Disclaimer:

The Nonindigenous Occurrences section of the NAS species profiles has a new structure. The section is now dynamically updated from the NAS database to ensure that it contains the most current and accurate information. Occurrences are summarized in Table 1, alphabetically by state, with years of earliest and most recent observations, and the tally and names of drainages where the species was observed. The table contains hyperlinks to collections tables of specimens based on the states, years, and drainages selected. References to specimens that were not obtained through sighting reports and personal communications are found through the hyperlink in the Table 1 caption or through the individual specimens linked in the collections tables.



Mylopharyngodon piceus
Mylopharyngodon piceus
(Black Carp)
Fishes
Exotic
Collection Info
Point Map
Species Profile
Animated Map
Impacts

Copyright Info
Mylopharyngodon piceus (Richardson, 1846)
Common name: Black Carp
Synonyms and Other Names: snail carp, Chinese black carp, black amur, Chinese roach, black Chinese roach
Taxonomy: available through www.itis.govITIS logo

Injurious: This species is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as injurious wildlife.

Identification: Illustrations and detailed information useful for the positive identification of this species appear in Nico et al. (2005) and Schofield et al. (2005). An identification key to introduced Invasive Carps and other cyprinids, including Black Carp, is provided by Schofield et al. (2005). The Black Carp closely resembles the Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella). The two species are similar in overall body shape, size and placement of fins. Both Black Carp and Grass Carp have very large scales. In contrast to Grass Carp, the Black Carp is slightly darker in coloration (not black) and its pharyngeal teeth (throat teeth) are large and similar in appearance to human molars, an adaptation for crushing the shells of mollusks (Nico et al. 2005). Commercial fishers in Louisiana have noted that Black Carp also have a somewhat pointed snout, a character they find useful in distinguishing it from Grass Carp. Juveniles and larvae may be difficult to distinguish from those of Grass Carp and certain other cyprinids. Specific methods for discerning Black Carp from Grass Carp can be found in Kroboth et al. (2019a).  Illustrations and descriptions of juvenile and larval Invasive Carps, including Black Carp, appear in Nico et al. (2005) and Chapman (2006). Key features for identification and other information on introduced carp species is given in this Black Carp identification video created by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Size: Large adults may be more than 1.5 m total length and 70 kg or more in weight; the largest specimen, unconfirmed, from the Chang (Yangtze) River basin reportedly measured 2.2 m.
Native Range: Most major Pacific drainages of eastern Asia from the Pearl River (Zhu Jiang) basin in China north to the Amur River (Heilong Jiang) basin of China and far eastern Russia; possibly native to the Honghe or Red rivers of northern Vietnam (Nico et al. 2005).
Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) Explained
Interactive maps: Point Distribution Maps

Nonindigenous Occurrences:

Table 1. States with nonindigenous occurrences, the earliest and latest observations in each state, and the tally and names of HUCs with observations†. Names and dates are hyperlinked to their relevant specimen records. The list of references for all nonindigenous occurrences of Mylopharyngodon piceus are found here.

StateFirst ObservedLast ObservedTotal HUCs with observations†HUCs with observations†
AR200520257Lake Conway-Point Remove; Lower Arkansas; Lower Black; Lower Little Arkansas, Oklahoma; Lower Mississippi-Greenville; Lower White; Lower White-Bayou Des Arc
IL2003202517Bear-Wyaconda; Big Muddy; Cache; Cahokia-Joachim; Flint-Henderson; Lower Illinois; Lower Illinois-Lake Chautauqua; Lower Illinois-Senachwine Lake; Lower Kaskaskia; Lower Ohio; Lower Ohio-Bay; Lower Sangamon; Lower Wabash; Middle Kaskaskia; Peruque-Piasa; The Sny; Upper Mississippi-Cape Girardeau
IN201920234Blue-Sinking; Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon; Lower Wabash; Middle Wabash-Busseron
KY2016202510Bayou De Chien-Mayfield; Blue-Sinking; Highland-Pigeon; Kentucky Lake; Lower Cumberland; Lower Mississippi-Memphis; Lower Ohio; Lower Ohio-Bay; Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon; Lower Tennessee
LA200420236Atchafalaya; Eastern Louisiana Coastal; Lower Mississippi-Baton Rouge; Lower Mississippi-Natchez; Lower Mississippi-New Orleans; Lower Red
MS201520222Lower Mississippi-Greenville; Lower Mississippi-Helena
MO1994202511Bear-Wyaconda; Cahokia-Joachim; Lake of the Ozarks; Lower Mississippi-Memphis; Lower Missouri; Lower Missouri-Moreau; Lower Osage; Peruque-Piasa; The Sny; Upper Mississippi-Cape Girardeau; Whitewater
TN201220244Kentucky Lake; Lower Mississippi-Memphis; Obion; Pickwick Lake
WV201520151Conococheague-Opequon

Table last updated 1/15/2026

† Populations may not be currently present.
Ecology: This species can be found in rivers, streams, or lakes; however, it requires large rivers to reproduce. It inhabits waters that range in temperatures from 0–45°C (Nico et al. 2005). Black Carp are notable molluscivores and are often employed as a biocontrol agent for nuisance molluscs. Black Carp also consume some invertebrate species. In a diet analysis of 109 U.S. wild caught Black Carp, 16.5% of non-empty stomachs contained snails, 22.8% contained bivalve mussels, and 35.7% contained insect larvae (Poulton et al. 2019). This species can eat until full, which normally leads to a decrease in locomotion and its ability to avoid predation. However, when faced with a threat of predation, Black Carp can regurgitate excess food to increase speed and escape predators (Zhao et al. 2020).

Reproduction takes place in late spring and summer when water temperatures and/or water levels rise (Nico et al. 2005). Spawning has been reported to extend into early fall in the Upper Mississippi River (Sleeper 2019). Both male and female Black Carp are broadcast spawners; females are capable of releasing hundreds of thousands of eggs into flowing water, which then develop in the pelagic zone (Nico et al. 2005). After fertilization, the eggs become semi buoyant (Sukhanova, 1967 as cited in Nico et al. 2005). They hatch in 1 to 2 days, depending on water temperatures (optimum 26–30°C), and the yolk sac is absorbed in 6 to 8 days (Nico et al. 2005). Black Carp become sexually mature at 4 to 6 years after which they migrate back to their spawning grounds (Nico et al. 2005). Successful reproduction is known only from riverine habitats (Nico et al. 2005). Their lifespan may exceed 15 years (Biro 1999).
Means of Introduction: This species was first brought into the United States in the early 1970s as a "contaminant" in imported Grass Carp stocks. These fish came from Asia and were sent to a private fish farm in Arkansas (Nico et al. 2005). Subsequent introductions of Black Carp into this country occurred in the early 1980s. During this period it was imported as a food fish and as a biological control agent to combat the spread of yellow grub (Clinostomum margaritum) in aquaculture ponds (Nico et al. 2005). The first known record of an introduction of Black Carp into open waters occurred in Missouri in 1994 when thirty or more Black Carp along with several thousand bighead carp reportedly escaped into the Osage River, Missouri River drainage, when high water flooded hatchery ponds at an aquaculture facility near Lake of the Ozarks. Owners of the Missouri facility where the escapes reportedly took place have denied that Black Carp ever escaped from their facility (Nico et al. 2005). In any case, flooding of aquaculture facilities and associated numbers and types of escaped fishes are very poorly documented in the public record. There is evidence that large portions of the lower Mississippi River basin where aquaculture farms are present have been subject to large-scale floods on a number of occasions over the past few decades. Consequently, it is likely that aquaculture was the source of some or all of the Black Carp present in the lower Mississippi River basin. Nearly all fish farms with Black Carp are in lowland areas and flood events increase the probability that more Black Carp will eventually escape fish farms (Nico et al. 2005:245). A genetic analysis of Black Carp in the Mississippi River basin supported the hypothesis that aquaculture was the likely introduction source for the region, and that wild populations in the basin likely resulted from multiple introductions (Hunter and Nico 2015). However, nearly all of the most recent captures of Black Carp have been diploid, indicating natural reproduction is occurring in the Mississippi River basin (Chapman et al. 2021). There is also a risk that Black Carp may be spread by other means. According to one aquaculture farmer, hundreds of young Black Carp were accidentally included in shipments of live baitfish sent from Arkansas to bait dealers in Missouri as early as 1994 (Nico et al. 2004:5). In addition, because of the continued widespread distribution of Grass Carp across the United States, there remains the possibility that shipments may inadvertently contain Black Carp (Nico et al. 2005). Juveniles, in particular, are difficult to distinguish from Grass Carp young. As such, Nico et al. (2005) expressed concern over the increased risk that the species be misidentified and unintentionally introduced as "Grass Carp" to some areas.
Status: The Black Carp has been reported in Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri (Nico et al. 2005). The fact that Black Carp have been in the wild well over a decade in the lower Mississippi basin, including diploid adults, is evidence that the species may already be established or is on the verge of establishment in the United States (Nico et al. 2005; L. G. Nico, pers. comm.). At least 12 Black Carp captured by commercial fishers in Louisiana have been examined by biologists. However, Louisiana commercial fishers and local fish market operators who are familiar with Black Carp report that the species has been taken consistently over the past 15 years and that the total numbers of wild Black Carp captured in northern Louisiana alone is well over one hundred individuals (Nico et al. 2005; L. G. Nico, U.S. Geological Survey, unpublished data). One Louisiana commercial fisher, an expert in the identification of Black Carp, reported that Black Carp are taken on an annual basis.  He has captured as many as three Black Carp in a single hoop net and as many as 10 Black Carp in a single week (Nico et al. 2005). To date there have been no confirmed collections of larval or small juvenile Black Carp in the wild; however, there have been no studies conducted for the expressed purpose of identifying spawning grounds or for targeting capture of larval Black Carp in the wild. In their discussion on captive Black Carp, Nico et al. (2005) stated “The total numbers of Black Carp in the United States at any one time is uncertain. During the 1990s, it was reported that the number being held by fish farmers and other entities in a few southern states totaled well over 400,000 individuals, including triploids and diploids (M. Freeze, memo to B. Collins, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stuttgart, Arkansas). At that time, there were found privately owned aquaculture facilities, located in Arkansas and Missouri, and each reportedly held more than 100,000 diploid and triploid Black Carp.” Relatively few commercial fishers in the Mississippi River basin are experienced in fishing large rivers or use appropriate gear (e.g., large hoop nets placed in deep water) for catching Black Carp (Nico et al. 2005; L. G. Nico, pers. comm.). To date, there have been no adequate field surveys conducted to determine the distribution and abundance of Black Carp in the Mississippi River Basin (personal communication, Leo Nico, USGS).  During 2003 and 2004, Schramm and Basler (2004) employed AC electrofishing gear to sample selected waterways in proximity to open-pond aquaculture facilities in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Presumably because the effectiveness of electrofishing is largely limited to near-shore habitats and other shallow waters, the researchers concluded that the absence of Black Carp in their samples did not necessarily demonstrate an absence of Black Carp in the rivers sampled. According to information in Nico et al. (2005), because Black Carp typically inhabit the bottom, electrofishing would not be effective for the collection of Black Carp in large, deep rivers. According to Nico et al. (2005), there appears to be no existing, economically feasible method to completely eliminate Black Carp populations once they escape into large river systems.
Impact of Introduction:
Summary of species impacts derived from literature review. Click on an icon to find out more...

EcologicalEconomicHuman HealthOther
Black carp readily feed on native snails, mussels, clams, and the U.S.-nonnative clam Corbicula fluminea (Porreca et al. 2022). There is high potential that the black carp would negatively impact native aquatic communities by feeding on, and reducing, populations of native mussels and snails, many of which are considered endangered or threatened (Nico et al. 2005). Given their size and diet preferences, black carp have the potential to restructure benthic communities by direct predation and removal of algae-grazing snails. Mussel beds consisting of smaller individuals and juvenile recruits are probably most vulnerable to being consumed by black carp (Nico et al. 2005). Furthermore, based on the fact that black carp attain a large size (well over 1 meter long), both juvenile and adult mussels and snails of many species would be vulnerable to predation by this fish (Nico et al. 2005). Fish farmers report that black carp are very effective in reducing the numbers of snails in some ponds. Recently, Wui and Engle (2007) argued that black carp can eliminate 100% of the snails in a single pond. Although their assumption that black carp are capable of eliminating all common pond snails in ponds is open to debate, the effectiveness of black carp in significantly reducing snail populations in aquaculture ponds indicates that any black carp occurring in the wild may cause significant declines in certain native mollusk populations in North American streams and lakes (Nico et al. 2005). Because the life span of black carp is reportedly over 15 years, sterile triploid black carp in the wild would be expected to persist many years and therefore have the potential to cause harm native mollusks by way of predation (Nico et al. 2005).
Remarks: Chick et al. (2003) believed that their Illinois capture was the first wild record of Black Carp in the United States, but Nico et al. (2005) provided new information indicating that Louisiana commercial fishers had been collecting Black Carp in Louisiana since the early 1990s. However, until recently the Louisiana commercial fishers thought that the Black Carp in their nets were just an unusual type of Grass Carp—somewhat darker and with a higher dorsal fin and more pointed head or snout (Nico et al. 2005:xiii). The Black Carp that escaped in Missouri may have been triploid and thus considered sterile (Anonymous 1994b). However, it also was rumored that these fish may have been brood stock. All wild Black Carp examined to date taken in Louisiana waters have been found to be diploid (Nico et al. 2005).

The Black Carp is a bottom-dwelling molluscivore that has been used by U.S. fish farmers to prey on and control disease-carrying snails in their farm ponds; more recently, this species has been proposed as a biological control for the introduced zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha. Although the subject has been debated, to date, there is no experimental evidence that indicates Black Carp would be effective in controlling zebra mussels. Because Black Carp do not have jaw teeth and their mouths are relatively small, it is unlikely that these fish are capable of breaking apart zebra mussel rafts (Nico et al. 2005).

DeVaney et al. (2009) performed ecological niche modeling to examine the invasion potential for Black Carp and three other invasive cyprinids (Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella, Common Carp Cyprinus carpio, and Tench Tinca tinca). The majority of the U.S. between the Mississippi River basin and the Atlantic coast had a moderate to high predicted ecological suitability for this species, with the Mississippi River drainage (where individuals of Black Carp have been caught in the wild) having the highest overall predicted suitability.

Voucher preserved specimens of the two wild-caught Black Carp taken in Illinois are deposited in the ichthyological collection of Southern Illinois University-Carbondale.  Several wild-caught Black Carp taken in Louisiana waters were preserved and are in the possession of biologists at Louisiana State University and at the U.S. Geological Survey-Gainesville Center in Florida.
References: (click for full references)

Biro, P. 1999. Mylopharyngodon piceus (Richardson, 1846). Pages 345-365 in P.M. Banarescu, ed. The Freshwater Fishes of Europe: Volume 5/I, Cyprinidae 2/I. AULA-Verlag. Wiebelsheim, Germany.

Chapman, D.C., A.J. Benson, H.S. Embke, N.R. King, P.M. Kocovsky, T.D. Lewis, and N.E. Mandrak. 2021. Status of the major aquaculture carps of China in the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin. Journal of Great Lakes Research 47(1):3-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2020.07.018.

Chen, H., J, Xiao, J. Li, J. Liu, C. Wang, C. Feng, and H. Feng. 2017. TRAF2 of black carp upregulates MAVS-mediated antiviral signaling during innate immune response. Fish & Shellfish Immunology 71:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2017.09.069.

Chick, J.H., R.J. Maher, B.M. Burr, M.R. Thomas. 2003. First black carp captured in U.S. Science 300:1876-1877.

DeVaney, S.C., K.M. McNyset, J.B. Williams, A.T. Peterson, and E.O. Wiley. 2009. A tale of four "carp": invasion potential and ecological niche modeling. PLoS ONE 4(5):10 pp. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005451.

Fu, S.J., C. Fu, G.J. Yan, Z.D. Cao, A.J. Zhang, and X. Pang. 2014. Interspecies variation in hypoxia tolerance, swimming performance and plasticity in cyprinids that prefer different habitats. Journal of Experimental Biology 217(4):590–597. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.089268.

Guan, X., E.M. Monroe, K.D. Bockrath, E.L. Mize, C.B. Rees, D.L. Lindsay, K.L. Baerwaldt, L.G. Nico, and R.F. Lance. 2019. Environmental DNA (eDNA) assays for invasive populations of Black Carp in North America. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 148(6):1046-1055. https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/tafs.10195.

Hodgins, N.C., H.L. Schramm Jr., and P.G. Gerard. 2014. Food consumption and growth rates of juvenile Black Carp fed natural and prepared feeds. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 5:35–45. https://doi.org/10.3996/112012-jfwm-101.

Hu, X., R. Zhang, J. Ye, X. Wu, Y. Zhang, and C. Wu. 2018. Monitoring and research of microcystins and environmental factors in a typical artificial freshwater aquaculture pond. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 25(6):5921–5933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0956-4.

Hung, N.M., N.V. Duc, J.R. Stauffer Jr., and H. Madsen. 2013a. Use of black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus) in biological control of intermediate host snails of fish-borne zoonotic trematodes in nursery ponds in the Red River Delta, Vietnam. Parasites & Vectors 6:142. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-6-142.

Hung, N.M., J.R. Stauffer, and H. Madsen. 2013b. Prey species and size choice of the molluscivorous fish, black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus). Journal of Freshwater Ecology 28(4):547–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.2013.800826.

Hunter, M.E., and L.G. Nico. 2015. Genetic analysis of invasive Asian Black Carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus) in the Mississippi River Basin: evidence for multiple introductions. Biological Invasions 17(1):99-114.

Ip, K.K.L., Y. Liang, L. Lin, H. Wu, J. Xue, and J.W. Qiu. 2014. Biological control of invasive apple snails by two species of carp: Effects on non-target species matter. Biological Control 71:16–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2013.12.009.

Jenkins, J.A., M.D. Chauvin, D. Johnson, B.L. Brown, J. Bailey, A.M. Kelly, and B.T. Kinter. 2019. Defensible standardized ploidy assessments for Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella, Cyprinidae) intercepted from the commercial supply chain. Journal of Great Lakes Research 45(2):371-383. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0380133018302375.

Jiang, H., S. Ghods, E. Weller, S. Waddell, E.A. Ossa, F. Yang, and D. Arola. 2020. Contributions of intermolecular bonding and lubrication to the mechanical behavior of a natural armor. Acta Biomaterialia 106:242–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2020.02.014.

Kroboth, P.T., D.C. Chapman, R.A. Hrabik, and D.A. Neely. 2019a. Characteristics for the external identification of Black Carp from Grass Carp. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 10(2):304-313. https://www.fwspubs.org/doi/full/10.3996/112018-JFWM-102.

Kroboth, P.T., C.L. Cox, D.C. Chapman and G.W. Whitledge. 2019b. Black Carp in North America: a description of range, habitats, time of year, and methods of reported captures. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 39:1046-1055. https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/nafm.10340.

Nico, L.G., J.D. Williams, and H.L. Jelks. 2005. Black Carp, biological synopsis and risk assessment of an introduced species. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 32, Bethesda, MD.

Porreca, A.P., S.E. Butler, J.S. Tiemann, and J.J. Parkos. 2022. Differential vulnerability of native and non-native mollusks to predation by juvenile black carp. Biological Invasions 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-021-02658-6.

Poulton, B.C., P.T. Kroboth, A.E. George, D.C. Chapman, J. Bailey, S.E. McMurray, and J.S. Faiman. 2019. First examination of diet items consumed by wild-caught black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus) in the U.S. American Midland Naturalist 182:89-108. https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031-182.1.89.

Schofield, P.J., J.D. Williams, L.G. Nico, P. Fuller, and M.R. Thomas. 2005. Foreign nonindigenous carps and minnows (Cyprinidae) in the United States – A guide to their identification, distribution and biology. Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5041. US Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

Schramm, H.L., Jr., and M.C. Basler. 2004. Evaluation of capture methods and distribution of black carp in Mississippi. Mississippi State University.

Sleeper, W.G. 2019. Black Carp reproductive ecology: Documenting reproductive success of a novel invader. Unpublished M.S. thesis. Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau, Missouri. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2421514679?accountid=14667.

Smyth, E.R.B., A.S. van der Lee, M.M. Hossain, D.A. Woolnough, J. Barbati, T.J. Morris, M.A. Koops, and D.A.R. Drake. 2018. Modeling arrival, establishment, spread, and ecological impacts of Black Carp, Mylopharyngodon piceus, in the Great Lakes basin. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Ottawa, Canada. https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/profiles-profils/blackcarp-carpenoire-eng.html.

Tang, Z.H., Q. Huang, H. Wu, L. Kuang, and S.J. Fu. 2017. The behavioral response of prey fish to predators: the role of predator size. PeerJ 5:e3222. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3222.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011. Inventory of Available Controls for Aquatic Nuisance Species of Concern – Chicago Area Waterway System: Appendix C - ANS Control Fact Sheets. Chicago District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago, IL. http://glmris.anl.gov/controls/.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Environmental assessment for listing live Black Carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus) as injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act. USFWS/DEQ/BIS, Arlington, VA. https://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/pdf_files/FinalEnviroAssessment_BlackCarp_1018-AG70.pdf.

Wang, C., J. Peng, M. Zhou, G. Liao, X. Yang, H. Wu, J. Xiao, and H. Feng. 2019. TAK1 of black carp positively regulates IRF7-mediated antiviral signaling in innate immune activation. Fish & Shellfish Immunology 84:83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2018.09.075.

Wozney, K.M., and C.C. Wilson. 2017. Quantitative PCR multiplexes for simultaneous multispecies detection of Asian carp eDNA. Journal of Great Lakes Research 43(4):771–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2017.05.001.

Wu, C., B. Lu, Y. Wang, C. Jin, Y. Zhang, and J. Ye. 2020. Effects of dietary vitamin D(3)on growth performance, antioxidant capacities and innate immune responses in juvenile black carp Mylopharyngodon piceus. Fish Physiology and Biochemistry 46(6):2243–2256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10695-020-00876-8.

Wu, X., H. Wu, X. Gu, R. Zhang, J. Ye, and Q. Sheng. 2019. Biomagnification characteristics and health risk assessment of the neurotoxin BMAA in freshwater aquaculture products of Taihu Lake Basin, China. Chemosphere 229:332–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.04.210.

Wui, Y.-S., and C.R. Engle. 2007. The economic impact of restricting use of black carp for snail control on hybrid striped bass farms. North American Journal of Aquaculture 69(2):127-138. https://doi.org/10.1577/A05-088.1.

Xiao, J., J. Yan, H. Chen, J. Li, Y. Tian, and H. Feng. 2016. LGP2 of black carp plays an important role in the innate immune response against SVCV and GCRV. Fish & Shellfish Immunology 57:127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2016.08.031.

Zhang, X., Y. Shen, X. Xu, M. Zhang, Y. Bai, Y. Miao, Y. Fang, J. Zhang, R. Wang, and J. Li. 2018. Transcriptome analysis and histopathology of black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus) spleen infected by Aeromonas hydrophila. Fish & Shellfish Immunology 83:330–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2018.09.047.

Zhao, J., Y. Wen, S. Zhu, J. Ye, J. Zhu, Z. Ye, and A. Jordan. 2020. Solving post-prandial reduction in performance by adaptive regurgitation in a freshwater fish. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 287:20202172. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.2172.

Zhu, M., K. Li, Y. Xuan, Z. Sun, B. Liu, D. Kumar, M. Jiang, Y. Pan, Y. Zhang, Y. Gong, X. Lu, D. Yu, X. Hu, G. Cao, R. Xue, and C. Gong. 2019. Host range and vertical transmission of Cyprinid herpesvirus 2. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 19(8):645–652. https://doi.org/10.4194/1303-2712-v19_8_02.

Author: Nico, L.G., M.E. Neilson, and A. Bartos
Revision Date: 12/19/2025
Peer Review Date: 3/15/2012

Citation Information:
Nico, L.G., M.E. Neilson, and A. Bartos, 2026, Mylopharyngodon piceus (Richardson, 1846): U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=573, Revision Date: 12/19/2025, Peer Review Date: 3/15/2012, Access Date: 1/15/2026

This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.

Disclaimer:

The data represented on this site vary in accuracy, scale, completeness, extent of coverage and origin. It is the user's responsibility to use these data consistent with their intended purpose and within stated limitations. We highly recommend reviewing metadata files prior to interpreting these data.

Citation information: U.S. Geological Survey. [2026]. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database. Gainesville, Florida. Accessed [1/15/2026].

Contact us if you are using data from this site for a publication to make sure the data are being used appropriately and for potential co-authorship if warranted.

For general information and questions about the database, contact Wesley Daniel. For problems and technical issues, contact Matthew Neilson.