Smallscale mud carp

Cirrhinus microlepis

no image available
Distribution
no distribution map available



Information


Author: Caroline Marques Maia
Version: B | 1.1 (2022-09-24)

Please note: This part of the profile is currently being revised.


Reviewers: N/A
Editor: Jenny Volstorf

First published: 2022-09-24
Version information:
  • Appearance: B
  • Major version 1 published: 2022-09-24
  • Revision 1 published: 2022-09-24

Cite as: »Marques Maia, Caroline. 2022. Cirrhinus microlepis (Farm: Short Profile). In: fair-fish database, ed. fair-fish. World Wide Web electronic publication. First published 2022-09-24. Version B | 1.1. https://fair-fish-database.net.«





FishEthoScore/farm

Cirrhinus microlepis
LiPoCe
Criteria
Home range
Depth range
Migration
Reproduction
Aggregation
Aggression
Substrate
Stress
Malformations
Slaughter


Condensed assessment of the species' likelihood and potential for good fish welfare in aquaculture, based on ethological findings for 10 crucial criteria.

Li = Likelihood that the individuals of the species experience good welfare under minimal farming conditions
Po = Potential of the individuals of the species to experience good welfare under high-standard farming conditions
Ce = Certainty of our findings in Likelihood and Potential

FishEthoScore = Sum of criteria scoring "High" (max. 10)

Legend

High
Medium
Low
Unclear
No findings



General remarks

Cirrhinus microlepis is a freshwater medium-sized carp that can be naturally found in large and medium-sized rivers and lowland floodplains of Chao Phraya and Mekong basins in Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. It is one of the most important fish species for those regional fisheries. Besides increased fishing, the factors that have probably contributed to an overall decline of natural populations of C. microlepis over the years are hydrological and hydraulic changes, habitat degradation, water pollution, loss of habitat connectivity, climate change, increasing land use for crops, and introduction of alien fishes for aquacultural purposes. This has stimulated the development of aquaculture of this species. Even the fish weights and lengths for several individuals are decreasing at some places, like Tonle Sap lake in Cambodia. It is now considered a vulnerable species in the IUCN Red List. Because most wild information about C. microlepis is missing, it is difficult to know its natural needs and behaviours that are important to evaluate its welfare state under farming conditions. Even farm information is scarce about this species, and most of what is known is about carps in general. Further research is urgently needed to better assess and improve the welfare of C. microlepis.




1  Home range

Many species traverse in a limited horizontal space (even if just for a certain period of time per year); the home range may be described as a species' understanding of its environment (i.e., its cognitive map) for the most important resources it needs access to. What is the probability of providing the species' whole home range in captivity?

There are unclear findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE and FRYWILD: no data found yetFARM: fiberglass tanks: 1m2 (2 x 0.5 m) 1. For carps in general, earthen ponds: 100-1,000 m2 2; tanks: 1.4 m2 (1.2 x 1.2 m) 2. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to C. microlepis as well.

JUVENILESWILDno data found yetFARM: paddy fields: 286 m2 (13 x 22 m) 3.

ADULTSWILD and FARMno data found yet.

SPAWNERSWILD: supposedly move upstream at ~16-17 km/day when migrating 4FARM: for carps in general, earthen ponds: 20-30 m or 2,000-25,000 m2 2; storage tanks: 200 m2 (10 x 20 m), 450 m2 (15 x 30 m) 2; breeding tanks: 3.8 m2 (2.5 x 1.5 m), 8 m2 (4 x 2 m), 18.8 m2 (7.5 x 2.5 m), 2 m ∅ 2. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to C. microlepis as well.




2  Depth range

Given the availability of resources (food, shelter) or the need to avoid predators, species spend their time within a certain depth range. What is the probability of providing the species' whole depth range in captivity?

There are unclear findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs: WILD: no data found yetFARMDEMERSAL 1.

LARVAE and FRYWILD: no data found yetFARM: fiberglass tanks: 0.2 m 1. For carps in general, earthen ponds: 0.5-1.2 m 2; tanks: 1.2 m 2. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to C. microlepis as well.

JUVENILESWILDBENTHOPELAGIC 5FARMno data found yet.

ADULTSWILD:  JUVENILESFARM: for carps in general, earthen ponds: 0.8-2 m 2. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to C. microlepis as well.

SPAWNERSWILD: no data found yetFARM: for carps in general, earthen ponds: 1.0-2.5 m or deeper depending on climate zone 2; storage tanks: 1.0-1.5 m 2; breeding tanks: 1 m 2. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to C. microlepis as well.




3  Migration

Some species undergo seasonal changes of environments for different purposes (feeding, spawning, etc.) and with them, environmental parameters (photoperiod, temperature, salinity) may change, too. What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the migrating or habitat-changing behaviour of the species?

It is low for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

POTAMODROMOUS 6 7 8 9 4 10 11.

LARVAE and FRYWILD: fresh water 5FARM: fiberglass tanks: 25-28.2 °C 1.

JUVENILESWILD: 11-13 h PHOTOPERIOD 5, fresh water 12 13 5FARM: paddy fields: 11-13 h PHOTOPERIOD, 27.3-28.1 °C, fresh water 3.

ADULTSWILD:  JUVENILESFARMno data found yet.

SPAWNERSWILD: fresh water 5. Migrate upstream to rivers in the dry season 10 (October-February 4) supposedly to spawn 10 and then migrate back to floodplain in the flood season 10 (after May-June 4) – with migrations being apparently influenced by the lunar phase 4. Are also reported to spawn in floodplains in May-June 9FARMno data found yet.




4  Reproduction

A species reproduces at a certain age, season, and sex ratio and possibly involving courtship rituals. What is the probability of the species reproducing naturally in captivity without manipulation?

It is low for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

WILD: spawning season: May-June, in floodplains 9FARM: for carps in general, in storage tanks, spawners are kept separated by sex 2. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to C. microlepis as well. Successful induced spawning by hormonal manipulation 14 (pellet implantations in females followed by hormonal injections both in males and females 1), with eggs stripped and artificially fertilised 1 14.




5  Aggregation

Species differ in the way they co-exist with conspecifics or other species from being solitary to aggregating unstructured, casually roaming in shoals or closely coordinating in schools of varying densities. What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the aggregation behaviour of the species?

There are unclear findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE and FRYWILD: no data found yetFARM: fiberglass tanks: 25 IND/L 1. For carps in general, earthen ponds: 1,000 IND/m2 for LARVAE in nursery ponds, 12.5-25 IND/m2 for FRY in breeding ponds 2. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to C. microlepis as well.

JUVENILESWILDno data found yetFARM: paddy fields: 1 IND/m2 in polyculture with Barbonymus gonionotus and B. schwanenfeldii of overall density of 3 IND/m2 or with B. gonionotus, Trichogaster pectoralis, and Channa striata of overall density of 3.5 IND/m2, with better growth and survival when stocked with the latter 3.

ADULTSWILD and FARMno data found yet.

SPAWNERS: WILD and FARMno data found yet.




6  Aggression

There is a range of adverse reactions in species, spanning from being relatively indifferent towards others to defending valuable resources (e.g., food, territory, mates) to actively attacking opponents. What is the probability of the species being non-aggressive and non-territorial in captivity?

There are unclear findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE and FRYWILD and FARM: no data found yet.

JUVENILESWILDno data found yet. FARM: paddy fields: no aggression reported in polyculture with Barbonymus gonionotus and B. schwanenfeldii or with B. gonionotus, Trichogaster pectoralis, and Channa striata, but possible competition, especially with B. schwanenfeldii 3.

ADULTSWILD and FARM: no data found yet.

SPAWNERSWILD and FARM: no data found yet.




7  Substrate

Depending on where in the water column the species lives, it differs in interacting with or relying on various substrates for feeding or covering purposes (e.g., plants, rocks and stones, sand and mud). What is the probability of providing the species' substrate and shelter needs in captivity?

There are unclear findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: hatching jars 1 14, probably without substrate. For carps in general, double-walled hapa nets (e.g., mosquito netting and whole cloth) to protect from predators 2 . Further research needed to determine whether this applies to C. microlepis as well. 

LARVAE and FRYWILD and FARMno data found yet.

JUVENILESWILD: floodplains composed by a mosaic of flooded forest, shrubs, grassland, and rice fields 10. FARM: paddy fields: transparency: 26.4-27.4 cm 3.

ADULTSWILD:  JUVENILESFARM: no data found yet.

SPAWNERSWILD: spawn in areas with sandy bottom and shallow beaches 15. FARM: no data found yet.




8  Stress

Farming involves subjecting the species to diverse procedures (e.g., handling, air exposure, short-term confinement, short-term crowding, transport), sudden parameter changes or repeated disturbances (e.g., husbandry, size-grading). What is the probability of the species not being stressed?

There are no findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: no data found yet.

JUVENILESno data found yet.

ADULTSno data found yet.

SPAWNERSno data found yet.




9  Malformations

Deformities that – in contrast to diseases – are commonly irreversible may indicate sub-optimal rearing conditions (e.g., mechanical stress during hatching and rearing, environmental factors unless mentioned in crit. 3, aquatic pollutants, nutritional deficiencies) or a general incompatibility of the species with being farmed. What is the probability of the species being malformed rarely?

There are unclear findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

LARVAE: for carps in general, malformations due to insufficient nutrition 2. Further research needed to determine whether this applies to C. microlepis as well.

JUVENILES: no data found yet.

ADULTSno data found yet.

SPAWNERSno data found yet




10  Slaughter

The cornerstone for a humane treatment is that slaughter a) immediately follows stunning (i.e., while the individual is unconscious), b) happens according to a clear and reproducible set of instructions verified under farming conditions, and c) avoids pain, suffering, and distress. What is the probability of the species being slaughtered according to a humane slaughter protocol?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Common slaughter method: commonly marketed fresh 6, so probably asphyxia. For the related Cyprinus carpio, 85% are sold alive, of the 15% processed in plants 16, the common methods are a) asphyxia (followed by evisceration 16 or percussive killing 17), b) percussive stunning (followed by evisceration 16 18, gill cut or destruction of the heart 18), and c) electrical stunning (followed by evisceration 16 18, gill cut or destruction of the heart 18). Further research needed to determine whether this applies to C. microlepis as well. High-standard slaughter method: for C. carpio, electrical plus percussive stunning (followed by evisceration, gill cut or destruction of the heart) 18 or immersion in clove oil (followed by percussive killing 17). Further research needed for a specific protocol and to determine whether this applies to C. microlepis as well.




Side note: Domestication

Teletchea and Fontaine introduced 5 domestication levels illustrating how far species are from having their life cycle closed in captivity without wild input, how long they have been reared in captivity, and whether breeding programmes are in place. What is the species’ domestication level?

 DOMESTICATION LEVEL 2 19, level 5 being fully domesticated.




Side note: Forage fish in the feed

450-1,000 milliard wild-caught fishes end up being processed into fish meal and fish oil each year which contributes to overfishing and represents enormous suffering. There is a broad range of feeding types within species reared in captivity. To what degree may fish meal and fish oil based on forage fish be replaced by non-forage fishery components (e.g., poultry blood meal) or sustainable sources (e.g., soybean cake)?

All age classes: WILD: omnivorous 6 9 15 3, youngs more herbivorous 3FARM: no supplemental feed provided to paddy fields 3.




Glossary


ADULTS = mature individuals, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
BENTHOPELAGIC = living and feeding near the bottom of a body of water, floating above the floor
DEMERSAL = living and feeding on or near the bottom of a body of water, mostly benthopelagic, some benthic
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 2 = part of the life cycle closed in captivity, also known as capture-based aquaculture 19
FARM = setting in farming environment or under conditions simulating farming environment in terms of size of facility or number of individuals
FRY = larvae from external feeding on, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
IND = individuals
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
PHOTOPERIOD = duration of daylight
POTAMODROMOUS = migrating within fresh water
SPAWNERS = adults during the spawning season; in farms: adults that are kept as broodstock
WILD = setting in the wild



Bibliography


1 Morioka, S., P. Cacot, M. Moteki, V. Thipvantong, S. Philavong, L. Pounvisouk, P. Chantasone, and V. Thaphysy. 2012. Ontogenetic development during changeover from an endogenous to exogenous nutritional source in Laotian cyprinid Cirrhinus microlepis larvae. Fisheries Science 78: 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12562-011-0445-5.
2 Jhingran, V.G., and R.S.V. Pullin. 1985. A hatchery manual for the common, Chinese and Indian major carps. Vol. 252. ICLARM Studies and Reviews 11. Asian Development Bank and International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.
3 Saowakoon, S., K. Saowakoon, A. Jutagate, M. Hiroki, M. Fukushima, and T. Jutagate. 2021. Growth and feeding behavior of fishes in organic rice–fish systems with various species combinations. Aquaculture Reports 20: 100663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2021.100663.
4 Srun, Phallavan, and Peng Bun Ngor. 2000. The dry season migration pattern of five Mekong fish species: Riel (Henicorhynchus spp.), Chhkok (Cyclocheilichthys enoplos),  Pruol (Cirrhinus microlepis), Pra (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus) and Trasork (Probarbus jullieni). In Eleven Presentations given at the Annual Meeting of the Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 27-28  January 2000, 61–89. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Department of Fisheries - Mekong River Commission (MRC)/Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA).
5 Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2022. Small scale mud carp (Cirrhinus microlepis): fisheries, aquaculture, aquarium. World Wide Web electronic publication. FishBase.
6 Rainboth, W. J. 1996. Fishes of the Cambodian Mekong. Rome: Food & Agriculture Org.
7 Poulsen, A. F., and J. Valbo-Jørgensen. 2000. Fish migrations and spawning habits in the Mekong mainstream: A survey using local knowledge. AMFC Technical Report 0005. AMFC Technical Report. Vientiane, Lao People’s Democratic Republic.
8 Poulsen, A. F., and J. Valbo-Jorgensen. Deep pools in the Mekong river.
9 Lim, P., S. Lek, S. T. Touch, S.-O. Mao, and B. Chhouk. 1999. Diversity and spatial distribution of freshwater fish in Great Lake and Tonle Sap river (Cambodia, Southeast Asia). Aquatic Living Resources 12: 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0990-7440(99)00107-2.
10 Sokheng, C., C. K. Chhea, and J. Valbo-Jørgensen. 2001. Lateral fish migrations between the Tonle sap river and its flood plain. Proceedings of the 3rd Technical Symposium on Mekong Fisheries: 102–114.
11 Riede, K. 2004. Global register of migratory species - from global to regional scales. Final report of the R&D Projekt 808 05 081. Bonn, Germany: Federal Agency for Nature Conservation.
12 Enomoto, K., S. Ishikawa, M. Hori, H. Sitha, S. L. Song, N. Thuok, and H. Kurokura. 2011. Data mining and stock assessment of fisheries resources in Tonle Sap Lake, Cambodia. Fisheries Science 77: 713–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12562-011-0378-z.
13 Ngor, P. B., K. S. McCann, G. Grenouillet, N. So, B. C. McMeans, E. Fraser, and S. Lek. 2018. Evidence of indiscriminate fishing effects in one of the world’s largest inland fisheries. Scientific Reports 8: 8947. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27340-1.
14 Morioka, S. M., B. Vongvichith, P. Chanthasone, and P. Phommachan. 2021. Developmental morphology and growth in early stages of laboratory-reared Cirrhinus molitorella and C. microlepis (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae). Ichthyological Research 68: 506–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10228-021-00803-8.
15 Poulsen, Anders F., K. G. Hortle, J. Valbo-Jorgensen, S. Chan, C. K. Chhuon, Sintavong Viravong, Kongpeng Bouakhamvongsa, et al. 2004. Distribution and Ecology of Some Important Riverine Fish Species of the Mekong River Basin. MRC Technical Paper 10. Vientiane, Lao PDR: Mekong River Commission.
16 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2009. Species-specific welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing of farmed Carp. EFSA Journal 1013: 1–37. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1013.
17 Rahmanifarah, K., B. Shabanpour, and A. Sattari. 2011. Effects of Clove Oil on Behavior and Flesh Quality of Common Carp  (Cyprinus carpio L.) in Comparison with Pre-slaughter CO2 Stunning, Chilling and Asphyxia. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 11: 139–147.
18 Retter, Karina, Karl-Heinz Esser, Matthias Lüpke, John Hellmann, Dieter Steinhagen, and Verena Jung-Schroers. 2018. Stunning of common carp: Results from a field and a laboratory study. BMC Veterinary Research 14: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1530-0.
19 Teletchea, Fabrice, and Pascal Fontaine. 2012. Levels of domestication in fish: implications for the sustainable future of aquaculture. Fish and Fisheries 15: 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12006.


contents
show all details
«