. Paul, Minnesota) are tainter and roller gates or a series of tainter gates that create a more free-flowing river when their gates are open (Knights et al. 2002). Spillways at LD19 are unique in that they are elevated approximately 6 m above the downstream river surface (Wilcox et al. 2004), creating a semipermanent barrier, particularly when completely open (i.e., velocity barrier), to upstream migration except through the navigation lock chambers (Tripp et al. 2014). Lock and Dam 19 represents the farthest downstream UMR dam where fish movement upstream is restricted to the navigation locks, and invasive carp density is much higher downstream of LD19 than upstream as a result (Camacho et al. 2016; Maher 2016). In addition to limiting fish migration, the creation of slow-moving pools between each dam greatly reduces the amount of quality spawning habitat available for many riverine species, including Grass Carp. During spawning periods in the spring and summer when discharge is high, Grass Carp migrate upstream and often congregate in large numbers within turbulent, higher velocity river sections to spawn (Kolar et al. 2007). In areas such as the dammed UMR, these higher velocity river sections are more common immediately downstream of dams, particularly LD19 where spawning of Grass Carp and other invasive carp has been documented to occur (Camacho 2016). Thus, LD19 is considered a key choke point (i.e., limited movement upstream and quality spawning habitat downstream where fish congregate) for invasive carp population management in the main stem UMR (e.g., Larson et al. 2017; Whitledge et al. 2019).
As a result of limited movement through LD19 into upstream UMR reaches, Grass Carp populations are hypothesized to differ upstream and downstream of LD19. However, no studies have quantified these differences beyond interpreting commercial fisheries catch data (e.g., Maher 2016) to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to assess Grass Carp population characteristics (relative abundance, size structure, condition, growth, and recruitment variability) between populations upstream and downstream of LD19. Understanding Grass Carp population characteristics upstream and downstream of this key choke point is a necessary prerequisite for the development of effective control and preventative measures (e.g., MICRA 2017) and should provide the basis for a better understanding of an elusive nonnative species.
We assessed Grass Carp populations in the four southernmost major tributaries of the UMR in Iowa located both upstream and downstream of LD19: Des Moines, Skunk, Iowa, and Cedar rivers (Figure 1). We limited our study to these rivers because they represent most of the farthest upstream UMR pools (Pools 17–20) where natural reproduction by Grass Carp has been documented (Larson et al. 2017), limiting differences attributable to recruitment. The Des Moines and Mississippi river confluence is approximately 6 river kilometers (km) downstream from LD19 (Pool 20). The Skunk and Iowa river confluences with the Mississippi River are approximately 32 and 69 river km upstream (Pools 18–19), respectively. These rivers have an array of wing dikes and levees and have been channelized to manipulate river discharge. Both the Ottumwa Dam (near Ottumwa, Iowa) on the Des Moines River and Oakland Mills Dam (near Oakland Mills, Iowa) on the Skunk River operate to mitigate flooding but fish are believed to pass upstream under most river conditions except during low-discharge periods (J. Euchner, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, personal communication). Starting in either southern Minnesota or central Iowa, these tributaries drain a substantial portion of north-central to southeastern Iowa. Catchment areas range between 11,222 km2 (Skunk River) and 37,296 km2 (Des Moines River; USGS 2019). In contrast, the Iowa River catchment is composed mainly (62%) of the Cedar River catchment (20,279 km2; USGS 2019).
Field and laboratory methods
We sampled Grass Carp monthly from April to October 2014 and 2015 at four sites downstream of LD19 in the Des Moines River and five sites upstream in the Skunk, Iowa, and Cedar rivers (Figure 1). We selected sampling sites within rivers based on the location of river access points, logistical constraints, and agency interests. Grass Carp have been effectively captured using both boat electrofishing (Cumming et al. 1975; Wanner and Klumb 2009a; Clemens et al. 2016) and stationary trammel nets (George and Chapman 2015). Consequently, we used both boat electrofishing surveys and trammel net sets concurrently. At each of the nine sites, we surveyed three fixed sampling locations separated by approximately 1.5 river km once per month. Sampling occurred in areas <4 m deep (DeGrandchamp et al. 2008) within areas of low velocity (<1.0 m/s; e.g., eddies, dike pools, inside river bends, etc.). Within each fixed sampling location, we first deployed a stationary, multifilament trammel net (2.4-m-deep inner wall, 1.8-m-deep outer wall, 38.1-m-long, 10-cm-bar inner mesh) by anchoring one end of the net on shore and stretching the remaining net toward deeper water or an opposite shore, restricting fish movement out of low-velocity areas. We only deployed trammel nets when current velocity was low enough to avoid hazardous conditions and decrease the likelihood of net entanglement. Next, we conducted a 15-min daytime boat electrofishing (DC; 4-13 A, 100–500 V, 25% duty cycle, 25 Hz frequency, 60 pulses/s with two netters) survey using a “standardizing by power” approach (Miranda 2009) parallel to the shoreline. We then collected the trammel net immediately after each electrofishing transect (net set duration ranged between 20 and 30 min). We measured thalweg water temperature (Yellow Springs Instruments 550A; Celsius) and conductivity (EC400 ExStik 2 Conductivity Meter; μs/cm) during each monthly sampling event at each site and obtained mean daily discharge values (cubic meters per second [m3/s]) on the day of sampling from U.S. Geological Survey gauging stations upstream from each sampling location (Table S1, Supplemental Material).
We weighed (nearest 1 g) and measured for total length (TL; nearest 1 mm) all Grass Carp captured during both years of the study. During 2015, we removed the first pectoral fin ray on each side for age and growth analysis. We used pectoral fin rays because the assigned age agreement ±1 y is relatively high between pectoral fin ray and otolith age estimates in other closely related carps (e.g., Silver Carp; Seibert and Phelps 2013) and have been previously used to age Grass Carp (Wieringa et al. 2017). Furthermore, otoliths collected from a subset of Grass Carp throughout this study revealed that annuli were not easily discernable (CJ Sullivan, unpublished data). We air-dried pectoral fin rays (fin ray hereafter) at room temperature for ≥4 wk following collection before we processed them. We cut a 1-mm-thick cross-section at the base of the fin ray using a Buehler Isomet low-speed saw (Isomet Corporation, Springfield, VA). We mounted each cross-section to a glass microscope slide using Crystalbond 509 (Electron Microscopy Sciences). We used wetted, 2,000-grit sandpaper to polish the surface of the fin ray cross-section to improve clarity. We wetted cross-sections with immersion oil to further improve clarity, and viewed annuli under a dissecting microscope with transmitted light. Each fin ray cross-section was independently aged by two experienced readers with no knowledge of fish length, estimated age of other structure, or location. If the readers disagreed, then they jointly decided a common age to ensure confidence in annulus identification.
We constructed total length (TL) frequency histograms and used a nonparametric Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K–S) two-sample test to test the null hypothesis that cumulative frequency of Grass Carp TL distributions did not differ between gears. Using Grass Carp captured downstream of LD19, TL frequency distributions were not significantly different between gears (D = 0.16, P = 0.23), suggesting that both gears captured similar sizes of Grass Carp. Therefore, we used a K–S two-sample test to test the null hypothesis that cumulative frequency of Grass Carp TL distributions did not differ upstream and downstream of LD19 using data combined across gears and years. We set statistical significance at α of 0.05, which we Bonferroni-corrected to maintain family-wise error rates of 0.05. We evaluated Grass Carp condition using a length–weight relationship (Ricker 1975) and used an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of weight to assess potential differences in condition between populations located both upstream and downstream of LD19 using log10length as a covariate.
Data collected for this project are available in electronic format (Data S1, Supplemental Material). We conducted 95.7 electrofishing hours and 198 trammel net sets throughout rivers in southeastern Iowa from April to October 2014 and 2015. We captured 179 Grass Carp at the Des Moines River (downstream of LD19) and captured 29 Grass Carp upstream of LD19 at the Skunk, Iowa, and Cedar rivers (Tables 1, 2). Boat electrofishing captured 144 Grass Carp (Table 1) while trammel nets captured 64 Grass Carp (Table 2). Electrofishing CPUE ranged from 0 to 22.7 fish/h (mean ± SE = 1.49 ± 0.3) while trammel net CPUE ranged from 0 to 8.0 fish/net lift (0.46 ± 0.15). Mean electrofishing CPUE varied between locations upstream and downstream of LD19 (P < 0.001); electrofishing CPUE was higher downstream of LD19 (2.42 fish/h ± 0.30) than upstream (0.57 fish/h ± 0.07). Downstream of LD19, mean electrofishing CPUE varied among months (P < 0.001), where the pairwise comparisons of monthly CPUE ratios revealed that catch rates were highest during May and October and lowest in July (pairwise comparisons P < 0.001; Figure 2). Grass Carp mean electrofishing CPUE did not vary among months upstream of LD19 (all pairwise comparisons P > 0.05). We did not capture Grass Carp upstream of LD19 using trammel nets, precluding comparisons upstream and downstream of LD19. Mean trammel net CPUE was similar among months (P = 0.06; all pairwise comparisons P> 0.14), with consistently lower capture rates from May through September (Figure 2).
Using data combined across gears, Grass Carp TL frequency distributions differed between populations located at sites upstream and downstream of LD19 (D = 0.56, P < 0.001; Figure 3). Grass Carp TL ranged from 421 to 964 mm (787 mm ± 29) and 0.9 to 11.6 kg (6.4 kg ± 0.5) upstream of LD19 and 574 to 996 mm (725 mm ± 6) and 2.0 to 9.4 kg (4.2 kg ± 0.1) downstream (Tables 1, 2). Grass Carp <900 mm in length comprised 76% of total catches upstream of LD19 and 95% of total catches downstream; however, Grass Carp <500 mm were only captured upstream of LD19 (n = 4 fish). Grass Carp weight-at-length relationships were significantly different between populations located upstream and downstream of LD19 (F2, 197 = 21.3, P < 0.001; Figure 4) with fish captured downstream weighing less at a given length compared with those captured upstream.
Age-frequency distributions and recruitment variability index scores suggest that Grass Carp recruitment was moderately consistent downstream of LD19 (RVI = 0.53; Figure 5) despite missing age classes. Upstream of LD19, limited samples (n = 27) precluded the comparison of age-frequency distributions between sites; however, the recruitment variability index indicated relatively consistent recruitment (RVI = 0.41; Figure 5). The Grass Carp annual mortality rate (A) for populations captured downstream was 0.40 (95% confidence interval: 0.31, 0.49) whereas the mortality rate upstream of LD19, based on a small sample of 27 fish, was 0.10 (95% confidence interval: 0.04, 0.16). Lastly, Grass Carp length-at-age varied by location and age (F1, 107 = 4.98, P = 0.027); fish were consistently longer at a given age upstream compared with downstream of LD19, with the exception of age 8 and 9 Grass Carp (Figure 6). The von Bertalanffy growth-parameter estimates for Grass Carp captured downstream of LD19 were L∞ = 810 mm and K = 0.42 and L∞ = 916 mm and K = 0.38 for Grass Carp captured upstream.
Difficulties related to capture and low Grass Carp densities offer limited opportunities to formally evaluate populations unless substantial effort is allocated toward the collection of Grass Carp (Sullivan et al. 2019). Assessments of adult Grass Carp populations have often focused on stocked or introduced populations in the southeastern or eastern United States (Shireman et al. 1980; Morrow et al. 1997; Stich et al. 2013) with few assessments conducted within the Mississippi River watershed (but see Wanner and Klumb 2009a). Lock and Dam 19, a key focal point for naturalized Grass Carp management because limited upstream migration occurs, creates a semipermanent barrier between Grass Carp populations that exhibited different population characteristics throughout our study. Grass Carp downstream of LD19 tended to be smaller, younger, of lower body condition, had a higher mortality rate, and were slower growing compared with fish collected upstream. For an open system like the UMR, it may be possible to reduce propagule pressure by targeting key management areas for control like LD19. Commercial fishing efforts already occur upstream and downstream of LD19 but focus on decreasing abundance and understanding trends in Silver and Bighead Carp demographics; these efforts also capture and remove Grass Carp but do not focus on determining population demographics and monitoring changes through time (MICRA 2017). For removal efforts to work for Grass Carp, it is important to understand population status upstream and downstream of these areas to determine appropriate management strategies.
Little information is available documenting Grass Carp capture rates throughout their native or introduced range. Methods such as bow fishing (Morrow et al. 1997; Stich et al. 2013) and commercial harvests (Pflieger 1978) have been used to obtain individuals but cannot be used to infer patterns in relative abundance estimates. Within the Missouri River basin, standardized sampling surveys (e.g., trammel, gill, mini-fyke, and hoop nets) have been used to estimate Grass Carp relative abundance. Trammel net CPUE in that system was relatively low (mean CPUE <0.05 fish/100 m net lift; Wanner and Klumb 2009a) compared with catch rates in the Des Moines River downstream of LD19, but was higher than catch rates in the Skunk, Iowa, and Cedar rivers upstream of LD19 (zero captures). However, those sampling methodologies were designed for the capture of Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus (Wanner and Klumb 2009a), potentially excluding habitats commonly used by Grass Carp (e.g., backwater; Shireman and Smith 1983). In this study, Grass Carp electrofishing CPUE was higher (up to 22.7 fish/h) than values reported throughout literature and at least one Grass Carp was captured in 17.8% of electrofishing surveys (382 total surveys), whereas trammel net CPUE was lower (up to 8.0 fish/net lift) and Grass Carp were captured in 13.1% of trammel net sets (198 total net sets). Differences in capture rates may be due in part to the active sampling in shallow-water habitats that would not be effectively sampled using trammel nets or the short duration of net sets (20–30 min/set used herein versus overnight sets) that may have limited Grass Carp captures. Additionally, Grass Carp electrofishing CPUE varied intra-annually where catches were highest during May and October compared with other months, especially July. Grass Carp are a highly migratory species (Gorbach and Krykhtin 1988; Bain et al. 1990) and spring spawning migrations or autumn movement patterns could result in seasonal changes in local abundances that would result in higher catch rates (e.g., congregating below a dam).
Our results indicate that Grass Carp recruitment was moderately consistent (indicated by RVI values) both upstream and downstream of LD19. Grass Carp are broadcast spawners that release semibuoyant eggs into turbulent flowing water (Verigin et al. 1978; Kolar et al. 2007). Eggs must remain suspended in the water column for 24 to 48 h for successful hatching, which equates to a drift distance of roughly 15 to 80 river km (Krykhtin and Gorbach 1981; Garcia et al. 2015). Previous studies have found that invasive carp reproduction is highest during high discharge events (DeGrandchamp et al. 2007; Lohmeyer and Garvey 2009; Sullivan et al. 2018) and have speculated that the impounded UMR may only offer high-quality spawning conditions during those periods. However, large tributaries of the UMR, such as the Des Moines, Skunk, Iowa, and Cedar rivers, offer long stretches of free-flowing river where Grass Carp reproduction has occurred (Camacho 2016), likely leading to the more consistent recruitment patterns in our study. In addition, the migratory abilities of Grass Carp (Gorbach and Krykhtin 1988) indicate that migrants from more consistently recruiting populations downstream of LD19 (e.g., Larson et al. 2017) could supply a few recruits periodically, similar to other invasive carp (e.g., Whitledge et al. 2019). Placement of deterrents within the navigation locks at LD19 are being considered to reduce migration of invasive carps and propagule pressures upstream (e.g., Donaldson et al. 2016). We did not determine the natal origin of Grass Carp captured upstream of LD19; however, further research could be conducted to determine if adult Grass Carp upstream of LD19 are born upstream of LD19, migrated through LD19, or are of hatchery origin (i.e., escapement) to help inform management decisions.
Grass Carp population characteristics described herein varied from those reported for both stocked populations in lakes and naturalized populations in other Mississippi River tributaries. Grass Carp captured both downstream and upstream of LD19 were smaller compared with populations captured using similar gears from the Missouri River (mean TL ± SE = 803 mm ± 6.8; Wanner and Klumb 2009a) and age structure was younger and represented a more restricted age structure than populations in a Virginia lake (Stich et al. 2013). Additionally, the mean length-at-age and von Bertalanffy parameter estimates for Grass Carp captured both upstream and downstream of LD19 suggests that Grass Carp are smaller, reach the asymptotic length quicker, and reach a smaller maximum size compared with Grass Carp captured in South Carolina, USA (Morrow et al. 1997), Florida, USA (Shireman et al. 1980), and Virginia, USA (Stich et al. 2013). Grass Carp collected downstream of LD19 were of lesser body condition than those collected from the Missouri River (Wanner and Klumb 2009b) and a Virginia lake (Stich et al. 2013), but Grass Carp upstream of LD19 were of greater body condition. Grass Carp populations upstream and downstream of LD19 are generally smaller, composed younger fish, and in lower condition than Grass Carp captured from other lotic and lentic systems, potentially in response to highly variable river environments (e.g., Gutreuter et al. 1999) and the greater energetic demands of lotic systems (e.g., Glebe and Leggett 1981) or due to commercial harvest of adult Grass Carp through time (Klein et al. 2018).
Grass Carp <420 mm TL were not captured upstream or downstream of LD19. Currently, Grass Carp reproduction is known to occur as far upstream as Pool 12 (Larson et al. 2017) and did occur within the tributaries sampled herein during 2014 and 2015 (Camacho 2016). Thus, smaller sized Grass Carp may be present throughout our sites but went undetected, suggesting that boat electrofishing and trammel nets select for larger sized Grass Carp. Wanner and Klumb (2009a) employed boat electrofishing, trammel nets, hoop nets, gill nets, and mini-fyke nets throughout the Missouri River to collect invasive carp, and mini-fyke nets were the only gear to capture multiple Grass Carp ≤300 mm TL, although captures were relatively low (<20 captures over 5 y). Most commonly used sampling gears (e.g., electrofishing and trammel nets) require depths of approximately 1.0–2.0 m and shorelines that are generally free of obstructions. Smaller sized Grass Carp tend to use areas with a higher density of submerged vegetation (Bain et al. 1990) in currents <0.05 m/s (Raibley et al. 1995). In the impounded UMR, fine sediments are trapped in shallow, low-flow areas, and water turbidity is high, resulting in absent or sparse patches of aquatic vegetation that may be only available seasonally in shallow habitats (Moore et al. 2010). Smaller sized Grass Carp may be locally abundant in these vegetation patches that are generally difficult to sample with most sampling gears, but this remains unknown. Since 2013, Western Illinois University has routinely conducted surveys targeting juvenile invasive carps in these habitat types throughout the UMR, but with few captures reported (JT Lamer, Illinois Natural History Survey, personal communication). Identifying effective gears and capturing smaller sized Grass Carp will allow managers to describe the dynamics of early life stages across the UMR, knowledge of which is currently lacking.
The Grass Carp is a widely dispersed nonnative species throughout the UMR and our study provides important insight for management. Lock and Dam 19 represents a focal point for management where contract commercial fishing efforts immediately downstream and upstream aim to reduce population density and potential upstream migrants to decrease propagule pressures in upstream reaches of the UMR (MICRA 2017). Generally, commercial fishers employ trammel nets or gill nets to capture invasive carp (Maher 2016) that select for larger sized Grass Carp (e.g., Wanner and Klumb 2009a). Grass Carp populations upstream and downstream of LD19 were generally smaller and slower growing compared with many other populations; therefore, shifting commercial harvest efforts to use gears that capture smaller sized Grass Carp may be required, particularly downstream of LD19. Targeting smaller sized invasive carp for removal has been suggested as an effective management strategy in other UMR rivers (Tsehaye et al. 2013) and could lead to a more successful reduction in Grass Carp density through time. Further, the lack of historical demographic information about Grass Carp populations limits our capacity to determine how populations have changed since their first detection near LD19 in the 1970s (NAS 2019). However, our study represents the first evaluation of Grass Carp population characteristics within the UMR, establishing a baseline for future evaluations. In the future, managers will be able to track population characteristics through time and can set benchmarks for the success of various management efforts (e.g., harvest, barriers, etc.). We suggest that improved monitoring (e.g., expansion of sampling locations, use of gears that are effective in shallow vegetated habitats) across several generations, robust population abundance estimates, and a better understanding of movement patterns (e.g., frequency of Grass Carp movement through LD19) enable refining of the management goals for Grass Carp in the UMR and at LD19.
Please note: The Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supplemental material. Queries should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
Data S1. Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella captures (e.g., site and date) and individual data (e.g., total length, weight, sex, age) upstream and downstream of Lock and Dam 19.
Found at DOI: https://doi.org/10.3996/062019-JFWM-046.S1 (51 KB XLSX).
Table S1. Mean, maximum (Max), and minimum (Min) daily river discharge (m3/s; estimates obtained from U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] gauging stations), water temperature (°C), and conductivity (μS/cm) measured during sampling occasions from April to October 2014 and 2015 at the nine sampling sites upstream and downstream of Lock and Dam 19 used to assess differences in Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella population characteristics.
Found at DOI: https://doi.org/10.3996/062019-JFWM-046.S2 (24 KB DOCX).
Reference S1. Camacho CA, Sullivan CJ, Weber MJ, Pierce CL. 2016. Distribution and population dynamics of Asian Carp in Iowa rivers. Des Moines: Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Annual Progress Report.
Found at DOI: https://doi.org/10.3996/062019-JFWM-046.S3 (5.22 MB PDF).
We thank the numerous undergraduate research technicians from Iowa State University that helped complete field work, and J. Euchner and K. Bogenschutz (Iowa Department of Natural Resources) for providing helpful insights about Grass Carp. We thank D. Stich, the journal's anonymous reviewers, and the Associate Editor for their time and comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. This study was funded by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources through contract 14CRDFBGSCHO-0001. This study was performed under the auspices of Iowa State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) protocol permit 7-13-7599-I, and animals were collected under state permit SC1037.
Any use of trade, product, website, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Citation: Sullivan CJ, Weber MJ, Pierce CL, Camacho CA. 2020. A comparison of Grass Carp population characteristics upstream and downstream of Lock and Dam 19 of the Upper Mississippi River. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 11(1):99–111; e1944-687X. https://doi.org/10.3996/062019-JFWM-046