Fisheries Science

, Volume 73, Issue 4, pp 817–822 | Cite as

Morphometric and genetic analysis of Carassius auratus complex from an artificial wetland in Morava River floodplain, Czech Republic

  • Lukáŝ Veteŝník
  • Ivo PapouŝekEmail author
  • Karel Halačka
  • Věra Lusková
  • Jan Mendel


A Carassius auratus complex from an artificial wetland in the Morava River basin is composed of triploid females. Based on body depth, sampled females could be divided into two groups: (i) high-dorsal (42.5% of standard length); and (ii) low-dorsal (36.1% of standard length). Both groups differed also in number of gill rakers (50.2 versus 45.4, respectively). In concordance with morphological differences, genetic analysis proved the existence of two haplotypes in examined individuals. The first haplotype is bound to the high-dorsal form with higher number of gill rakers. This is the most frequent haplotype in populations of the C. a gibelio form in the Czech Republic. The second haplotype is characteristic of the low-dorsal form with a lower number of gill rakers. This haplotype is close to haplotypes described in the C. a. langsdorfii form, which is known from Japan. and its occurrence within haplotypes specified in European territory is sporadic.

Key Words

artificial wetland Carassius auratus gibelio Carassius auratus langsdorfii Czech Republic microsatellites morphometry 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Collares-Pereira MJ, Moreira da Costa L. Intraspecific and interspecific genome size variation in Iberian Cyprinidae and the problem of diploidy and polyploidy, with review of genome sizes within the family. Folia Zool. 1999; 48: 61–77.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balon EK. About the oldest domesticates among fishes. J. Fish. Biol. 2004; 65: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hänfling B, Bolton P, Harley M, Carvalho GR. A molecular approach to detect hybridisation between crucian carp (Carassius carassius) and non-indigenous carp species (Carassius spp. and Cyprinus carpio). Freshw. Biol. 2005; 50: 403–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berg LS. Ryby presnych vod SSSR isopredelnych stran. II. Izd. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Moskva, Leningrad. 1949 (in Russian).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lusk S, Baruŝ V, Veselý V. On the occurrence of Carassius auratus in the Morava river drainage area. Folia Zool. 1977; 26: 377–381.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lusk S, Lusková V, Halačka K. Carassius auratus — 25 years since its natural introduction. Proceedings of the 3rd Czech Conference of Ichthyology. Vúrh Jú Vodňany, Vodňany. 1998; 135–140 (in Czech).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Halačka K, Lusková V, Lusk S. Carassius ‘gibelio’ in fish communities of the Czech Republic. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2003; 3: 133–138.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lusková V, Halačka K, Vetešník L, Lusk S. Changes of ploidy and sexuality status of ‘Carassius auratus’ populations in the drainage area of the River Dyje (Czech Republic). Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2004; 4: 165–171.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nakamura M. Keys to the Freshwater Fishes of Japan Fully Illustrated in Colors. Hokuryukan, Tokyo, 1982 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hosoya K, Cyprinidae. In: Nakabo T (ed). Fishes of Japan with Pictorial Keys Species, 2nd end. Tokai University Press, Tokyo. 2002; 1139–1310, 1606–1628.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murakami M, Matsuba C, Fujitani H. The maternal origins of the triploid ginbuna (Carassius auratus langsdorfi): phylogenetic relationships within the C. auratus taxa by partial mitochondrial D-loop sequencing. Genes. Genet. Syst. 2001; 76: 25–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kalous L, Šlechtová V, Bohlen J, Petrtýl L, Švátora M. Ginbuna (Carassius langsdorfii, Temminck & Schlegel, 1846): New Fish Species in the Czech Republic. Proceedings of the 8th Czech Conference of Ichthyology. Mzlu, Brno. 2005; 64–70 (in Czech).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horák V, Lusk S, Halačka K, Lusková V. Artificial wetlands-yes or no? Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2004; 4: 119–127.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Flajšhans M. A model approach to distinguish diploid and triploid fish by means of computer-assisted image analysis. Acta Vet. Brno. 1997; 66: 101–110.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Halačka K, Lusková V. Polyploidy in Carassius auratus in the lower reaches of the River Dyje — determination using the size of erythrocyte nuclei. Proceedings of the 4th Czech Conference of Ichthyology, Vúrh Jú Vodňany, Vodňany. 2000; 110–113 (in Czech).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Flajšhans M, Ráb P. Analysis of polyploid fishes by means of flow — and image cytometry. In: Kozubik A. (ed.). Proceedings of the Analytical Cytometry II. Czech Society for Analytical Cytology. Brno. 2003; 85–86 (in Czech).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holčík J. The Freshwater Fishes of Europe, Vol. 1, Part II, General Introduction to Fishes, Acipenseriformes. AULA-Verlag, Wiesbaden. 1989.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sambrook J, Fritsch E, Maniatis T.Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, 2nd edn. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY. 1989.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kumar S, Tamura K, Nei M. MEGA3: integrated software for Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis and sequence alignment. Brief. Bioinform. 2004; 5: 150–163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saitou M, Nei M. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1987; 4: 406–425.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zheng W, Stacey NE, Coffin J, Strobeck C. Isolation and characterization of microsatellite loci in the goldfish Carassius auratus. Mol. Ecol. 1995; 4: 791–792.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Crooijmans RPMA, Bierboms VAF, Komen J, VanderPoel JJ, Groenen MAM. Microsatellite markers in common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). Anim. Genet. 1997; 28: 129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yue GH, Orban L. Polymorphic microsatellites from silver crucian carp (Carassius auratus gibelio Bloch) and cross-amplification in common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). Mol. Ecol. Notes 2002; 2: 534–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lusk S, Baruš V. Morphometric features of Carassius auratus from the drainage area of the Morava River. Folia Zool, 1978; 27: 177–190.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vetešník L. Biological characteristic of silver prussian carp (Carassius auratus) under the aspect of different ploidy level between individuals. PhD Thesis. Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry, Brno. 2005 (in Czech).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Iguchi K, Yamamoto G, Matsubara N, Nishida M. Morphological and genetic analysis of fish of a Carassius complex (Cyprinidae) in Lake Kasumigaura with reference to the taxonomic status of two all-female triploid morphs. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2003; 79: 351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ohara K, Ariyoshi T, Sumida E, Sitizyo K, Taniguchi N. Natural hybridization between diploid crucian carp species and genetic independence of triploid crucian carp elucidated by DNA markers. Zool Sci. 2000; 17: 357–364.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taniguchi N, Sakata K. Interspecific and intraspecific variations of muscle protein in the Japanese crucian carp-II Starch-gel electrophoretic pattern. Jpn. J. Ichthyol. 1977; 24: 1–11.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Golovinskaja KA. Reproduction and heredity of Carassius auratus gibelio. Trudy Vseross. Naučno — Issled. Inst. Prudovogo rybnogo chozjajstva 1954; 7: 34–57 (in Russian).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Oliva O, Hruška V. The notes to revision of our Carassius. Zoologické a Entomologické Listy 1955; 4: 89–98 (in Czech).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kobayasi H, Kawashima Y, Takeuchi N. Comparative chromosome studies in the genus Carassius, especially with a finding of polyploidy in the ginbuna (C. auratus langsdorfii). Jpn. J. Ichthyol. 1970; 17: 153–160.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Liu S, Sezaki K. Hashimoto K, Nakamura M. Distribution of polyploids of ‘ginbuna’ Carassius auratus langsdorfii in Japan. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 1980; 46: 413–418.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Fisheries Science 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lukáŝ Veteŝník
    • 1
  • Ivo Papouŝek
    • 1
  • Karel Halačka
    • 1
  • Věra Lusková
    • 1
  • Jan Mendel
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Vertebrate Biology of the Academy of Sciences of Czech RepublicBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations