Pond Boss Forums STOCKING A NEW POND Types of fish to choose THREADFIN SHAD

I AM STOCKING A NEW 5 ACRE LAKE HERE IN ALABAMA . THERE APPEARS TO BE SOME CONTROVERSY AROUND THREADFIN SHAD STOCKING. THE STATE CONSERVATION EXPERTS SAY NO BUT PRIVATE EXPERTS SAY YES. ARE THERE ENOUGH NEGATIVES(REDUCED BREAM AND BASS SURVIVAL) TO OUT WEIGH THE POSITIVES ( LARGER BASS LESS PREDITOR EFFECT ON BREAM)?

MORGAN

Morgan an interesting question and one I have not encountered from our state guys. I have not heard that from other states F&W folks either at least not as to 5 acre and larger ponds.

Where in Ala in general is the pond and do ponds in the immediate area have a good plankton bloom spring - fall ? Will you be liming and/or fertilizing or feeding or all 3 or none of them ?

The important question is will the use of TShad help with your pond to reach your goals. The answer to that question depends on the above questions and your goals.

Based on your answers we can go over the pros and cons of TShad in your pond. There are several threads here on TShad which I can locate for you if needed.

IMO most state agencies do not promote Tshad for typical bass-bgill ponds where LMB goals are for the bass to top out average sized at 5-7lbs. Tshad are for advanced pond management techniques where a little more management and knowledge of fishery dynamics is required for long term success, and where goals are to produce a couple LMB/ac above the 7-8 lb mark. IMO and that in several fishery studies, the presence and influences of Tshad can reduce the amount of recruitment of BG and LMB and reduce (compared to no Tshad) the standing crops of smaller sized BG and LMB due to food web competition. Whenever an additional species is added to an ecosystem management and balance becomes more involved if all species are expected to exist as thriving reproducing - balanced populations.. Usually for the goal to produce trophy bass there is less emphasis on abundant panfish and intermediate sized bass and more emphasis on boosting the standing crop of top end bass.

Bill I did not realize that tshad had a negative impact on the bluegill populations. I thought that the shad and the bluegill filled different niches and did not share the same food sources. Do the bluegill feed on plankton when they are first born?

Bill I have yet to observe the diminshing number of bluegill as reported in pond with established threadfin. In fact have seen the opposite in most cases. It could be due to better harvest program on bass? However overall result IMHO with TS youhave better growth rates on bass than without. So Yes Morgan I think positives outweigh potential negatives.

Guys I am doing some research on this and will report the results. This may be one of those north vs. south or possibly big lake vs. pond things. Most data so far indicates that in fertile southern ponds /small waters there is only slight competition between yoy BG and TShad for some plankton. Yes James BG especially yoy eat plankton. Finding some interesting points on what happens when GShad and TShad are both in one water system. The TShad seem to dominate and greatly reduce the harm caused to BG and LMB populations by GShad.

Bluegill of all sizes at various times of the year feed on plankton. As verification, when Lusk Lodge 2 (Whitesford TX) hosted the moderators retreat Jan 12, Dr Condello caught and cleaned several nice sized BG (abt 9"). A couple of the BG had stomachs packed with large sized zooplankton - probably Daphnia -water fleas. I missed a chance to get a great photo of this event.

IMO the amount of competition that TShad will have with smaller planktivorous fish is going to be dependant on how fertile the water is and probably the density of fish. I think one will see less inter-species competition in the more fertile waters where there is an abundance or surplus of zooplankton and BG are not overpopulated. When the zooplankton community is limited by fertility and BG densities are greater then the competition among species that rely on zooplankton becomes a greater factor. BG have been reported to have complex feeding behaviors. One factor favoring BG is their ability to forage on alternative food sources when one food is in short supply. BG have been found to selectively feed on different food items during different times during a 24 hr period. Several foraging models have used BG as objects of study (Bluegills, Biology and Behavior 2007) Thus, it all depends.

THANKS FOR YOUR HELP,

I PLAN TO LIME,FERTILIZE AND FEED THE BREAM. I SHOULD HAVE A GOOD BLOOM AS NENT DOOR NEIGHBOR DOES. I WOULD LIKE A WELL BALANCED LAKE WITH GOOD BREAM AND BASS FISHING.

THANKS
MORGAN

Some info but keep in mind these were not ponds with fertile waters and feeding. I suspect that in such situations in the south TShad will have little effect on BG.



Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:368-381, 1991

Stocking Threadfin Shad: Consequences for Young-of-Year Fishes

DENNIS R. DEVRiES,1 ROY A. STEIN, AND JEFFREY G. MiNER2

Zooplankton Responses

We quantified differential responses of zooplankton

to threadfin shad introductions into Clark

and Stonelick lakes. In Clark Lake, threadfin shad

densities peaked in August without a commensurate

decline in zooplankton. Conversely, as

young-of-year threadfin shad abundance peaked

in August in Stonelick Lake, zooplankton declined

precipitously, and only cyclopoid copepods and

copepod nauplii remained at densities greater than

1.5 organisms/L by late August. Because birth rates

did not decline across cladoceran taxa in Stonelick

Lake, declining abundance was not due to reduced

zooplankton reproduction (i.e., resources did not

limit the zooplankton); instead, it was due to increased

death rates.

This differential response across systems cannot

be easily explained. Zooplankton densities and

species compositions were similar for the two lakes,

yet peak larval threadfin shad density was almost

four times higher in Clark Lake than in Stonelick

Lake. This differential response most likely derived

from other differences between the two systems.

First, young-of-year bluegill abundance

peaked simultaneously with young-of-year

threadfin shad in Stonelick Lake but not in Clark

Lake. However, limnetic young-of-year bluegills

were absent after 9 August, yet zooplankton continued

to decline through August. Though limnetic

young-of-year bluegills may have contributed

to the zooplankton decline in Stonelick Lake,

it is more likely that young-of-year threadfin shad,

present through 7 September, were responsible.



Transactions of the American Fisherles Society 110:738-750, 1981

¸ Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 1981

Management of Forage Fishes in Impoundments of the

Southern United States

RICHARD L. NOBLE

Although threadfin shad have been described

as "superior" to gizzard shad and "ideal"

as a forage species, evaluation of their effects

on predator populations in the south are

sparse and not wholly consistent. White bass ate

mostly threadfin shad the year this prey first

occurred in Lake Texoma (Riggs and Moore

1957) and grew faster in Bull Shoals Reservoir

following threadfin shad introduction (Bryant

and Houser 1969). Walleyes and white crappies

had increased growth after threadfin shad were

introduced into Dale Hollow, Tennessee, but

three Micropterus basses did not (Range 1973).

Threadfin shad similarly increased white crappie

growth in a small southern Illinois lake

(Heidinger 1977), but crappies in Lake Sinclair,

Georgia fed more effectively on gizzard than

on threadfin shad (Ager 1978). In Watts Bar

Reservoir, Tennessee, threadfin shad were the

predominant food of walleyes and saugers

(Scott 1976; McGee et al. 1979). At temperatures

below 12 C, behavioral changes of threadfin

shad made them more susceptible to predation,

nearly leading to population depletions

(Griffith and Tomljanovich 1976). Applegate et

al. (1967) found that largemouth bass also fed

heavily on threadfin shad coincident with a

shad winterkill in Bull Shoals Reservoir.

When threadfin shad are stocked in waters

containing gizzard shad, they may partially displace

them. In Lake Texoma, where gizzard

shad were the most abundant fish, the clupeid

population became numerically over 60%

threadfin shad 1 year after their inadvertent

introduction (Riggs and Moore 1957). Similarly,

in Bull Shoals Reservoir, Arkansas, threadfin

shad comprised 80% of shad numbers 5

years after introduction (Bryant and Houser

1969). In Lake Sinclair, Georgia, Ager (1978)

found a negative correlation between standing

crops of the two species.

Mechanisms for the displacement of gizzard

shad by threadfin shad are poorly defined.

Food habits of the two species are similar; both

heavily utilize detritus and phytoplankton

(Baker and Schmitz 1971) although seasonal

variations in food overlap are pronounced

(Hendricks and Noble 1980). Food may be a

source of competition, although threadfin shad

may be more limnetic than gizzard shad when

feeding (Baker and Schmitz 1971). Other causes

of displacement have been suggested (predation

by threadfin shad; differential responses

to environmental factors), but without substantiation.

Although the benefits of threadfin shad are

reasonably well documented, their interactions

with other species are poorly understood. Davies

et al. (1979) indicate competition between

threadfin shad and sunfishes. Although condition

of largemouth bass increased in the presence

of threadfin shad, bluegills tended to become

stunted as largemouth bass shifted

predation pressure to shad. Bluegill biomass

was depressed, possibly due to increased competition

for food. The relation of threadfin

shad abundance to recruitment of other fish

specieshould be investigated in light of recent

evidence that the alewife, which feeds in a manner

similar to threadfin shad, preys upon early

life stages of other fishes and alters the composition

of the plankton through selective predation

(Kohler and Ney, in press). If abundant

threadfin shad have similar effects, especially

on predator species, the increased growth rates

that have been reported may be an artifact of

reduced predator populations