Pond Boss Forums MANAGING AN EXISTING POND Evaluating and adjusting fish populations New Science info watch

Starting a new thread to post new science type stuff to contemplate. These are from the upcoming Southern Division of the American Fisheries Society 2009 Spring Meeting .



Privately-owned small impoundments of Central Alabama: a survey and evaluation of

management techniques and enhancements

Haley, III*, N.V., Wright, R.A., and D.R. DeVries, Auburn University, Department of Fisheries

Angling quality for largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides and sunfish Lepomis spp. in small

impoundments relates to the management techniques used. While standard management techniques can

provide quality fishing, many pond owners wish to produce larger/more abundant gamefish. We surveyed

159 randomly-selected private pond owners in 23 central Alabama counties by telephone regarding their

pond management techniques and enhancements. Of those surveyed, 48% fertilized, 37% applied pellet

feed, 13% stocked supplemental forage fish, and 10% reported no active management. Survey results

were used to identify ponds for fish population assessments in fall 2007 (n = 31) and spring 2008 (n =

34). Ponds were selected that were managed with all possible combinations of the three most reported

management enhancements including fertilization, pellet feeding, and threadfin shad Dorosoma

petenense as supplemental forage or no active management. Sites were sampled using electrofishing

and seining, and abiotic data were collected. Results indicated high variability of abundance, growth, and

condition of largemouth bass and sunfish both among and within these management strategies. This

information provides insight as to whether these techniques/enhancements can maintain high quality

sportfish populations in small impoundments, allowing pond owners and managers to decide on their

utility.



Factors influencing introgression of Florida-strain alleles in Louisiana largemouth bass

(Micropterus salmoides) populations

Fries*, M.A., Kaller, M.D., Kelso, W.E., and D.G. Kelly, School of Renewable Natural Resources

Louisiana State University Agricultural Center

95

Since 1982, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) has stocked Florida-strain

largemouth bass (FLMB; Micropterus salmoides floridanus) in Louisiana to enhance recreational

opportunities. In 1988, we began conducting analyses using allozyme electrophoresis at two loci to

determine the genetic identity of 16,875 LMB collected during routine fall electrofishing surveys. Previous

analysis of this genetic data has shown that frequency of stocking and number of fish stocked do not

account for between-system differences in FLMB introgression. In order to better understand factors that

control introgression and persistence of Florida bass alleles in Louisiana largemouth bass stocks, we

have begun a project to quantify the physiochemical and biological characteristics of stocked water

bodies. To date, we have collected water quality (dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, conductivity, and

turbidity), lake morphology, aquatic vegetation, woody debris, and shoreline development data from 13

lakes throughout the state. We have used genetic data from these populations to determine the relative

influence of water body characteristics on introgression success and stock production. Our findings

provide the opportunity for LDWF to better understand the effects of their FLMB stocking activities and to

modify their stocking protocols to better achieve the management goals of the largemouth bass program.

The first study likely has more holes in it than swiss cheese. O.K...... they found high variabilty among and within pond classifications (managed vs. not managed). Their closing statement seems to indicate that ponds with mgmt strategies (feeding pellets, fertilizing, & stocking shad) are hit and miss with regards to results as are ponds that receive absolutlely no management. Are they inferring that what you do makes no difference and "it is what it is"?

Just because one engages in feeding, fertilizing, stocking, etc does not mean they are doing things correctly, in the right sequence, or even trying to manage the right pond. I obviously need more info, but I don't like the undertone of their conclusion. My fear is that this paper will lead people to believe that the mgmt strategies and techniques are futile. I would argue they are not when done properly.

I'm curious as to whether they were able to quantify key pieces of information such as the knowledge/experience of the pondowner that uses mgmt techniques and the consistency/timing of using the mgmt techinques. Or how about acounting for the mgmt goal of the pond owner (trophy bluegill vs. trophy bass, etc)? I would hope that goals would influence both abundance and growth because that is our goal. Or how about the influence of other species that may have existed either intentionally or unintentionally within a given pond? If they didn't take these things into consideration and appropriately account for them, then the study means nothing to me. When doing a broad scale, shotgun-approached study and/or meta-analysis, there are just too many variables that cannot be accounted.

We all know that ponds vary greatly, but hopefully we also know that management works (strategies, techinques, enhancements as they call them, etc). Sure, some ponds are awesome and haven't received a bit of work or management. But how long can they be manintained when used regularly and without management? And what's awesome to a bass angler may not be awesome to bluegill angler. When one chooses to manage their pond and does things correctly or with proper guidance, I'd like to think that good results will follow. I've seen it with my own eyes. You might as well stack the odds in your favor if you are serious about your pond.

The questions being addressed(using mgmt enhancements vs. doing nothing) by this study put aside, here's another study that is focusing on ponds and drawing conclusions from the perspective of just bass and bluegill. Hasn't pond management evolved?

There is something about this abstract that rubs me the wrong way. On the otherhand, I haven't read the entire study but it sure seems like their results are seriously questioning the utility of pond mgmt strategies (enhancements). The reality is that the study is probably flawed and can be easily picked apart. I just can't see that they had an opportunity to account for enough influential variables.

Geeez.....I feel like Andy Rooney.

I am considering going to that meeting, Ewest. There is a pond mgmt workshop to be held, and I was curious to see what was going to be discussed. I also want to sell my boats, but I recently learned there will be no trade-show portion to the meeting, so maybe I won't go. Coincidentally, the 2009 Spring SDAFS meeting with be held in New Orleans.

Glad you posted the abstacts. You got my wheels turning.

Shawn:
I agree with you, I live on a 10 acre pond/lake (developed in an urban setting). This body of water has not been managed in any way in relation to the fishery, in fact it has been neglected, and we have significant problems as a result (g.shad, stunted bluegill, LMB population that is not producing enough 1, 2, & 3 year olds). Can anyone tell me more about the American Fishery Society and what they are all about?

Shawn thanks for the comments and thoughts as always. That is the purpose of this thread - to relay info and get people to think.

It always amazes me what different people can conclude out of the same text. Shawn I did not get the same " rubs me the wrong way" sense even though our thoughts on pond mgt are similar. I do not have the study but would guess that it shows just the opposite of what you thought. My guess is it will conclude

1. Management matters and helps but varies a lot based on different ponds and methods.

2. No mgt is not a good option even though there is large variation among both managed and non-managed ponds.

3. How you manage depends on your goals and what you have to work with (land quality and $).

In central Ala ( the site of the study) there are not many alternative type pond fisheries to study. It is LMB/BG/RES with some CC mostly because that is what will grow there.

Here is the key text IMO : Results indicated high variability of abundance, growth, and condition of largemouth bass and sunfish both among and within these management strategies.
Given the source of the study, (Auburn University) the birth place of much of pond mgt theory, would alone lead me to think the study would be pro pond mgt theory.

I could be wrong and we should check to see what the study provides.

I'm just a pond amature so I might be way, way off base here but it seems to me that they have reduced pond management (for the article purposes) to either:

(1)Fertilization
or
(2)Feeding pellets
or
(3)Stocking or supplementing a forage base
or
(4)No management intervention

IMHAPIO (in my humble and probably idiotic opinion) there are so many other factors that can skew a study such as this.

A. What about someone that does combinations of 1,2 and 3 above?

B. What about selective culling techniques?

C. What about habitat issues (nesting facilities, cover for fingerling survival)?

D. Aeration versus no aeration

E. Water quality issues

And those are just what this bean counter can think of. I'm certainly no rocket surgeon, but it seems to me that only tracking one aspect of management (related to how feeding/forage was managed or not managed) and then drawing some conclusion is only looking at ONE aspect of how these various ponds were managed. Other management techniques don't appear to have been addresses (at least in the text above).

The second article doesn't seem to have that much in common with the first, once again IMHAPIO. I wouldn't let it rile you Shawn.

JAHP most of your list of points would be covered by :

1 electrofishing and seining, and abiotic data were collected ,
2 all possible combinations of the three most reported management enhancements

Abiotic components are the nonliving components of the biosphere. Chemical and geological factors, such as rocks and minerals, and physical factors, such as temperature and weather, are referred to as abiotic components.

Electorfishing and seining would show or reflect most biotic factors.

My guess is in order to keep from being laughed at by their peers they would have made this as scientifically correct as possible as it is peer reviewed.

I will try to get the study so we can all see what it says.

My bad, I didn't know what all the big words meant.

No bad - JHAP you made good points that I sure hope they took into account as did Shawn. If they did not we can laugh at them and trash the study. So far no luck finding it.