Jump to content


Has Australia found a solution to our Carp problems?


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_wargreen_*

Guest_wargreen_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 November 2010 - 10:31 AM

Australia has been actively searching for ways to elimante or controll their problem aquatic invasives, heres an article I just read http://www.practical...t.php?sid=3325.

#2 Guest_EricaWieser_*

Guest_EricaWieser_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 November 2010 - 01:15 PM

I wonder if it would work with the bait being the pheromone alone, instead of the pheromone implanted into a female fish.

Edited by EricaWieser, 06 November 2010 - 01:15 PM.


#3 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 November 2010 - 03:31 PM

It might work in Australia because they have no native cyprinids. I wouldn't be surprised if the pheromones used to attract and confuse carp would also have at least some effect on other cyprinids, which would be a problem.

#4 Guest_smilingfrog_*

Guest_smilingfrog_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 November 2010 - 04:27 PM

It might work in Australia because they have no native cyprinids. I wouldn't be surprised if the pheromones used to attract and confuse carp would also have at least some effect on other cyprinids, which would be a problem.


I would think it could still be useful. Since the fish are being trapped, the carp would be selectively removed and other species simply released if they are also attracted to the trap. Some care would need to be taken to avoid potentially confusing a native cyprinid and interrupting it's breeding cycle or causing unnaturally large aggregations of rare species that might then be easy targets for predators, but I think it would be worth some study assuming of course that it even winds up working in Austrailia.

#5 Guest_FirstChAoS_*

Guest_FirstChAoS_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 November 2010 - 08:49 PM

It might work in Australia because they have no native cyprinids. I wouldn't be surprised if the pheromones used to attract and confuse carp would also have at least some effect on other cyprinids, which would be a problem.


In that case I want some for my minnow traps. :)

#6 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 November 2010 - 09:17 PM

In that case I want some for my minnow traps. :)

You might be on to something.

#7 Guest_wargreen_*

Guest_wargreen_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 November 2010 - 07:33 PM

I wonder if it would work with the bait being the pheromone alone, instead of the pheromone implanted into a female fish.




Good question....I wish I had more info on the Australian trap studies, I will google it and pray I can find some new info.

#8 Guest_wargreen_*

Guest_wargreen_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 November 2010 - 07:41 PM

It might work in Australia because they have no native cyprinids. I wouldn't be surprised if the pheromones used to attract and confuse carp would also have at least some effect on other cyprinids, which would be a problem.




Yes, I can see how that could become an issue; I wonder if theyre have been any studies done on cyprinid pheromones that are public domain (I hate springerlink). I also wonder if anyone has ever witnessed natives (Buffalo, Carpsuckers, or big Chubs) spawning in the same areas as Non-native carp?

#9 Guest_wargreen_*

Guest_wargreen_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 November 2010 - 08:22 PM

It might work in Australia because they have no native cyprinids. I wouldn't be surprised if the pheromones used to attract and confuse carp would also have at least some effect on other cyprinids, which would be a problem.



I dont know if this gives a good answer since it deals with Australian natives...but I do think it would be worth a try. "Carp trap nets Aussie science prize

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A fish trap that cages invasive river carp was among the winners of one of Australia's top science awards.

A record $220,000 was presented to 22 winners at the Eureka Prizes dinner at Sydney's Hordern Pavilion.

Now in their 15th year, the Australian Museum-backed prizes recognise Australian scientific and industrial achievement in innovation, research, education and communication.

Other winning inventions included plastic packaging that turns to compost and is being used in chocolate boxes, a bionic glove embedded with artificial muscles that restores hand function and a bacterial seed coating that could help reduce the $200 million annual cost of fungal attacks on crops.

Some of the prizes showcased how low-tech ingenuity could triumph over major scientific problems.

Hours of watching the River Murray gave weir keeper Alan Williams the inspiration for a trap that collects carp without harming native fish.

Mr Williams and Ivor Stuart won the $10,000 water research prize for protecting the river from carp by producing what is believed to be the world's first practical, low-cost method of separating carp from native fish.
Advertisement Advertisement

Mr Williams had his Eureka moment while watching the Murray at his weir at Gunbower, near Echuca on the NSW-Victoria border.

He noticed that carp jumped, while native fish in the Murray and other slow-moving rivers did not.

Working with Mr Stuart, from the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, and colleagues at Goulburn Murray Water, Mr Williams devised a simple trap.

As fish swim upstream they are caught in the first cage of the trap.

The carp jump out into a second cage while native fish are released.

The carp cages are being put into fishways - water courses to help native fish get past locks and weirs as they migrate - along 2,000km of the Murray.

The trap is attracting global attention as carp, a native of Asia, have also infested rivers in New Zealand, North America and Europe.

"We've deliberately chosen not to patent the cage," Mr Stuart said.

"We want to make the technology freely available for the good of rivers in Australia and around the world."

Other winners of the awards were a world-first implantable contact lens, a new plastic optical fibre that could deliver almost unlimited affordable internet bandwidth and a 15-year Australian campaign that resulted in a global agreement to save the world's oceans from foreign marine animals and plants discharged from ship's ballast water."

#10 Guest_Newt_*

Guest_Newt_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 November 2010 - 08:48 PM

I don't think it would work as well here. Gar, among others, are good jumpers that are likely to be taken with carp. I've caught several gar in turtle traps with no submersed entrance. Still, it's interesting stuff.

#11 Guest_wargreen_*

Guest_wargreen_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 November 2010 - 11:51 PM

Heres a study on the effect of Native and non-native pheromones with Common Carp. http://www.leg.state...ated/070063.pdf

#12 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 November 2010 - 12:21 AM

I hope that the author considers that study to be preliminary, with sample sizes of 4 or 5 being analyzed with ANOVA, which doesn't really cut it analytically. For instance, do data sets show normal distributions which are necessary for ANOVA? The study addresses the response of goldfish and carp, with native pheromones being the ones released by these species. I guess $100,000 doesn't buy what it used to...

#13 Guest_wargreen_*

Guest_wargreen_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 November 2010 - 11:26 PM

"All about the cure, please use facts if you flame"

Does anyone have any solid scientific research proving that the pheromones will not work? I believe that Traps could be checked for Gar or other large species regularly.....they could even make it to where the public could do it with oversight. Thanks Joe.

Edited by wargreen, 10 November 2010 - 11:26 PM.


#14 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 November 2010 - 09:01 AM

My fear is that the pheromones would work too well; I have great faith in the power of odorants like pheromones, and hormones in general.

#15 Guest_Newt_*

Guest_Newt_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 November 2010 - 10:30 AM

I agree there. Also, think about the man-power necessary to check traps. Each trap would require, at minimum, daily checking to prevent massive mortality. Even if the pheremones do not attract non-target species, you would need to remove the contents daily or else end up with traps full of stinking dead carp fouling the water. Then of course you would have a different smell bringing in victims- one that attracts catfish, turtles, and other non-target species. Then multiply this by the many, many traps you would need to put a dent in the huge carp populations in many of our waterways- this would be a New Deal-scale operation.

I'm not trying to be a pill, but this simply is not a feasible technique for any but the smallest bodies of water. Remember, too, that extermination would have to be carried out drainage-wide to prevent swift re-colonization. If I wanted to eliminate carp from the creek behind my house, I would also have to eliminate them from the Red River, then the Cumberland, then the Tennessee and Ohio, then all the rest of the Mississippi drainage, or they'd just come back.

Australia has some advantages on us there. They have no drainages anywhere near the size of the Mississippi or Great Lakes-St. Lawrence watersheds, for example. They also have an advantage with regard to the pheremones in that they have no native cypriniforms.

If you want to see what a serious carp extermination effort looks like, check out the article recently posted here regarding the June Sucker restoration project in Utah Lake. Commercial fishermen are using nets and collecting carp by the ton. It's still expected to take years to exterminate the carp from this isolated lake, if it ever happens at all.

#16 Guest_AussiePeter_*

Guest_AussiePeter_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 November 2010 - 10:33 AM

Australia has some advantages on us there. They have no drainages anywhere near the size of the Mississippi or Great Lakes-St. Lawrence watersheds, for example. They also have an advantage with regard to the pheremones in that they have no native cypriniforms.


Just to stick up for the homeland...Mississippi basin is 1,151,000 sq mi (2,981,076 kmē), Colorado River basin is 246,000 sq mi (637,000 kmē), Murray Darling Basin is 409 835 sq mi (1,061,469 kmē), Lake Eyre Basin is a bit bigger, but mostly dry. I'd say something a third the size of Miss. Basin is still pretty frickin big! :-)

Tootles
Peter

#17 Guest_wargreen_*

Guest_wargreen_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 November 2010 - 11:47 PM

I honestly dont believe Asian or Common Carp can be eradicated in the Mississipi River basin ......I would like for there to be a way to control the invasion. If a company came out that would purchase carp for feed or fertilizer (maybe with a government grant?), the traps could be checked by commercial fisherman who would have to buy permits, which I believe would help fund the additional officers needed to provide the oversight necessary to run such an operation. I still like the reward fishery which is being used to contoll the Northern Pikeminnow......but I fear that with state budgets the way they are in the midwest thats a pipe dream. Ive done a little bit of research and I have only found native cyprinids attracted to pheromones of Centrarchids (so they can lay theyre eggs in a protected nest) or some types of Chubs; I could not find any info on Cyprinids laying eggs around carp like natives (Buffalo, Carpsuckers, Quillback) I believe that this is because native carp like suckers would eat the eggs of other cyprinids just like non-native carp would......if anybody has the funding to research this, please do. I have never seen native suckers or cyprinids spawning with common carps even though I have witnessed commnon carp spawns on the James river in Mo. I looked and didnt find any info to the contrary.....if you have a link to a study please post it or the study. Thanks again Joe.

#18 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 November 2010 - 08:33 AM

Some of the native cyprinids like Buffalo have a different spawning ecology than exotic carps, like migrating up and spawning in streams rather than spawning in areas of little or no flow. I'm still leery of widespread introduction of any odorants in water because fishes have extraordinarily senstive sense of smell and influence from it. A spreading example of this sensitivy is the spreading problem of "intersex" fish, with sex-reversed individuals, which is caused by exposure to a laundry list of synthetic hormone mimics of human origin. I see the carp pheromones as being another case of introduced chemical, but with better design.

#19 Guest_Newt_*

Guest_Newt_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 November 2010 - 09:46 AM

Just to stick up for the homeland...Mississippi basin is 1,151,000 sq mi (2,981,076 kmē), Colorado River basin is 246,000 sq mi (637,000 kmē), Murray Darling Basin is 409 835 sq mi (1,061,469 kmē), Lake Eyre Basin is a bit bigger, but mostly dry. I'd say something a third the size of Miss. Basin is still pretty frickin big! :-)

Tootles
Peter


Woops! And this is why fact-checking is always a good idea. :blush:

#20 Guest_wargreen_*

Guest_wargreen_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 November 2010 - 06:56 PM

Some of the native cyprinids like Buffalo have a different spawning ecology than exotic carps, like migrating up and spawning in streams rather than spawning in areas of little or no flow. I'm still leery of widespread introduction of any odorants in water because fishes have extraordinarily senstive sense of smell and influence from it. A spreading example of this sensitivy is the spreading problem of "intersex" fish, with sex-reversed individuals, which is caused by exposure to a laundry list of synthetic hormone mimics of human origin. I see the carp pheromones as being another case of introduced chemical, but with better design.





Hmmmn well that does change things, Ill have to do some more research when I get time and see if I can find anything on fish Pheromones and "intersex" fish; I honestly hadnt even considered that.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users