Biological Invasions

, Volume 20, Issue 8, pp 1961–1976 | Cite as

Source–sink dynamics explain the distribution and persistence of an invasive population of common carp across a model Midwestern watershed

  • Justine D. Dauphinais
  • Loren M. Miller
  • Reid G. Swanson
  • Peter W. SorensenEmail author
Original Paper


Source–sink theory is an ecological framework that describes how site and habitat-specific demographic rates and patch connectivity can explain population structure and persistence across heterogeneous landscapes. Although commonly used in conservation planning, source–sink theory has rarely been applied to the management of invasive species. This study tested whether the common carp, one of the world’s most invasive species, exhibits source–sink dynamics in a representative watershed in the Upper Mississippi River Basin comprised of a dozen interconnected ponds and lakes. To test for source–sink population structure, we used standard fish sampling techniques, tagging, and genetic assignment methods to describe habitat-specific recruitment rates and dispersal. Five years of sampling revealed that while adult carp were found across the entire watershed, reproductive success (the presence of young carp) was restricted to shallow ponds. Additionally, nearly a third of the carp tagged in a representative pond dispersed into the connected deeper lakes, suggesting that ponds in this system serve as sources and lakes as sinks. This possibility was confirmed by microsatellite analysis of carp tissue samples (n = 1041) which revealed the presence of two distinct strains of carp cohabitating in the lakes, whose natal origins could be traced back to one of two pond systems, with many adult carp attempting to migrate back into these natal ponds to spawn. We conclude that the distribution and persistence of invasive carp in complex interconnected systems may often be driven by source–sink dynamics and that their populations could be controlled by suppressing reproduction in source habitats or by disrupting dispersal pathways, instead of culling individuals from sink habitats.


Demographics Microsatellite Homing Aquatic invasive species Habitat heterogeneity Watershed scale 



This work was funded by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD). We thank Nathan Berg, Justin Howard, Jacob Osborne, Mary Headrick, Brett Miller, Seth Miller, and Danielle Grunzke for assistance with fieldwork and laboratory analyses. We would also like to thank RWMWD staff, specifically Bill Bartodziej and Simba Blood, for project coordination and support. We thank Jessica Eichmiller and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Supplementary material

10530_2018_1670_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 20 kb)
10530_2018_1670_MOESM2_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 15 kb)
10530_2018_1670_MOESM3_ESM.docx (65 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 64 kb)


  1. Anderson EC, Thompson EA (2002) A model-based method for identifying species hybrids using multilocus genetic data. Genetics 160:1217–1229PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Bajer PG, Sorensen PW (2010) Recruitment and abundance of an invasive fish, the common carp, is driven by its propensity to invade and reproduce in basins that experience winter-time hypoxia in interconnected lakes. Biol Invasions 12:1101–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bajer PG, Chizinski CJ, Sorensen PW (2011) Using the Judas technique to locate and remove wintertime aggregations of invasive common carp. Fish Manag Ecol 18:497–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bajer PG, Chizinski CJ, Silbernagel JJ, Sorensen PW (2012) Variation in native micro-predator abundance explains recruitment of a mobile invasive fish, the common carp, in a naturally unstable environment. Biol Invasions 14:1919–1929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bajer PG, Cross TK, Lechelt JD, Chizinski CJ, Weber MJ, Sorensen PW (2015a) Across-ecoregion analysis suggests a hierarchy of ecological filters that regulate recruitment of a globally invasive fish. Divers Distrib 21:500–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bajer PG, Parker JE, Cross TK, Venturelli PA, Sorensen PW (2015b) Partial migration to seasonally-unstable habitat facilitates biological invasions in a predator-dominated system. Oikos 124:1520–1526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bajer PG, Beck MW, Cross TK, Koch JD, Bartodziej WM, Sorensen PW (2016) Biological invasion by a benthivorous fish reduced the cover and species richness of aquatic plants in most lakes of a large North American ecoregion. Glob Change Biol 22:3937–3947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Balon EK (1995) Origin and domestication of the wild carp, Cyprinus carpio: from Roman gourmets to the swimming flowers. Aquaculture 129:3–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonneau JL, Scarnecchia DL (2002) Spawning-season homing of common carp and river carpsucker. Prairie Nat 32:13–20Google Scholar
  10. Boughton DA (1999) Empirical evidence for complex source–sink dynamics with alternative states in a butterfly metapopulation. Ecology 80:2727–2739Google Scholar
  11. Brown P, Gilligan D (2014) Optimising an integrated pest-management strategy for a spatially structured population of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) using meta-population modelling. Mar Freshw Res 65:538–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown P, Sivakumaran K, Stoessel D, Giles A (2005) Population biology of carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) in the Mid-Murray River and Barmah forest wetlands, Australia. Mar Freshw Res 56:1151–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carroll C, Noss RF, Paquet PC, Schumaker NH (2003) Use of population viability analysis and reserve selection algorithms in regional conservation plans. Ecol Appl 13:1773–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chizinski CJ, Bajer PG, Headrick ME, Sorensen PW (2016) Different migratory strategies of invasive common carp and native northern pike in the American Midwest suggest an opportunity for selective manaement strategies. N Am J Fish Manag 36:769–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conallin AJ, Smith BB, Thwaites LA, Walker KF, Gillanders BM (2016) Exploiting the innate behaviour of common carp, Cyprinus carpio, to limit invasion and spawning in wetlands of the River Murray, Australia. Fish Manag Ecol 23:431–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crooijmans R, Van der Poel J, Groenen M, Bierbooms V, Komen J (1997) Microsatellite markers in common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). Anim Genet 28:129–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crook DA, Macdonald JI, McNeil D, Gilligan D, Asmus M, Maas R, Woodhead J (2013) Recruitment sources and dispersal of an invasive fish in a large river system as revealed by otolith chemistry analysis. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 70:953–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crowder LB, Lyman SJ, Figueira WF, Priddy J (2000) Source–sink population dynamics and the problem of siting marine reserves. Bull Mar Sci 66:799–820Google Scholar
  19. Dias PC (1996) Sources and sinks in population biology. Trends Ecol Evol 11:326–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Diffendorfer JE (1998) Testing models of source–sink dynamics and balanced dispersal. Oikos 81:417–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Driver PD, Harris JH, Closs GP, Koen TB (2005) Effects of flow regulation on carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) recruitment in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. River Res Appl 21:327–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Earl DA, VonHoldt BM (2012) STRUCTURE HARVESTER: a website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv Genet Resour 4:359–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Epifanio J, Philipp D (2000) Simulating the extinction of parental lineages from introgressive hybridization: the effects of fitness, initial proportions of parental taxa, and mate choice. Rev Fish Biol Fish 10:339–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Evanno G, Regnaut S, Goudet J (2005) Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software structure: a simulation study. Mol Ecol 14:2611–2620CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Figueira WF, Crowder LB (2006) Defining patch contribution in source–sink metapopulations: the importance of including dispersal and its relevance to marine systems. Popul Ecol 48:215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frouz J, Kindlmann P (2001) The role of sink to source re-colonisation in the population dynamics of insects living in unstable habitats: an example of terrestrial chironomids. Oikos 93:50–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fullerton AH, Anzalone S, Moran P, Van Doornik DM, Copeland T, Zabel RW (2016) Setting spatial conservation priorities despite incomplete data for characterizing metapopulations. Ecol Appl 26:2558–2578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Furrer RD, Pasinelli G (2015) Empirical evidence for source–sink populations: a review on occurrence, assessments and implications. Biol Rev. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. García-Berthou E, Alcaraz C, Pou-Rovira Q, Zamora L, Coenders G, Feo C (2005) Introduction pathways and establishment rates of invasive aquatic species in Europe. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:453–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hubert WA (1996) Passive capture techniques. In: Murphy BR, Willis DW (eds) Fisheries techniques, 2nd edn. American Fisheries Society, Maryland, pp 157–192Google Scholar
  32. Johnson DM (2004) Source–sink dynamics in a temporally heterogeneous environment. Ecology 85:2037–2045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jonsson B, Jonsson N (1993) Partial migration: niche shift versus sexual maturation in fishes. Rev Fish Biol Fish 3:348–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kohlmann K, Kersten P (2013) Deeper insight into the origin and spread of European common carp (Cyprinus carpio carpio) based on mitochondrial D-loop sequence polymorphisms. Aquaculture 376:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2002) Ecological predictions and risk assessment for alien fishes in North America. Science 298:1233–1236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Loreau M, Daufresne T, Gonzalez A, Gravel D, Guichard F, Leroux SJ, Loeuille N, Massol F, Mouquet N (2013) Unifying sources and sinks in ecology and Earth sciences. Biol Rev 88:365–379CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Lowe S, Browne M, Boudjelas S, De Poorter M (2000) 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species: a selection from the global invasive species database. Invasive Species Specialist Group, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  38. Macdonald JI, Crook DA (2014) Nursery sources and cohort strength of young-of-the-year common carp (Cyprinus carpio) under differing flow regimes in a regulated floodplain river. Ecol Freshw Fish 23:269–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Margules CR, Pressey LR (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Miller LM, Mero SW, Younk JA (2009) The genetic legacy of stocking muskellunge in a Northern Minnesota lake. Trans Am Fish Soc 138:602–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Novaro AJ, Funes MC, Walker RS (2005) An empirical test of source–sink dynamics induced by hunting. J Appl Ecol 42:910–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Osborne JB (2012) Distribution, abundance and overwinter survival of young-of-year common carp in a Midwestern watershed. MS thesis, University of Minnesota.
  43. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Pulliam HR (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am Nat 132:652–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Quinn TP (1993) A review of homing and straying of wild and hatchery-produced salmon. Fish Res 18:29–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roberts CM (1998) Sources, sinks, and the design of marine reserve networks. Fisheries 23:16–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Runge JP, Runge MC, Nichols JD (2006) The role of local populations within a landscape context: defining and classifying sources and sinks. Am Nat 167:925–938CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Sarkar S, Pressey RL, Faith DP, Margules CR, Fuller T, Stoms DM, Moffett A, Wilson KA, Williams KJ, Williams PH, Andelman S (2006) Biodiversity conservation planning tools: present status and challenges for the future. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:123–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shea K (1998) Management of populations in conservation, harvesting and control. Trends Ecol Evol 13:371–375CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Silbernagel JJ, Sorensen PW (2013) Direct field and laboratory evidence that a combination of egg and larval predation controls recruitment of common carp in many lakes of the upper Mississippi Basin. Trans Am Fish Soc 142:1134–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sorensen PW, Bajer PG (2011) The common carp. In: Simberloff D, Rejmanek M (eds) Encyclopedia of invasive introduced species. University of California Press, Berkely, pp 100–103Google Scholar
  52. Stuart IG, Jones MJ (2006) Large, regulated forest floodplain is an ideal recruitment zone for non-native common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). Mar Freshw Res 57:333–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stuart IG, Williams A, McKenzie J, Holt T (2006) Managing a migratory pest species: a selective trap for common carp. N Am J Fish Manag 26:888–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Taylor AH, Tracey SR, Hartmann K, Patil JG (2012) Exploiting seasonal habitat use of the common carp, Cyprinus carpio, in a lacustrine system for management and eradication. Mar Freshw Res 63:587–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thomas CD, Singer MC, Boughton DA (1996) Catastrophic extinction of population sources in a butterfly metapopulation. Am Nat 148:957–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Travis JM, Park KJ (2004) Spatial structure and the control of invasive alien species. Anim Conserv 7:321–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vitule JRS, Freire CA, Simberloff D (2009) Introduction of non-native freshwater fish can certainly be bad. Fish Fish 10:98–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Weber MJ, Brown ML (2009) Effects of common carp on aquatic ecosystems 80 years after “carp as a dominant”: ecological insights for fisheries management. Rev Fish Sci 17:524–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weber MJ, Brown ML (2013) Density-dependence and environmental conditions regulate recruitment and first-year growth of common carp in shallow lake. Trans Am Fish Soc 142:471–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weber MJ, Hennen MJ, Brown ML, Lucchesi DO, St. Sauver TR (2016) Compensatory response of invasive common carp Cyprinus carpio to harvest. Fish Res 179:168–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilberg MJ, Irwin BJ, Jones ML, Bence JR (2008) Effects of source–sink dynamics on harvest policy performance for yellow perch in southern Lake Michigan. Fish Res 94:282–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Woodford DJ, McIntosh AR (2010) Evidence of source–sink metapopulations in a vulnerable native galaxiid fish driven by introduced trout. Ecol Appl 20:967–977CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Yamamoto T, Kohmatsu Y, Yuma M (2006) Effects of summer drawdown on cyprinid fish larvae in Lake Biwa, Japan. Limnology 7:75–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yue GH, Ho MY, Orban L, Komen J (2004) Microsatellites within genes and ESTs of common carp and their applicability in silver crucian carp. Aquaculture 234:85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zambrano L, MartÌnez-Meyer E, Menezes N, Peterson AT (2006) Invasive potential of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) in American freshwater systems. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:1903–1910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zielinski DP, Sorensen PW (2015) Field test of a bubble curtain deterrent system for common carp. Fish Manag Ecol 22:181–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Justine D. Dauphinais
    • 1
  • Loren M. Miller
    • 1
    • 2
  • Reid G. Swanson
    • 1
  • Peter W. Sorensen
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation BiologyUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA
  2. 2.Minnesota Department of Natural ResourcesSaint PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations