Summary
Relative growth rates of six genetic groups of common carp were compared in small netting cages and in earthen ponds. These groups of carp included an isolate of the Chinese ‘Big Belly Carp’, its crossbred with a European isolate, and four European progenies, purebreds or crossbreds. Five different environments were produced in the ponds, mainly by varying the stocking rates of carp. Each of the (ten) cages was treated as a different environment. Each cage and each pond were stocked with random samples of each genotype, i.e., ‘communal testing’ was carried out. The performance of a given genotype in a given environment was estimated from its weight gain in that environment. The mean weight gain of all groups, stocked into a given environment, was taken as an estimate of that environment as it influenced the growth of carp. The characteristics of the regression of growth of a given genotype on the environment in which it grew [i.e., the coefficient of regression (b) and the Y intercept (a)] are taken as measures of its adaptation to that environment. No real differences in adaptation to pond versus cage conditions were isolated for four of the tested groups, the Chinese x European crossbred, the two European crossbreds and one of the European purebreds. The Chinese carp showed a specific adaptation to growth in ponds (or a lack of adaptation to growth in cages), whereas Dor-70 was specifically adapted to cage conditions. These results may be explained by the genetic history of the two lines. The Big Belly Carp was domesticated under conditions of Chinese subsistence aquaculture, which apparently generated an adaptation to gathering and utilizing natural foods. These are prominently absent in cages. Dor-70 was produced in a long-term selection experiment, which apparently generated a response for growth in cages. These results may be of applicative value, if common carp were to be considered as candidates for commercial cage aquaculture. It would then be important to use strains like Dor-70, which are adapted to these conditions, and avoid strains like the Chinese Big Belly carp.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beveridge M (1987) Cage aquaculture. Fishing New Books, Farnham, England
Coche AG (1982) Cage culture of tilapias. In: Pullin RSV, LoweMcConnel RH (eds) The biology and culture of tilapias ICLARM Conf Proc Manila, The Philippines 7:205–246
Gjedrem T (1979) Selection for growth rate and domestication in Atlantic salmon. Z Tierz Zuechtungsbiol 96:56–59
Milstein A, Feldlite M, Mozes N, Avnimelech Y (1989) Limnology of reservoirs used for fish farming and crop irrigation, with integrated free and cage fish culture. Isr J Aquacult Bamidgeh 41:12–22
Moav R, Wohlfarth G (1976) Two way selection for growth rate in the common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). Genetics 82:83–101
Moav R, Wohlfarth G, Lahman M (1964) Genetic improvement of carp. VI. Growth rate of carp imported from Holland, relative to Israeli carp, and some crossbred progeny. Bamidgeh 16:142–149
Moav R, Wohlfarth G, Hulata G (1975) Genetic differences between the Chinese and European races of the common carp. I. Analysis of genotype-environment interactions for growth rate. Heredity 34:323–340
Wohlfarth GW (1984) Common carp. In: Mason IL (ed) Evolution of domesticated animals. Longman, London, pp 375–380
Wohlfarth GW, Moav R (1985) Communal testing, a method of testing the growth of different genetic groups of common carp in earthen ponds. Aquaculture 48:143–157
Wohlfarth GW, Moav R, Hulata G (1983) A genotype-environment interaction for growth rate in the common carp, growing in intensively manured ponds. Aquaculture 33:187–195
Wohlfarth GW, Moav R, Hulata G (1986) Genetic differences between the Chinese and European races of common carp. 5. Differential adaptation to manure and artificial feeds. Theor Appl Genet 72:88–97
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Communicated by H. F. Linskens
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wohlfarth, G.W., Moav, R. Genetic differences between the Chinese and European races of the common carp. Theoret. Appl. Genetics 79, 693–698 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00226885
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00226885