Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations Negative aspects of having WM/GSF in a LMB pond

What are the negative aspects?

I'm being serious. I know that discovering these "trash fish" in a pond can cause some owners to consider using Rotenone and starting over, but I can't come up with a good reason why. Most pondmeisters are at least very disappointed if these large mouthed Lepomis show up their ponds.

Stunting: I can't imagine how this could be a viable reason because all Sunfish will stunt if they're not managed. Besides, even if they did stunt how is that a problem in a LMB fishery? I think most people agree that LMB prefer WM/GSF over other Lepomis. If that's true then in most ponds they probably aren't even stunted, but instead they're eaten by LMB before they can reach good size. If, for some reason they are stunting in your LMB pond I still can't see how the LMB would mind having a supply of medium size, meaty forage fish.

Competition: I've read that WM/GSF competing with LMB for forage is a problem. To begin with, I don't think I've heard of WM/GSF overpopulating in a pond with managed LMB. Small Warmouth/Green Sunfish will certainly compete with similar sized LMB for forage, but eventually they will be preyed on by the large LMB, providing more substantial forage for these larger fish than several small fish would. In other words, the W/G concentrate small forage into one substantial forage fish that LMB prefer. I wonder what's easier for a LMB to catch, a 6" LMB or a 6" W/G.

I've also read that W/G compete with BG, which the author stated was a problem. If you're managing for LMB what's the differance which Lepomis the LMB are eating? Again, don't we agree that LMB even prefer W/G?

Fecundity: "They breed like rabbits" is one comment I read. Isn't that the exact reason we stock BG into a LMB pond? Also, I think the data shows that they actually reproduce less than BG. Maybe people are thinking of situations where W/G are isolated in unmanaged waters which don't have larger predators present. Like any Sunfish, they will overpopulate and stunt in that scenario, but we're talking about carefully managed ponds.



What am I failing to see about this?

GW, if you frame out your goals for the pond, there may be no negative aspects at all.

IF, and I say IF the goal was for large LMB, then GSF don't produce enough offspring to feed the LMB, plus they will compete for the same food that the LMB would need.

As far as the Rock Bass or Warmouth, I don't know about the breeding/fecundity, but with their larger mouth gape, they will also compete for the same food sources as the LMB.

But if you don't care about big LMB, there may be nothing negative.

I don't think you are failing to see anything, but you might need to keep restating your goals so that others get the whole picture.

Hiya GW. It's good to see that you are a never tiring warrior in the war against the suppression of WM and GSF.

My take on the opposition's feeble and hate mongering argument is that the BG has such enormous reproduction ability that this more mongrel and uncivilized species of sunfish can keep LMB's belly full. Where as the glorius WM and GSF take their time and breed with quality and not quantity in mind. Given that a pond can support only so much biomass a pond meister is forced to consider what fish has the capability of feeding the LMB. Most Pond Meister's therefore abandon the path to glory and choose the lowly, uncivilized, uncooth BG.

Carry on soldier, carry on!

Guys, I'm talking about both WM/GSF AND BG in pond managed for LMB.

As far as competing with LMB for forage, how is that a problem when the W/G eventually end up as forage for the larger LMB? In a way wouldn't they favor the largest LMB by denying the small LMB of forage and then ultimately transferring that forage to the large LMB?

GW,

The first thing that comes to my mind is predatory pressure on LMB fry and fingerlings. Without heavy cover, you can imagine the outcome of that. Cover is the great equalizer, and allows all species to coexist in a more natural balance... whatever that is.

Lusk always talks about a triangle/pyramid with the main predator at the top, and the bottom of the pyramid representing the forage for the forage base, and then up from there.

The bottom of the pyramid, I think, is a good bloom that feeds the forage fish or sunfish frye.

Also consider pellet feeding and human-hand intervention to muddy up the waters.

I don't think anyone is saying it won't work.

bobad, would W/G prey on LMB fry and fingerlings any more than BG and small LMB? I didn't even think LMB recruitment was even a problem for most people, and that it was usually to much recruitment that was common. I think I even see an advantage of replacing some small LMB with W/G in that they don't have the potential to quickly reach 12" like the LMB. They take over some of the niche of smaller LMB, but they stay in a size range that is always going to be good forage for your biggest LMB. The Bass that outgrow the 12" size may add to an overcrowding of larger LMB, reducing available forage much more than a small population of W/G would.

Sunil, just to clarify, I'm not talking about raising large WM/GSF now. I'm talking about a situation where someone discovers the presence of W/G in their BG/RES/LMB pond and what the effects will be. I'm looking for specific examples of how these unexpected fish will damage the LMB fishery.

I understand. I found Rock Bass/Warmouth unexpectedly in my pond. However, I have no idea as to the effect 'cause I've got all kind of species in my pond.

hey i like this thread great topic gw..

i think i completely agree w/ yer logic gw wrt WM/GSF as preferred LMB forage and filling slot environmental niches, plus i believe you can have the diversity of species w/out sacrificing goals for LMB.

if there is such a thing.....given a "standard" bream/LMB pond, my little brain cannot imagine a negative impact on the fishery and would also like to see if anybody has any real experience/data as to how WM/GSF impacted the LMB pond adversely.

sunil and bobad raise good points but i dont buy the blanket statement that food competition from WM/BG with LMB hurts the LMB in the long run and given all the factors that play into things (i.e. cover, structure, feeding...what have you), but i suppose i could be convinced if somebody presented a good case study of it. i think the WM/GSF settle nicely into a niche but eventually get eaten out as the BG and LMB grow to domination in size and numbers.

w/out any cover i can imagine a scenario where LMB recruitment becomes impossible because of the BG fecundity and predation on LMB fry and YOY, but in this case i would also think the WM/GSF population would be decimated as well...so again....where are the adverse affects from the WM/GSF?

Like DIED, I think the biggest problem with WM/GSF in a BG/LMB pond is that they would tend to disappear, being outbred by the BG and preferred as forage by the LMB.

Lusk's turkey farm story (nothing but stunted GSF to BG/(GSF)/LMB pond well on the way to big bass in 4-5 years) would seem to show that the worst case W/G scenario can be managed out of (wrt big bass goals).

Thanks to the efforts of the fine folks at the GSA, I no longer fear GSF, and would welcome them into my pond with an open bait bucket.

With active management (population mgt , water quality mgt , feeding/fertility mgt ) most things are possible in small ponds. The exception is to many fish above carrying capacity as that can wreck havoc even with active management. Without active management things can go wrong very quickly and can be fixed quickly in a small pond. There are lots of examples of poor GSF dominated ponds which are unmanaged. Same for BG and PS. I have not seen a report of overcrowded WM nor RES. You can't lump them all together. One thing to note. Some aspects of fish mgt requires room or space not available in small ponds. Some species that normally do well together in big lakes don't do well in ponds because they are crowded together without enough room. It is not always a function of food and recruitment.

You have to distinguish between advice/recommendations provided to active pond managers (many here) and to the average pond owner (little or short term management). The standard studies/recommendations provided by fisheries agencies and most pond mgt companies are for the average pond owner not the active managers. The pond mgt companies will help with non standard methods if asked and several are doing cutting edge stuff with ponds.

I think it is very workable GW, my biggest concern would be getting the WM/GSF established well before introducing the LMB. If the LMB are introduced too early or in too high of numbers, you could see the predator/prey balance get way out of whack very quickly.

ewest,

ewest, if I understand what you're saying then the presence of GSF in a pond isn't any worse than the presence of BG. Instead, it's the lack of management that's the problem, not the GSF.

Shorty, in the examples I'm thinking of, BG would still be the primary forage for the LMB.

In general I'm addressing the widely held concern that the (usually unintended) introduction of GSF and/or WM to a LMB fishery will cause problems. Many publications about pond management actually warn that such an introduction can have dramatically negative results in LMB pond. One common example is the warning about stocking HBG because the offspring will revert to GSF therefore ruining the fishery.

"ewest, if I understand what you're saying then the presence of GSF in a pond isn't any worse than the presence of BG. Instead, it's the lack of management that's the problem, not the GSF."



I'm certainly no ewest (something to strive for), but I'd say that's a fair assumption, GW.

I think you realize the typical "negatives" we hear about WM/GSF--competing with LMB for food, not as prolific in the spawning dept, and the ability to prey (more efficiently, maybe?) on LMB fingerlings. Some people want more "control" over their forage than this, but some may not.

I think if you're managing closely, it can be done very well. If anything, you'll be able to target another species for angling, and that's not all bad.

davatsa, I'm picturing the average GSF/WM as filling the same niche as a similar size LMB. My rookie guess is that the GSF/WM would be a less effective predator and also easier prey than the same size LMB. OTOH maybe they would be close to equal in those regards.

As for controlling them, I can't see that it would be much different than controlling small LMB. The main difference I can imagine is that the GSF/WM will never get big enough to outgrow the role of forage, mostly for your biggest LMB.

I am not even sure what the question is now. Here is a second attempt. I try not to put human emotions/judgments in my assessment of the biology by labeling something "good" or "bad". They are what they are - they are just who we thought they were.

BG , GSF and WM are all different each with their own traits. With active and good management they can each be used in small ponds with LMB. How the quality turns out depends on the managers ability to see and understand what is happening and adjust the factors (fish , fertility , water quality) to meet his goals. Don't expect mother nature to cut you any slack as each fish species will do what it is programmed to do. For example don't expect GSF to produce enough offspring to act as the forage base for a LMB pond. If you want that then expect to buy more GSF to add as forge or to reduce the LMB #s to the point that they will not out eat their food supply or some combo of the two. There are many factors which might come into play - to many to mathematically say if X and Y then you must do A and B. It is just to dynamic to put in a formula. The more species the more variables in play and the more complex to manage. Norm does it all the time though and so can you if committed.

An active manager can deal with #s and balance and food supply in a small pond and if it gets out of whack fix it. I know you can do that in addition to managing the fertility and water quality. My concern is in the interaction of the species in a small pond. My guess is that WM require more room than the LMB and GSF will allow them. If so then you will have to supplement WM recruitment by adding adults. The GSF absent additions will not support the LMB population unless you add more and or reduce the LMB #s. Supp feeding will reduce those pressures especially if the LMB are eating pellets. Keep in mind with a small (1/10th acre type) pond adding or subtracting a couple dozen adult fish can be a big change.

I assume that was the reasoning behind Law School.

I hope he means wrt fish , lands and water. --

I don't think that a GSF/LMB pond has a chance of success. Just not enough forage base from either GSF or LMB YOY.

In my limited experience, LMB and BG have a symbiotic realtionship and need each other. The GSF will, over time, be out spawned and almost disappear.

I like the idea of a GSF or HBG or WM and FH experiment but it would take some analysis and managing. I would like to see it done.

Yes and yes. What can I say...ewest is just a popular man any way you slice it!

The question refined: What are the negative aspects of introducing either GSF or WM into an existing BG/RES/LMB pond?

I've found pond management articles stating that such a situation can be ruinous to the fishery. This includes guides published by some states and universities. Some of these same sources denounce the use of HBG simply because you are introducing future GSF into your pond.

I believe that WM or GSF will be automatically controlled by an existing LMB population and that even without much attention they will have little or no negative effect on the health or numbers of the LMB. I'm trying to weigh that opinion against the sources that disagree, some to the point of suggesting using Rotenone on ponds where GSF or WM appear.

This is not about trying to use either GSF or WM as a forage base for LMB.

Can I play, fellas?
I kinda side on Eric's way of thinking. I don't really see this supposition as "negative." Let me come at it this way...Let's take a sample of each fish, same length. Here's what I want you to look at. Open their mouths, normal feeding gape, and picture those fish side by side. Think of six inch fish, bluegill, redear, green sunfish, warmouth and largemouth bass. From left to right, you see increasing gape size. Next, think about the age of each of these fish, at that size. The bluegill and redear are maybe half grown. The green sunfish and warmouth are 75% grown and the bass is a youngster, maybe months old. Here's my point. The bluegill won't compete in the same food chain as the warmouth and green sunfish. Bluegill are limited to eating small morsels. Although bluegill prefer to be predators, their window of opportunity is much shorter than either of its larger mouth cousins, the warmouth or green sunfish...that is assuming a "predator" eats meat. The redear is out of that mix because it eats crustaceans. So, a warmouth and green sunfish compete more with a 4 inch bass...for a short time...because a four inch bass is quickly headed to 6 inches, then 8 and on. Here's my first point. Once grown, the greens and warmouth will be predictably consistent predators, fighting for a specific size class of its food, especially young of the year fish of all species. Bluegill nor bass have that. Bluegill can't effectively compete with the same food chain as any of the others for several reasons. One, their mouths are too small to compete. Two, they are blessed with diversity in their food chains, so they don't NEED to compete. Bass, at the opposite end of that train of thought, won't compete simply because they grow THROUGH that line of competition. They quickly go from newly hatched prey to competitors to predators in much shorter span of time, thanks to their disproportionate mouth sizes.
Now, switch to fecundity. Bluegill, in the south, spawn lots and often. Green sunfish spawn once as does warmouth. Bass spawn once, sometimes twice, depending on how big momma is and how many of her eggs mature early in the season.
Bluegill tend to survive simply because they can hide, feed in a diverse food chain by eating bugs, tiny fish, broccoli,:), diatoms and other random morsels in the water...and they have lots of babies. So, with a wide range of food sources (that no one else effectively competes for during the entire year) and the ability to replace themselves quickly, bluegill have an advantage.
Warmouth and Green sunfish don't have that same advantage. They must fight for their food. Unlike the bluegill food chain, the buffet table for warmouth and green sunfish ebbs and flows. They reach their golden years and become limited by mouth size in a rapid paced, temporary food chain. Can they eat tiny bass? Sure. Will they? Absolutely. Let's stay with the premise someone presented...what if these larger mouth sunfish eat ALL the baby bass? What happens, then? Remaining bass have less competition and are able to grow to larger sizes. Without juvenile bass feeding on small sunfish, many of those sunfish will grow into the size class which can feed the dominant sizes of bass. Bass get bigger. Then, what? Bigger bass can eat bigger meals. Adios grown warmouth and green sunfish.
If there is a "negative" it might be that trying to establish green sunfish and warmouth into an existing bluegill/redear/bass pond may need more than one attempt. In order for the new fish to thrive, we need to supply their habitat and a food chain.
So, my answer to the question is that the biggest negative is trying to figure out how to fit those two species into an existing, dynamic population of fish in a way to accomodate their survival and ability to thrive. That's not an easy thing to do.

That's like Brett Favre showing up at the sandlot with a football - you don't have to ask.

Thanks Brett, I mean Bob.

I originally started this thread because of how commonly people get upset when they discover that GSF or WM have somehow been introduced into their BG/LMB pond. If a pond owner researches GSF they are likely to find numerous references to how they will ruin a bass fishery. I think there is some serious mis-information out there about this.

If I understand your post Bob, the presence of GSF/WM may actually enhance a BG/LMB pond. That's not to say it always will, but it's a far cry from poisoning your pond because you caught a Greenie.

To take it one step further (because that's just how I roll) I would suggest that people consider including GSF or WM in their stocking plan* . I can see the appeal of choosing the least number of species because it seems to result in less variables, but nature seems to function in the opposite way, where there are many overlapping niches and extensive diversity. I'm suggesting that in this case the addition of GSF/WM just may make managing a LMB pond a little easier. Is there evidence it won't?

*Of course this isn't feasible now because no commercial sources exist.