Phytoplankton Prey Selection by Hypophthalmichthys
molitrix Val. (Silver Carp) in a Lower Mississippi River
Backwater Lake
Clifford A. Ochs, Orathai Pongruktham, K. Jack Killgore, and Jan Jeffrey Hoover
Southeastern Naturalist, Volume 18, Issue 1 (2019): 113–129
Full-text pdf (Accessible only to subscribers.To subscribe click here.)
Southeastern Naturalist
113
C.A. Ochs, O. Pongruktham, K.J. Killgore, and J.J. Hoover
22001199 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST 1V8o(1l.) :1181,3 N–1o2. 91
Phytoplankton Prey Selection by Hypophthalmichthys
molitrix Val. (Silver Carp) in a Lower Mississippi River
Backwater Lake
Clifford A. Ochs1,*, Orathai Pongruktham1,2, K. Jack Killgore3, and
Jan Jeffrey Hoover3
Abstract - Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (Silver Carp) are invasive and abundant in the
Mississippi River system, where they consume phytoplankton. There is concern that Silver
Carp may influence phytoplankton community structure with cascading effects on other
trophic levels. Information is needed regarding Silver Carp phytoplankton-consumption
rates and prey selection to assess their potential impact on the food-web in the river. We
investigated Silver Carp diets in a backwater lake of the Lower Mississippi River in order
to quantify phytoplankton prey selectivity. We made measurements on 4 dates over a 2-y
period, which spanned a range of hydrologic connectivity between the lake and the river
and a variety of fish sizes. We quantified selection by comparing phytoplankton community
composition in the lake to prey in foreguts of captured Silver Carp using Vanderploeg and
Scavia’s (1979) relativized selection index. With a possible exception of diatoms on 1 date,
there was no relationship of sample date or fish size on prey selection. However, there was
a consistent pattern in prey selection: euglenoid algae were positively selected, selection of
colonial algae and diatoms was variable, and flagellates and filamentous cyanobacteria were
negatively selected. Results are discussed in the context of a conceptual model for Silver
Carp phytoplanktivory that incorporates the roles of habitat selection, prey availability, prey
capture and processing, and digestive physiology.
Introduction
Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (Valenciennes) (Silver Carp) invaded the Lower
Mississippi River (LMR) system from aquaculture ponds in the 1970s (Chick and
Pegg 2001, Kelly et al. 2011). Since then, this species has become common in the
Mississippi River (Haupt and Phelps 2016), its tributaries (DeBoer et al. 2018,
Fuller et al. 1999, Hayer et al. 2014, Williamson and Garvey 2005), and other river
basins in the southeastern US (Slack et al. 2016).
Silver Carp are suction filter-feeding, stomachless, obligate planktivores,
able to consume seston particles down to at least 10 μm in size (Bitterlich 1985a,
Dong et al. 1992, Vitál et al. 2015, Xie 1999). Even though Silver Carp are obligate
phytoplanktivores during all life stages (Kolar et al. 2005), zooplankton is
ingested incidentally (Sass et al. 2014). Native planktivorous fishes, in contrast,
1Department of Biology, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677. 2UNESCO-IOC
Regional Office for the Western Pacific, The Government Complex Building B 120 Moo 3,
Chaengwattana Road, Lak Si, Bangkok 10210, Thailand. 3US Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg,
MS 39180-6199. *Corresponding author - byochs@olemiss.edu.
Manuscript Editor: Kirsten Work
Southeastern Naturalist
C.A. Ochs, O. Pongruktham, K.J. Killgore, and J.J. Hoover
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
114
may consume phytoplankton but require zooplankton at 1 or more life stages. In
the LMR, these native fish include adult Dorosoma cepedianum (Lesueur) (Gizzard
Shad), Polyodon spathula (Walbaum in Artedi) (Paddlefish), and Ictiobus
cyprinellus (Valenciennes) (Bigmouth Buffalo) (Radke and Kahl 2002, Sampson
et al. 2009, Williamson and Garvey 2005), and juveniles of many species. Silver
Carp may have negative impacts on native fishes (Collins and Wahl 2017, DeBoer
et al. 2018, Irons et al. 2007, Pendleton et al. 2017, Varble et al. 2007) indirectly
through bottom-up cascading effects of phytoplanktivory on the composition and/
or biomass of the zooplankton community, or by direct consumption of zooplankton
prey. Results of mesocosm experiments (e.g., Collins and Wahl 2017, Collins
et al. 2018, Nelson et al. 2017, Schrank et al. 2003), long-term monitoring (De-
Boer et al. 2018, Phelps et al. 2017, Sass et al. 2014, Tumolo and Flinn 2017), and
observations by anglers (Upholt 2017) showed that invasive carp may catalyze
reorganization of river foodwebs.
Silver Carp may alter riverine food webs by a trophic cascade (Carpenter et al.
1985) based on the quantity and particular taxa of phytoplankton they consume, and
the subsequent influence on zooplankton community structure and potentially other
trophic levels (Sommer 2008). Freshwater phytoplankton communities contain
multiple taxonomic, chemical, and morphological forms, spanning a size range of
at least 2 orders of magnitude (≤2 μm to ≥ 200 μm). When a heterogeneous pool of
potential prey is available, a useful approach to quantify selective-foraging activity
are prey selection (electivity) indices. These indices quantify predator (or grazer)
selective consumption of particular prey from the pool (Lechowicz 1982). Selective
consumption can be quantified by comparing the relative abundance of particular
prey items in the environment to their relative abundance in the predator mouth or
gut. The index assumes that potential prey are randomly distributed in the portion
of the environment in which foraging is occurring, and are identifiable pre- and
post-consumption. It does not evaluate whether selection is by a passive process
(e.g., limited by feeding-apparatus morphology) or active process (e.g., by prey
discrimination). Selection indices for analysis of feeding by planktivorous fish have
been used, for example, by O’Brien and Vinyard (1974), Strauss (1979), Cremer
and Smitherman (1980), Gras and Saint-Jean (1982), Spataru and Gophen (1985),
Xie (1999), and Minder and Pyron (2017).
In this study, we determined prey-selection indices of Silver Carp feeding on
phytoplankton in a floodplain lake of the LMR. Such lakes are common along the
LMR and, because they are much more autotrophically productive by area than
the main river channel (Pongruktham and Ochs 2015), they are critical areas for
feeding and growth of visiting river fishes (Baker et al. 1991, Fremling et al. 1989).
Our objectives were to temporally assess selection of phytoplankton prey by Silver
Carp over varying connectivity levels, and as a function of fish size, directly from
field samples of plankton and fish-gut contents, without confinement, stocking,
fertilization, or other manipulation.
Southeastern Naturalist
115
C.A. Ochs, O. Pongruktham, K.J. Killgore, and J.J. Hoover
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
Materials and Methods
Study site and sample dates
The lake in which we conducted this study, Forest Home Chute (FHC), is a
former meander channel of the LMR located in Warren County, MS (32°45.340'N;
91°01.440'W). FHC is 9–10 km in length and is about 170 m wide. It is sub-divided
by low, dirt berms into 3 sections: an upper (northwest), middle, and lower (southeast)
section. When the Mississippi River is above 12 m at the Vicksburg USGS
gage, usually in spring, river water enters FHC at the upper and lower ends, and
fishes can move easily between the river and lake. At lower stages, hydrologic
connection with the river is severed. Silver Carp and Hypophthalmichthys nobilis
Richardson (Bighead Carp) have been observed in FHC since at least 2005 (Varble
et al. 2007).
Water and plankton samples
We collected samples of water, phytoplankton, and fish from FHC during 4
sample events: 25–26 June 2009, 27–28 September 2009, 29–30 March 2010,
and 8–9 September 2010. In June 2009 and March 2010, the entire lake was
connected to the main channel, but by September of both years the lake was hydrologically
isolated.
Sample sites were located near the middle (by length and width) portion of each
FHC section. At each site, we conducted a vertical profile for water temperature,
dissolved oxygen concentration, turbidity, pH, and depth using a Yellow Springs Instrument
ProDSS multiparameter system (YSI, Yellow Springs, OH). We collected
water samples in triplicate using a 1.5-m length of polyvinyl chloride pipe connected
by a hose to an on-board Whale Gulper 220 diaphragm pump (Whale Marine, Bangor,
Northern Ireland). For each sample, we pumped water at 0.5-m intervals from the surface
down to the depth where oxygen was ~5 mg L-1, mixed the water from each depth
in a 20-L bucket, and then removed the integrated sample from the bucket.
For analysis of the phytoplankton community, we preserved lake-water samples
in 1% Lugol’s solution immediately after collection (APHA 1995). We filtered
unpreserved water samples through Whatman GF/C filters and then froze them for
subsequent analysis (see below) of chlorophyll a concentration, a routine proxy for
phytoplankton biomass.
Fish and fish foregut contents samples
We collected Silver Carp used for gut-content analysis by gill nets (91 m in
length, 8–12-cm bar-mesh) positioned near the center of each FHC section. We
processed 9–15 Silver Carp per sample date, a sample size that enabled rapid onboard
processing of the fish. Upon collection of specimens, we measured for total
length (nearest mm on a fishboard), weighed (nearest 0.1 kg on a top-loading balance),
euthanized, dissected, and removed the entire gut from pharynx to anus of
each fish. We placed the intact gut in a sealed plastic bag on ice in a cooler until
it was returned to the lab. After measuring the length of each gut, we removed the
lumen contents from the first 10-cm section of the foregut, just behind the pharynx,
and placed these in a sterile container with 100 ml of water and preservative that
Southeastern Naturalist
C.A. Ochs, O. Pongruktham, K.J. Killgore, and J.J. Hoover
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
116
had been strained through a Whatman GF/F filter. We preserved gut contents with
2% formaldehyde (2009) or 2% Lugol’s solution (2010). We processed a total of 50
Silver Carp over the 4 dates.
Analyses of chlorophyll, plankton, and gut-contents
We measured chlorophyll a after extraction in alkaline acetone using the
spectrophotometric method (Wetzel and Likens 2000). For determination of composition
of the phytoplankton community (water column) and prey consumed
by Silver Carp (foregut contents), we concentrated samples in 5-mL Hydro-Bios
settling chambers (Kiel-Altenholz, Germany). From the count data and sample
volumes concentrated and analyzed, we determined abundances of phytoplankton
or prey in the natural environment or gut contents, respectively.
For selection measurements, we sorted phytoplankton into 5 groups based on a
combination of taxonomic identity, cell or colony size, and growth form (unicellular,
non-filamentous colonial, filamentous). The 5 groups were (1) euglenoid
algae (Division Eugleophyta); (2) non-euglenoid unicellular flagellates (Divisions
Chlorophyta, Chrysophyta, and Cryptophyta); (3) filamentous cyanobacteria (Division
Cyanophyta); (4) diatoms (Division Bacillariophyta, all forms), and (5) other
colonial forms including chlorophytes and non-filamentous cyanobacteria. For
colonial organisms, we did not attempt to count individual cells, and therefore,
refer to all counts, whether as single cells or colonies, as phytoplankton units. We
counted at least 400 units per sample. We enumerated desmids and dinoflagellates,
but these taxa were uncommon (less than 1% of abundance in plankton), and were
not included in selection measurements. Phytoplankton prey smaller than ~5 μm
in cross-section were not enumerated because they were difficult to discern in gut
contents. BSA Consulting Services, Inc. (Beachwood, OH) provided validation of
major taxa from multiple dates.
We employed light microscopy to determine sizes of randomly selected phytoplankton
units from all groups (n ≥ 25 per group) and on multiple dates. We based
size comparisons on the longest linear dimension of the cell or colony. For filamentous
organisms, the longest dimension is the length of the filament, but we also
measured filament widths.
Selection of phytoplankton prey
We quantified phytoplankton prey selection by Vanderploeg and Scavia’s relativized
electivity E* (Vanderploeg and Scavia 1979): Ei
* = (Wi - [1 / n]) / (Wi +
[1 / n]), where Ei
* = relativized electivity (selectivity) index for prey source i; n =
the number of kinds of prey items; and Wi = Chesson’s prey selectivity index = (ri /
pi) / Σ (ri / pi), where ri = a prey type in proportion to its abundance in the plankton
(pi) (Chesson 1978, Lechowicz 1982). In a comparison of commonly used feeding
selectivity coefficients, E* is generally considered reliable and most appropriate
when numbers of prey types or proportions vary among experiments (Confer and
Moore 1987, Horn 1985, Lechowicz 1982). The index value for a particular prey
type or group can vary between -1 (strongly avoided relative to its proportion in the
environment or not consumed), and +1 (strongly preferred and consumed). E* = 0
Southeastern Naturalist
117
C.A. Ochs, O. Pongruktham, K.J. Killgore, and J.J. Hoover
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
when feeding is random and prey items are selected according to their proportion
in the environment.
Statistical analyses
We compared phytoplankton potentially available in the water column for selection
by group median-unit sizes. For analysis of possible differences among
groups, we used non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA by ranks (H-test). Where
the overall test result was significant, we employed a Dunn’s multiple comparisons
test to identify significant differences (Siegel and Castellan 1988). For analysis of
phytoplankton prey selectivity by Silver Carp, we calculated values of E* for each
phytoplankton group for every processed fish. E* is not subject to parametric analysis,
but it can be ranked for selectivity of prey groups (Lechowicz 1982). Therefore,
we also tested for statistical significance by Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA and Dunn’s
post-hoc test differences among phytoplankton groups in E* values by date. Statistical
analyses were performed in Statistica 8 (Statsoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK).
Results
Mean depths of sites varied from 1.7 m to 6.0 m, and were most shallow late
in the year after prolonged disconnection from the river (Table 1). For all sample
dates, mean surface-water temperature varied from 11 °C (March) to 30 °C (June),
turbidity varied widely, and pH was circumneutral.
There was variation among sample dates in phytoplankton group proportions
in lake water (Fig. 1). Diatoms were most abundant in spring (March) and early
summer (June) when there was strong connection to the river. By September of
both years, diatoms were a reduced component of the community, replaced in
dominance by filamentous cyanobacteria and non-euglenoid unicellular flagellates.
In each group, the most abundant phytoplankton genera included Euglenophyta
(Lepocinclis spp., Phacus spp. and Trachelemonas spp.), filamentous cyanobacteria
(Planktolyngbya spp. and Pseudanabaena spp.), small unicellular flagellates
(Chroomonas spp., Chrysococcus spp., Chalamydomonas spp.), diatoms (Cyclotella
spp., Skeletonema spp., Aulacoseira spp.), and, among other non-filamentous
colonial forms, chlorophytes (Crucigenia spp., Scenedesmus spp.) and coccoid
cyanobacteria (Chroococcus spp., Snowella spp., Aphanocapsa spp.).
Table 1. Means (SE) for hydrologic parameters, and water-quality parameters in surface (0.5 m) water
(n = 3; derived from means of 3 sample sites). Days post-connection is the period of time since last
hydrologic connection of Forest Home Chute with the Lower Mississippi River.
Parameter June 2009 September 2009 March 2010 September 2010
Vicksburg gage (m) 10.15 5.84 11.71 4.91
Days post-connection 15 94 36 94
Depth (m) 4.4 (0.4) 1.8 (0.6) 6.0 (0.5) 1.7 (0.4)
Temperature (°C) 30.3 (0.7) 27.0 (0.6) 11.3 (0.7) 29.7 (0.3)
Turbidity (NTU) 9.2 (0.9) 51.0 (18.0) 37.0 (16.0) 46.0 (10.0)
O2 (mg L-1) 11.3 (1.8) 5.7 (0.8) 10.7 (0.6) 7.0 (0.8)
pH 8.1 (0.4) 6.7 (0.2) 7.9 (0.1) 7.5 (0.1)
Southeastern Naturalist
C.A. Ochs, O. Pongruktham, K.J. Killgore, and J.J. Hoover
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
118
Phytoplankton groups overlapped in median size, but could be separated clearly
into 2 groups (Fig. 2). Larger phytoplankton were non-filamentous colonial phytoplankton
(median size = 26 μm), euglenoid algae (21.5 μm), and filamentous
cyanobacteria (21.0 μm). These phytoplankton groups did not differ significantly
in median unit size (P = 1.0 in any 2-way comparisons). However, each of these
groups was significantly larger (P ≤ 0.001 for all comparisons) than the similarly
sized (P ≤ 0.38) diatoms (median size = 10 μm) and unicellular flagellates (9.3 μm).
Captured Silver Carp varied from 330 mm to 961 mm total length and from 0.4
kg to over 10 kg in wet weight. They were longer later in the year (September 2009:
Figure 1. Composition
(means [SE])
of 5 dominant phytoplankton
groups
in the water column
and in the Silver
Carp foregut by
sample date. Groups
are euglenoid algae
(E), diatoms (D),
non-filamentous colonial
algae (CA),
non-euglenoid unicellular
flagellates
(UF), and filamentous
cyanobacteria
(FC). Note that
for the June 2009
graph, the scale of
the vertical axis is
different than for
the graphs for other
dates.
Southeastern Naturalist
119
C.A. Ochs, O. Pongruktham, K.J. Killgore, and J.J. Hoover
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
750 ± 39 mm SE; September 2010: 732 ± 11 mm SE) than in spring (March 2010:
586 ± 45 mm SE) (P = 0.025 and P = 0.042, respectively). There was a strong relationship
between carp length and weight: log10weight = -4.83 + 2.96(log10length)
(slope 95% CI = 2.85 to 3.06; intercept 95% CI = -5.13 to -4.53) (r2 = 0.98, F1, 56
= 3139, P < 0.0001; n = 59), with regression coefficients similar to those obtained
for carp from Missouri River tributaries (Hayer et al. 2014). Hybrids of Silver and
Bighead Carp are identifiable based on a distinct gill-raker morphology (Lamar et
al. 2010), but we observed none during our study.
Chlorophyll a concentration and phytoplankton densities varied by sample date,
as did abundances of phytoplankton prey in carp foreguts (Table 2). Chlorophyll
a concentration in the upper guts of carp collected in 2010 (n = 32 fish) was up to
1400 times (mean = 359) higher than in the water column.
For 4 of the 5 phytoplankton prey groups, there was no clear relationship of
E* with fish weight or date of collection (Fig. 3). For diatoms, selectivity was
mostly negative for fish weighing between about 3.5 kg and 6 kg, but positive for
smaller and larger fish (Fig. 3B). This weight range of carp for which selection
was mostly negative was confounded with sample date, September 2010, during a
period of low water.
We calculated E* for each of 50 fish from data summarized in Figure 1 that
compare relative proportions of phytoplankton groups in the water and foreguts.
Figure 2. Size distribution of phytoplankton units (cells or colonies) by group. Groups are
euglenoid algae (E), diatoms (D), non-filamentous colonial algae (CA), non-euglenoid unicellular
flagellates (UF), and filamentous cyanobacteria (FC). Median values are indicated
by small squares, large rectangles indicate the interquartile (25–75%) spread, and whiskers
indicate the non-outlier range (± 1.5 times the height of the b ox).
Southeastern Naturalist
C.A. Ochs, O. Pongruktham, K.J. Killgore, and J.J. Hoover
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
120
On each sample date, there were significant differences in mean ranks of E* values,
and the ranked order for E* of prey was consistent (Fig. 4). On all dates, euglenoid
phytoplankton ranked first or second in prey selection, non-euglenoid unicellular
flagellates ranked fourth, and filamentous cyanobacteria ranked last. Diatoms and
colonial algae were usually intermediate in ranking, with the exception of September
2009 when the diatom median E* was positive (0.52). In every case, E* did not
differ in the 2 most-preferred groups and 2 least-preferred groups. Generally, results
for euglenoid algae indicated positive selectivity (median E* > 0), while for small
flagellates and filamentous cyanobacteria selectivity was generally low (median
E* < 0). Mixed colonial algae and diatoms varied by date across the E* = 0 boundary,
indicating overall neutral selection. For all sample dates combined, euglenoid
algae (median E* = 0.28) and diatoms (median E* = 0.06) had positive ranks that
were not significantly different (P = 0.44), euglenoids ranked higher than colonial
algae (median E* = -0.15), and colonial algae ranked higher than non-euglenoid
unicellular flagellates (median E* = -0.68), which ranked higher than filamentous
cyanobacteria (median E* = -0.98).
Discussion
Large, alluvial river systems are commonly turbid, with limited phytoplankton
production (Cole et al. 1992, Ochs et al. 2013); their organic-matter pool is dominated
by terrestrially derived detritus (Vannote et al. 1980). Terrestrial detritus is
less nutritious than phytoplankton, making the latter a particularly valuable resource
in these ecosystems (Brett et al. 2017, Thorp and Delong 2002). Additionally, as
different phytoplankton taxa vary in nutritional value, phytoplankton community
composition influences energy and nutrient flow through the foodweb (Strandberg
et al. 2015, Thorp and Bowes 2017). Whatever factors drive phytoplankton community
biomass and structure are likely to have cascading ecosystem-level effects,
from the benthos to the pelagic zone (Collins and Wahl 2017, 2018; Phelps et al.
2017; Strayer et al. 1999).
Table 2. Chlorophyll a concentrations and phytoplankton densities in the water column and Silver
Carp foregut by date. Values shown are means (SE). NA = not available. For chlorophyll and phytoplankton
units in water column, n = 3 (derived from means of 3 sample sites).
Parameter June 2009 September 2009 March 2010 September 2010
Chlorophyll in water column 31.5 (4.4) 56.0 (8.4) 19.9 (6.4) 98.3 (41.4)
(μg L-1)
Chlorophyll in foregut NA NA 6621 (2715) 31,907 (5445)
(μg L-1) n =14 fish n = 18 fish
Phytoplankton in water 2004 (287) 13,850 (5245) 2338 (761) 19,230 (5349)
column (units mL-1)
Phytoplankton prey in 755,060 12,503,210 1,542,480 1,549,580
foregut (units mL-1) (333,540) (9,522,500) (761,940) (371,945)
n = 9 fish n = 14 fish n = 14 fish n = 16 fish
Southeastern Naturalist
121
C.A. Ochs, O. Pongruktham, K.J. Killgore, and J.J. Hoover
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
An abundant invasive animal such as Silver Carp may shape the native plankton
community at any step in the feeding process, from habitat selection to prey capture
to defecation (e.g., Collins and Wahl 2018, Collins et al. 2018, Görgényi et al.
2016, Sass et al. 2014, Tumolo and Flinn 2017). Thus, for this discussion, we adopt
an integrated perspective, placing results in the context of a step-wise conceptual
model for Silver Carp feeding that includes their behavior, prey selection, feedingapparatus
morphology, and digestive physiology (Fig. 5).
Figure 3. E* values for 5 groups of phytoplankton with respect to body weight of individual
Silver Carp and sample date.
Southeastern Naturalist
C.A. Ochs, O. Pongruktham, K.J. Killgore, and J.J. Hoover
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
122
Habitat selection by Silver Carp is antecedent to food-resource use, with possible
impacts on phytoplankton community structure. Phytoplankton production in the
LMR main channel is strongly light-limited (Ochs et al. 2013), but can be very high
where flow is reduced such as seasonally connected lentic backwater sites like FHC
(Pongruktham and Ochs 2015). Taking advantage of high backwaters production,
Silver Carp migrate into backwaters for feeding (Calkins et al. 2012), returning to the
main channel for spawning (Cooke 2016, Kolar et al. 2007). Thus, impacts of Silver
Carp on phytoplankton community structure, and subsequent cascading effects, may
be amplified in riverine backwaters compared to the main channel.
Figure 4. E* values
for 5 groups
of phytoplankton
by sample date.
Median values
are indicated by
the small squares.
Large rectangles
indicates the interquartile
(25–75%)
spread for all
sampled carp for
each potential phytoplankton
prey
group. Whiskers
indicate the nonoutlier
range ± 1.5
times the height of
the box). Groups
are euglenoid algae
(E), filamentous
cyanobacteria
(FC), non-euglenoid
unicellular
flagellates (UF),
diatoms (D), and
non-filamentous
colonial algae
(CA). For each
date, superscripts
having the same
letter are not significantly
different
(P ≥ 0.05).
Southeastern Naturalist
123
C.A. Ochs, O. Pongruktham, K.J. Killgore, and J.J. Hoover
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
Upon locating food, prey capture and selectivity ensues. Silver Carp are filter
feeders; thus, capture is dependent partly on gill-raker morphology (Smith 1989,
Vörös et al. 1997). Distances between gill-raker processes of Silver Carp vary from
12 μm to 26 μm (Hampl et al. 1983), suggesting a lower size-limit for efficient prey
retention. In FHC Silver Carp, euglenoid algae had high selectivities, while capture
efficiencies of colonial algae and diatoms were inconsistent, and varied by sample
date. For small flagellated phytoplankton, E* consistently indicated poor capture by
Silver Carp, possibly due to their small size (median = 9.3 μm) or another property
(e.g., lack of a rigid cell wall as found in similarly sized diatoms). A lower limit
for prey capture of about 10 μm is supported by laboratory (Smith 1989) and mesocosm
experiments (Laws and Weisburd 1990, Radke and Kahl 2002, Vörös et al.
1997), and may explain the transition of the phytoplankton community to smaller
cells upon Silver Carp introduction to mesocosms (Vörös et al. 1997). This is not to
suggest that it is impossible for Silver Carp to consume smaller particles (Esmaeili
and Johal 2015, Görgényi et al. 2016, Kolar et al. 2007, Xie 1999), only that prey
size, and possibly shape and composition, influence capture effic iency.
In this study, plankton selectivity was not generally a function of fish size across
the range of sizes sampled. An exception occurred for diatoms on 1 sample date
where E* was negative. We propose alternative explanations for this observation.
Perhaps, on that date, diatoms were particularly small, but we found no difference
in diatom size compared to other dates, with the centric genus Cyclotella spp. always
in highest abundance. Alternatively, perhaps, on the sample date in question,
diatoms were concentrated at a depth where they were more effectively sampled
by us than by Silver Carp. Regardless, the ranking of prey selection in September
2010 was similar to other days.
Figure 5. Conceptual overview of steps in Silver Carp phytoplanktivory. The upper row
of boxes illustrates main steps in the feeding process. The row of ovals indicates the
primary factor involved in each step (behavioral, morphological, physiological), and the
direct influence via prey availability (p) or prey consumption (r) on E*. The lower row of
3 boxes describes the impact on plankton community structure by size-selective feeding,
palatability, and digestibility. Arrows indicate if the net effects at each step are to directly
increase (↑) or decrease (↓) the described form in the water column relative to the entire
phytoplankton community.
Southeastern Naturalist
C.A. Ochs, O. Pongruktham, K.J. Killgore, and J.J. Hoover
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
124
Filamentous cyanobacteria, considering their mean length, were an exception to
the proposition of an ~10-μm lower-size limit for efficient capture of prey. However,
these organisms are generally less than 2 μm in width, and perhaps this size facilitates
escape from capture. This explanation was made previously for Silver Carp (Xie
1999) and Bighead Carp (Opuszynski and Shireman 1993), and is consistent with
field observations in Kentucky Lake, on the Tennessee River, that cyanobacteria are
less susceptible to suppression by Silver Carp than chlorophytes or diatoms (Tumolo
and Flinn 2017). In contrast, when cyanobacteria are concentrated in dense
blooms or floating mats, they are readily consumed by Silver Carp (Fukushima et
al. 1999, Radke and Kahl 2002) and Bighead Carp (Collins and Wahl 2017).
An alternative explanation for the low proportion of filamentous cyanobacteria
detected in foreguts relates to the third step in the feeding process—behavioral food
processing (Vitál et al. 2015). Asian Carp possess pharyngeal teeth by which disruption
of food items can occur (Kolar et al. 2005; Xie 1999, 2001), however, our
selection measurements would be unaffected unless potential losses were taxonspecific.
Alternatively, there may be rapid digestion of cyanobacteria in the carp
foregut (Vörös et al. 1997). To minimize this possibility, we sacrificed and quickly
dissected fish on-board after capture, sampled only from the first 10 cm of the gut
(1.0–4.4% of the total length), and chemically preserved samples immediately.
The next steps in the process of feeding physiology are digestion and defecation,
processes with potentially profound consequences for the resulting phytoplankton
community composition. Some phytoplankton can survive the long passage
through an adult carp gut (Bitterlich 1985b, Görgényi et al. 2016, Pongruktham et
al. 2010, Spataru 1977), but we do not know if there is selective digestion of algae,
or even uptake of nutrients by algae. If so, Silver Carp could facilitate changes in
phytoplankton community structure, not just by selective ingestion, but also by selective
digestion. For example, Porter (1973) and Smith et al. (1998) demonstrated
the effect of differential digestion for planktivorous invertebrates on phytoplankton
community structure.
By re-structuring the phytoplankton community of floodplain lakes, Silver Carp
may affect the community structure of zooplankton and other consumers (DeBoer
et al. 2018, Irons et al 2007, Phelps et al. 2017, Solomon et al. 2016). For zooplankton,
this phenomenon would presumably occur along the lines of taxonomic
group and feeding traits (Mitra et al. 2014). For example, compared to cladocerans,
rotifers consume a narrower spectrum of prey size (0.5–40 μm vs. 4–18 μm,
respectively), feed more selectively, and ingest larger cells (Bogdan and Gilbert
1984, 1987; Rothhaupt 1990). Hence, in addition to consuming rotifers, Silver Carp
may impact rotifers indirectly and negatively by biasing the phytoplankton community
to smaller cells (Vörös et al. 1997). However, the net effect of Silver Carp
on plankton community structure must also account for consumption of zooplankton
that prey on rotifers (Collins et al. 2018, DeBoer et al. 2018, Sass et al. 2014).
Ultimately, for a comprehensive, mechanistic model of the influence of Silver Carp
on the LMR foodweb, we must consider their upward cascading impacts via selective
phytoplanktivory, their downward cascading impacts via zooplanktivory, and
their effects on nutrient fluxes (Collins and Wahl 2017, Kaemingk et al. 2016) in
Southeastern Naturalist
125
C.A. Ochs, O. Pongruktham, K.J. Killgore, and J.J. Hoover
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
a hydrological- and habitat-specific context (Haupt and Phelps 2016, Tumolo and
Flinn 2017).
Acknowledgments
J. Beard, S. George, W. Lancaster, B. Lewis, B. Munxayaphom, C. Murphy, and K.
Boysen provided assistance in the field. L. Brooks, S. Morgan, B. Munxayaphom, J. Pemment,
J. Sackreiter, N. Vera, and W. Wagner assisted in the laboratory and with microscope
analyses. We thank W. and B. Creekmore, M. Parker, and M. Bowen and Tara Wildlife for
allowing access to Forest Home Chute via private property. Zanethia Barnett and Audrey
Harrison provided internal reviews of the manuscript. We also thank several anonymous
reviewers. Primary funding was provided by the US Army Corps of Engineers Aquatic
Nuisance Species Research Program, with additional support provided by the Department
of Biology and the Office of Research, University of Mississippi. Permission to publish was
granted by the Chief of Engineers.
Literature Cited
American Public Health Association (APHA). 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater. Washington, DC.
Baker, J.A., K.J. Killgore, and R.L. Kasul. 1991. Aquatic habitats and fish communities in
the Lower Mississippi River. Reviews in Aquatic Science 3:313–356.
Bitterlich, G. 1985a. Digestive enzyme pattern of stomachless filter feeders, Silver Carp,
Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Val., and Bighead Carp, Aristchthys nobilis Rich. Journal
of Fish Biology 27:103–112.
Bitterlich, G. 1985b. Digestive processes in Silver Carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix)
studies in vitro. Aquaculture 50:123–131.
Bogdan, K.G., and J.J. Gilbert. 1984. Body size and food size in freshwater zooplankton.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 81:6427–6431.
Bogdan, K.G., and J.J. Gilbert JJ. 1987. Quantitative comparison of food niches in some
freshwater zooplankton. Oecologia 72:331–340.
Brett, M.T., S.E. Bunn, S. Chandra, A.W.E. Galloway, F. Guo, M.J. Kainz, P. Kankaala,
D.C.P. Lau, T.P. Moulton, M.E. Power, J.B. Rasmussen, S.J. Taiple, J.H. Thorp, and J.D.
Wehr. 2017. How important are terrestrial organic-carbon inputs for secondary production
in freshwater ecosystems? Freshwater Biology 62:833–853.
Calkins, H.A., S J. Tripp, and J.E. Garvey. 2012. Linking Silver Carp habitat selection to
flow and phytoplankton in the Mississippi River. Biological Invasions 14:949–958.
Carpenter, S.R., J.F. Kitchell, and J.R. Hodgson. 1985. Cascading trophic interactions and
lake productivity. BioScience 35:634–639.
Chesson, J. 1978. Measuring preference in selective predation. Ecology 59:211–215.
Chick, J.H., and M.A. Pegg. 2001. Invasive carp in the Mississippi River basin. Science
292:2250–2251.
Cole, J.J. N.F. Caraco, and B.L. Peierls. 1992. Can phytoplankton maintain a positive
carbon balance in a turbid, freshwater, tidal estuary? Limnology and Oceanography
37:1608–1617.
Collins, S.F., and D.H. Wahl, 2017. Invasive planktivores as mediators of organic matter
exchanges within and across ecosystems. Oecologia 184:521–530.
Collins. S.F., and D.H. Wahl. 2018. Size-specific effects of Bighead Carp predation
across the zooplankton size spectra. Freshwater Biology 63(7):700–708. DOI:10.1111/
fwb.13109.
Southeastern Naturalist
C.A. Ochs, O. Pongruktham, K.J. Killgore, and J.J. Hoover
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
126
Collins, S.F., T.M. Detmer, K.A. Nelson, M.A. Nannini, G.G. Sass, and D.A. Wahl. 2018.
The release and regulation of rotifers: Examining the predatory effects of invasive juvenile
Common and Bighead Carp. Hydrobiologia 813:199–211.
Confer, J.L., and M.V. Moore. 1987. Interpreting selectivity indices calculated from field
data or conditions of prey replacement. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
44:1529–1533.
Cooke, S.L. 2016. Anticipating the spread and ecological effects of invasive bigheaded
carps (Hypophthalmichthys spp.) in North America: A review of modeling. Biological
Invasions 18:315–344.
Cremer, M.C., and R.O. Smitherman. 1980. Food habits and growth of Silver and Bighead
Carp in cages and ponds. Aquaculture 20:57–64.
DeBoer, J.A., A.M. Anderson, and A.F. Casper. 2018. Multi-trophic response to invasive
Silver Carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) in a large floodplain river. Freshwater Biology
63:597–611.
Dong, S., D. Li, X. Bing, Q. Shi, and F. Wang. 1992. Suction volume and filtering efficiency
of Silver Carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Val.) and Bighead Carp (Aristichthys nobilis
Rich.). Journal of Fish Biology 41:833–840.
Esmaeili, H.R., and M.S. Johal. 2015. Food and feeding habits of Silver Carp, Hypophthalmichthys
molitrix (Val., 1844) in Gobindsagar Reservoir, India. International Journal of
Aquatic Biology 3:225–235.
Fremling, C.R., J.L. Rasmussen, R.E. Sparks, S.P. Cobb, C.F. Bryan, and T.O. Claflin.
1989. Mississippi River fisheries: A case history. Pp. 309–351, In D.P. Dodge (Ed.).
Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 106. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa, ON,
Canada. 636 pp.
Fukushima, M., N. Takamura, L. Sun, M. Kagawa, K. Matsushige, and P. Xie. 1999. Changes
in the plankton community following introduction of filter-feeding planktivorous fish.
Freshwater Biology 42:719–735.
Fuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, and J.D. Williams. 1999. Non-indigenous Fishes Introduced into
Inland Waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 27,
Bethesda, MD. 622 pp.
Görgényi, J., G. Boros, Z. Vitál, A. Mozsár, G. Várbíró, G. Vasas, and G. Borics. 2016. The
role of filter-feeding Asian carps in algal dispersion. Hydrobiologia 764:115–126.
Gras, R., and L. Saint–Jean 1982. Comments about Ivlev’s electivity index. Revue
d’Hydrobiologie Tropicale 15:33–37.
Hampl, A, J. Jirasek, and D. Sirotek. 1983. Growth morphology of the filtering apparatus of
Silver Carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Val.) II. microscopic anatomy. Aquaculture
31:153–158.
Haupt, K.J., and Q.E. Phelps. 2016. Mesohabitat associations in the Mississippi River Basin:
A long-term study on the catch rates and physical-habitat associations of juvenile
Silver Carp and two native planktivores. Aquatic Invasions 11:93–99.
Hayer, C–A., J.J. Breeggemann, R.A. Klumb, B.D.S. Graeb, and K.N. Bertrand. 2014.
Population characteristics of Bighead and Silver Carp on the northwestern front of their
North American invasion. Aquatic Invasions 9:289–303.
Horn, W. 1985. Investigations into the food selectivity of the planktivorous crustaceans
Daphnia hyalina, Eudiaptomus gracilis, and Cyclops vicinus. Internationale Revue der
gesamten Hydrobiologie 70:603–612.
Southeastern Naturalist
127
C.A. Ochs, O. Pongruktham, K.J. Killgore, and J.J. Hoover
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
Irons, K.S., G.G. Sass, M.A. McClelland, and J.D. Stafford. 2007. Reduced-condition factor
of two native fish species coincident with invasion of non–native Asian carps in the
Illinois River, USA: Is this evidence for competition and reduced fitness? Journal of Fish
Biology 71 (Supplement D):258–273.
Kaemingk, M.A., J.C. Jolley, C.P. Paukert, D.W. Willis, K. Henderson, R.S. Holland, G.A.
Wanner, and M.L. Lindvall. 2016. Common Carp disrupt ecosystem structure and function
through middle-out effects. Marine and Freshwater Research 68:718–761.
Kelly, A.M., C.R. Engle, M.L. Armstrong, M. Freeze, and A.J. Mitchell. 2011. History of
introductions and governmental involvement in promoting the use of Grass, Silver, and
Bighead Carps. Pp.163–174, In D.C. Chapman and M.H. Hoff (Eds.). Invasive Asian
Carps in North America. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 74, Bethesda, MD.
265 pp.
Kolar, C.S., D.C. Chapman, W.R. Courtenay Jr., and D.P. Jennings. 2005. Asian carps of
the genus Hypophthalmichthys (Pisces, Cyprinidae): A biological synopsis and environmental
risk assessment. National Invasive Species Council materials. Report to
the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 183 pp. Available online at http://
digitalcommons.unl.edu/natlinvasive/5/.
Kolar, C.S., D.C. Chapman, W.R. Courtenay Jr., C.M. Housel, J.D. Williams, and D.P.
Jennings. 2007. Bigheaded carps: A Biological Synopsis and Environmental Risk Assessment.
Special Publication 33. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 204 pp.
Lamar, J.T., C.R. Dolan, J.L. Petersen, J.H. Chick, and J.M. Epifanio. 2010. Introgressive
hybridization between Bighead Carp and Silver Carp in the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 30:1452–1461.
Laws, E.A., and R.S.J. Weisburd. 1990. Use of Silver Carp to control algal biomass in
aquaculture ponds. The Progressive Fish Culturist 52:1–8.
Lechowicz, M.J. 1982. The sampling characteristics of electivity indices. Oecologia
52:22–30.
Minder, M., and M. Pyron. 2017. Dietary overlap and selectivity among Silver Carp and
two native fish feeders in the Wabash River. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 2017:1–7.
Mitra, A., C. Castellani, W.C. Gentleman, S.H. Jónasdóttir, K.J. Flynn, A. Bode, C. Halsband,
P. Kuhn, P. Licandro, M.D. Agersted, A. Calbet, P.K. Lindeque, R. Koppelmann,
E.F. Møller, A. Gislason, T.G. Nielsen, and M. St. John. 2014. Bridging the gap between
marine biogeochemical and fisheries sciences: Configuring the zooplankton link. Progress
in Oceanography 129:176–199.
Nelson, K.A., S.F. Collins, G.G. Sass, and D.H. Wahl. 2017. A response-surface examination
of competition and facilitation between native and invasive juvenile fishes. Functional
Ecology 31:2157–2166.
O’Brien, W.J., and G.L. Vinyard. 1974. Comment on the use of Ivlev’s electivity index with
planktivorous fish. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of C anada 31:1427–1429.
Ochs, C.A., O. Pongruktham, and P.V. Zimba. 2013. Darkness at the break of noon: Phytoplankton
production in the Lower Mississippi River. Limnology and Oceanography
58:555–568.
Opuszynski, K., and J.V. Shireman. 1993. Food habits, feeding behavior, and impact of triploid
Bighead Carp, Hypophthalmichthys nobilis (Richardson), in experimental ponds.
Journal of Biology 42:517–530.
Pendleton, R.M., C. Schwinghamer, L.E. Solomon, and A.F. Casper. 2017. Competition
among river planktivores: Are native planktivores still fewer and skinnier in response to
the Asian Carp invasion? Environmental Biology of Fishes 100:1213–1222.
Southeastern Naturalist
C.A. Ochs, O. Pongruktham, K.J. Killgore, and J.J. Hoover
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
128
Phelps, Q.E., S.J. Tripp, K.R. Bales, D. James, R.A. Hrabik, and D. Herzog. 2017. Incorporating
basic and applied approaches to evaluate the effects of invasive Asian
Carp on native fishes: A necessary first step for integrated pest management. Plos One
12(9):e0184081. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0184081.
Pongruktham O., and C.A. Ochs. 2015. The rise and fall of the Lower Mississippi: Effects
of hydrologic connection on floodplain backwaters. Hydrobiologia 742:169–183.
Pongruktham, O., C.A. Ochs, and J.J. Hoover. 2010. Observations of Silver Carp (Hypophthalmichthys
molitrix) planktivory in a floodplain lake of the Lower Mississippi River
Basin. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 25:85–93.
Porter, K.G. 1973. Selective grazing and differential digestion of algae by zooplankton.
Nature 244:179–180.
Radke, R.J., and U. Kahl. 2002. Effects of a filter-feeding fish, Silver Carp, Hypothalmichthys
molitrix (Val.), on phyto- and zooplankton in a mesotrophic reservoir: Results from
an enclosure experiment. Freshwater Biology 47:2337–2344.
Rothhaupt, K.O. 1990. Differences in particle size-dependent feeding efficiencies of closely
related rotifer species. Limnology and Oceanography 35:16–23.
Sampson, S.J., J.H. Chick, and M.A. Pegg. 2009. Diet overlap among two Asian carp and
three native fishes in backwater lakes on the Illinois and Mississippi rivers. Biological
Invasions 11:483–496.
Sass, G.G., C. Hinz, A.C. Erickson, N.N. McClelland, M.A. McClelland, and J.M. Epifanio.
2014. Invasive Bighead and Silver carp effects on zooplankton communities in the Illinois
River, Illinois, USA. Journal of Great Lakes Research 40:911–921.
Schrank, S.J, C.S. Guy, and J.F. Fairchild. 2003. Competitive interactions between
age–0 Bighead Carp and Paddlefish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
132:1222–1228.
Siegel, S., and N.J. Castellan. 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences,
2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 399 pp.
Slack, W.T, S.G. George, J.J. Hoover, and M.D. Wagner. 2016. Occurrence of bigheaded
carps (Hypophthalmichthys spp.) in the Pearl River Drainage, Louisiana and Mississippi,
USA. BioInvasions Records 5:159–168.
Smith, D.W. 1989. The feeding selectivity of Silver Carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Val., Journal of Fish Biology 34:819–828.
Smith, T.E., R.J. Stevenson, N.F. Caraco NF, and J.J. Cole. 1998. Changes in phytoplankton
community structure during the Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) invasion of the
Hudson River (New York). Journal of Plankton Research 20:1567–1579.
Solomon, L.E., R.M. Pendleton, J.H. Chick, and A.F. Casper. 2016. Long-term changes in
fish community structure in relation to the establishment of Asian carps in a large floodplain
river. Biological Invasions 18:2883–2895.
Sommer, U. 2008. Trophic cascades in marine and freshwater plankton. Internationale Revue
der gesamten Hydrobiologie und Hydrographie 93(4–5):506–516.
Spataru, P. 1977. Gut contents of Silver Carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (Val.), and some
trophic relations to other fish species in a polyculture system. Aquaculture 11:137–146.
Spataru, P., and M. Gophen. 1985. Feeding behavior of Silver Carp, Hypophthalmichthys
molitrix Val., and its impact on the food web in Lake Kinneret, Israel. Hydrobiologia
120:53–61.
Strandberg, U., S.J. Taipale, M. Hiltunen, A.W.E. Galloway, M.T. Brett, and P. Kankaala.
2015. Inferring phytoplankton community composiiton with a fatty-acid mixing model.
Ecosphere 6:1–18.
Southeastern Naturalist
129
C.A. Ochs, O. Pongruktham, K.J. Killgore, and J.J. Hoover
2019 Vol. 18, No. 1
Strayer, D.L., N.F. Caraco, J.J. Cole, S. Findlay, and M.L. Pace. 1999. Transformation of
freshwater ecosystems by bivalves. Bioscience 49:19–27.
Strauss, R. 1979. Reliability estimates for Ivlev’s electivity index, the forage ratio, and a
proposed linear index of food selection. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
108:344–352.
Thorp, J.H., and R.E. Bowes. 2017. Carbon sources in riverine food webs: New evidence
from amino acid isotopic techniques. Ecosystems 20:1029–1041.
Thorp, J.H., and M.D. Delong. 2002. Dominance of autotrophic autochthonous carbon in
food webs of heterotrophic rivers. Oikos 96:543–550.
Tumolo, B.B., and M.B. Flinn. 2017. Top-down effects of an invasive omnivore: Detection
in long-term monitoring of large-river reservoir chlorophyll-a. Oecologia 185:293–30.
Upholt, B. 2017. The last of the buffalo fishermen. Available online at https://www.betweenthelevees.
com/journal/. Accessed 5 April 2017.
Vanderploeg, H.A., and D. Scavia. 1979. Calculation and use of selectivity coefficients of
feeding: Zooplankton grazing. Ecological Modeling 7:135–149.
Vannote, R.L., F.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Cushing. 1980. The river
continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:130–137.
Varble, K.A., J.J. Hoover, S.G. George, C.E. Murphy, and K.J. Killgore. 2007. Floodplain
wetlands as nurseries for Silver Carp, Hypopthalmichthys molitrix: A conceptual model
for use in managing local populations. ANSRP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC/TN
ANSRP–07–4). US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
14 pp.
Vitál, Z, A. Specziár, A. Mozsár, P. Takács, G. Borics, J. Görgényi, L.G. Tóth, S.A. Nagy,
and G. Boros. 2015. Applicability of gill-raker filtrates and foregut contents in the
diet assessment of filter-feeding Asian carps. Fundamental and Applied Limnology
187(1):79–86.
Vörös, L, I. Oldal, M. Présing, and K. V–Balogh. 1997. Size-selective filtration and taxon–
specific digestion of plankton algae by Silver Carp (Hypophthalmicthys molitrix Val.).
Hydrobiologia 342/343:223–228.
Wetzel, R.G., and G.E. Likens. 2000. Limnological Analyses, 3rd Edition. Springer-Verlag,
New York, NY. 429 pp.
Williamson, C.J., and J.E. Garvey. 2005. Growth, fecundity, and diets of newly established
Silver Carp in the Middle Mississippi River. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 134:1423–1430.
Xie, P. 1999. Gut contents of Silver Carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix, and the disruption
of a centric diatom, Cyclotella, on passage through the esophagus and intestine. Aquaculture
180:295–305.
Xie, P. 2001. Gut contents of Bighead Carp (Aristichthys nobilis), and the processing and
digestion of algal cells in the alimentary canal. Aquaculture 195:149–161.