Ichthyological Research

, Volume 65, Issue 2, pp 245–251 | Cite as

Profiles of digestive enzymes of two competing planktivores, silver carp and gizzard shad, differ

  • Jon J. Amberg
  • Nathan R. Jensen
  • Richard A. Erickson
  • Blake Sauey
  • Craig Jackson
Full Paper


Typically, studies in digestive physiology in fish focus on a few enzymes and provide insight into the specific processes of the enzyme in a targeted species. Comparative studies assessing a wide number of digestive enzymes on fishes that compete for food resources are lacking, especially in the context of an introduced species. It is generally thought that the invasive silver carp (SVC; Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) directly compete for food resources with the native gizzard shad (GZS; Dorosoma cepedianum) in waters where they coexist. We compared 19 digestive enzymes between SVC and GZS throughout a year and in two rivers in the Midwestern United States: Illinois River and Wabash River. All digestive enzymes analyzed were detected in both SVC and GZS in both rivers. However, the profiles of the digestive enzymes varied by species. Alkaline phosphatase, valine arylamidase, acid phosphatase, naphthol-AS-BI-phosphohydrolase and N-acetyl-β-glucosaminidase were all much higher in SVC than in GZS. Differences between digestive enzyme profiles were also observed between rivers and months. This study demonstrates the utility of using an ecological approach to compare physiological features in fishes.


Asian carp Silver carp Digestive physiology 



This project was funded through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative as part of a larger project focused on the development of a species-specific control for bigheaded carps. The authors claim no conflicts of interests. The authors thank the staff at the Illinois History Survey in Havana, Illinois, and Dr. Reuben Goforth and students at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, for assisting in the capture of fishes. All vertebrate animals used in this study (AEH-10-ORAL-01) were handled according to the approved protocol procedures and the policies established by the USGS Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee; the Committee reviewed and approved protocol-specific procedures. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government.


  1. Bitterlich G (1985) Digestive enzyme pattern of two stomachless filter feeders, silver carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Val., and bighead carp, Aristichthys nobilis Rich. J Fish Biol27:103–112Google Scholar
  2. Cahu CL, Infante JLZ (1994) Early weaning of sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) larvae with a compound diet: Effect on digestive enzymes. Comp Biochem Physiol A Physiol 109:213–222Google Scholar
  3. Dabrowski K, Glogowski J (1977) Studies on the role of exogenous proteolytic enzymes in digestion processes in fish. Hydrobiologia 54:129–134Google Scholar
  4. Das KM, Tripathi SD (1991) Studies on the digestive enzymes of grass carp, Ctenopharyngodon idella (Val.). Aquaculture 92:21–32Google Scholar
  5. German DP, Horn MH, Gawlicka A (2004) Digestive enzyme activities in herbivorous and carnivorous prickleback fishes (Teleostei: Stichaeidae): ontogenetic, dietary, and phylogenetic effects. Physiol Biochem Zool 77:789–804Google Scholar
  6. Gutreuter S, Vallazza J, Knights B, Bartsch M, Bartsch L, Richardson W (2011) Early evidence of effects of invasive Asian carps on selected fishes of the Upper Mississippi River system. Project completion report. US Fish and Wildlife Service Project, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  7. Harpaz S, Uni Z (1999) Activity of intestinal mucosal brush border membrane enzymes in relation to the feeding habits of three aquaculture fish species. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 124:155–160Google Scholar
  8. Hidalgo M., Urea E, Sanz A (1999) Comparative study of digestive enzymes in fish with different nutritional habits. Proteolytic and amylase activities. Aquaculture 170:267–283Google Scholar
  9. Infante JLZ, Cahu C (1994) Development and response to a diet change of some digestive enzymes in sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) larvae. Fish Physiol Biochem 12:399–408Google Scholar
  10. Irons KS, Sass GG, McClelland MA, Stafford JD (2007) Reduced condition factor of two native fish species coincident with invasion of non-native Asian carps in the Illinois River, U.S.A. Is this evidence for competition and reduced fitness? J Fish Biol 71:258–273Google Scholar
  11. Kuczynski J, Liu Z, Lozupone C, McDonald D, Fierer N, Knight R (2010) Microbial community resemblance methods differ in their ability to detect biologically relevant patterns. Nat Methods 7:813–819Google Scholar
  12. Legendre P, Anderson MJ (1999) Distance-based redundancy analysis: testing multispecies responses in multifactorial ecological experiments. Ecol monogr 69:1–24Google Scholar
  13. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara R, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens M, Wagner H (2015) vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.0-10. 2013Google Scholar
  14. Opuszynski K, Shireman JV (1991) Food passage time and daily ration of bighead carp, Aristichthys nobilis, kept in cages. Environ Biol Fishes 30:387–393Google Scholar
  15. R Development Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 6 December 2016
  16. Sampson SJ, Chick JH, Pegg MA (2008) Diet overlap among two Asian carp and three native fishes in backwater lakes on the Illinois and Mississippi rivers. Biol Invasions 11:483–496Google Scholar
  17. Sass GG, Cook TR, Irons KS, McClelland MA, Michaels NN, O’Hara TM, Stroub MR (2009) A mark-recapture population estimate for invasive silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) in the La Grange Reach, Illinois River. Biol Invasions 12:433–436Google Scholar
  18. Sass GG, Hinz C, Erickson AC, McClelland NN, McClelland MA, Epifanio JM (2014) Invasive bighead and silver carp effects on zooplankton communities in the Illinois River, Illinois, USA. J Great Lakes Res 40:911–921Google Scholar
  19. Sauey BW, Amberg JJ, Cooper ST, Grunwald SK, Newton TJ, Haro RJ (2015) Preliminary characterization of digestive enzymes in freshwater mussels. J Shellfish Res 34:415–422Google Scholar
  20. Sauey BW, Amberg JJ, Cooper ST, Grunwald SK, Haro RJ, Gaikowski MP (2016) Digestive physiology comparisons of aquatic invertebrates in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. J Freshw Ecology 31:303–314Google Scholar
  21. Smith LS (1989) Digestive functions in Teleost fish. In: Halver JE (ed) Fish Nutrition, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, California, pp 59–94Google Scholar
  22. Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Williamson CJ, Garvey JE (2005) Growth, Fecundity, and Diets of Newly Established Silver Carp in the Middle Mississippi River. Tran Am Fish Soc 134:1423–1430Google Scholar
  24. Yako LA, Dettmers JM, Stein RA (1996) Feeding preferences of omnivorous gizzard shad as influenced by fish size and zooplankton density. Tran Am Fish Soc 125:753–759Google Scholar
  25. Ye L, Amberg J, Chapman D, Gaikowski M, Liu W-T (2014) Fish gut microbiota analysis differentiates physiology and behavior of invasive Asian carp and indigenous American fish. ISME J 8:541–551Google Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S. Geological SurveyLa CrosseUSA
  2. 2.Fish and WildlifeKootenai Tribe of IdahoBonners FerryUSA

Personalised recommendations