I'm not familiar with what normal poundage of fish would be considered optimal. The RES were the majority of the fish biomass. Were any of the fish harvested over all those years, or just left to their own devices? Do you have any idea, based on what the study tells you, of why the growth was slow? Over population perhaps, or lack of food?
1. Normal poundage of fish per acre in a pond/lake is highly variable and dependent on fertility of the water. The common range of total pounds /ac is somewhere around 100-400 lbs/ac.
2. One pond (Pond3) had an estimated annual harvest of 120/ lb/ac in the year prior to the study since this pond had a low RES biomass of the strong 6 yr old year class that was present in the other three ponds. No angler harvest was mentioned for the other three ponds. For the study some fish were fin clipped for a mortality study and ponds were censused with sodium cyanide at the end of the study.
3. Below average growth was noted for the RES. Best growth of redear was in ponds with fewest redear, low reproductive success of RES, and the most bass. Severity of winter conditions was responsible for significant mortality of RES each year. Annual mortality ranged from 33% to 68% (ave 55%). Winter mortality was considered significant regardless of RES density and was estimated to be 30-32%. The article proposed a couple production models based on the data collected.
I suspect slow growth if the RES in these ponds as with most slower growing fish was due too many individuals over eating the available food source. This is a very common problem in most ponds. The author did mention that the ponds were at estimated carrying capacity in terms of total fish poundage.
