Pond Boss Forums STOCKING A NEW POND Types of fish to choose "Northern Bluegill"

I have very satisfactory populations of Florida strain Coppernose bluegill, the "Tiger Striped" bluegill, as I call them. I have no complaints at how well they produce and the size nad numbers they achieve.

However, I sorta miss the more beautifully colored blugill I remember catching as a kid. They had more orange and reds on them and were just beautiful.

I haven't stocked those in years, and I'm wondering if I do that now if they will interbreed significantly with the Florida Coppernose and dilute that gene pool to a point that would negatively affect the size and numbers. I want to "breed up" the color of fish, but not "breed down" the size.

Are there any significant reasons not to introduce the old fashioned northern strain of bluegill? They would have to breed true, I believe, to maintain the color I want. That doesn't seem highly likely.

I'm guessing some of you have tried this, maybe in reverse, but I'm guessing several of you have done this. I'd like any reports, ideas, and suggestions.

Thanks!

"Bill"

We have both in the lakes. They breed with each other and mixing does occur. No indication of reduced size. If you want to maintain pure CNBG or pure BG strains then I do not suggest mixing them. Other than wanting to maintain purity (not our goal) we have seen no negative effects. Plus you will achieve some degree of protection form CNBG die off due to cold .

BG coloration is often not genetic based but more related to water chemistry/conditions. Even if you stocked northern BG, you may not get the fish coloration you're seeking.

And food sources. There are some beautiful CNBG on these links.

One Nice Coppernose -

http://www.pondboss.com/forums/ubbthread...ite_id=1#import

CNBG variation Fla vs Ark -
http://www.pondboss.com/forums/ubbthread...ite_id=1#import

Bill,

Are you sure they weren't pumpkinseeds?

Cecil and CJ have good points about habitat affecting fish color or hue and were the highly colored fish pure northern BG, some other species or maybe a hybrid?? Ewest is 'spot on' with his info that mixing strains will very likely result in mixed genetics. One can usually depend on the information and 'take it to the bank' when two or more knowledgable people provide the same answers.

CJBS, the coloration I seek is the color of the old bluegill we used to get to stock with from the nurseries when the govt gave away fingerlings. They may still do that, but I changed over to Coppernose and that's all I've stocked for 20 years.

It's the same lake, same conditions, etc. They were not pumpkinseeds, they were just the old fashioned bluegill we used to get in Mississippi before the Coppernose got so popular. We had pumpkinseeds too, but I'm referring to the bluegill the govt used to give away to new pond owners for stocking.

I don't care about maintaining purity of the strain, I just don't want them to interbreed with the Coppernose and breed down their size. If the size of a Coppernose cross is the same size then I'm fine with it.

Is there a name for this cross?

No name as they are the same species just different strains. As I noted we have not seen a reduction in size with both in the same ponds for years now. In small waters the most common cause of lack of size is not enough food. Feeding the fish will make a big difference in either or both strains of BG. In our ponds we see some fish that are clearly CNBG and some clearly BG and some that could be mixes. All 3 types grow well on feed.

State does not provide fish any more.

Eric,

You're not saying the coppernose and northern bluegill are the same species are you?

They are the same species, just different subspecies. Some info indicates male N. BG will readily breed with either subspecies while male CNBG may only breed with other CNBG. The females don't seem to care.

I don't believe (pumpkinseeds)PS are even found in MS. RES are as are several other lesser known sunfish with nice coloration but PS don't come that far south as a native and I doubt anyone has stocked them.

I guess i must be referring to an old text that has a different species name for the coppernose bluegill vs. just the addition of the subspecies name purpurescens to the species name. (Lempomis macrochirus purpurescens)

If I remember right it had the species name mysticalis

(Lepomis mysticalis)

Or maybe it was Lepomis macrochirus mysticalis?

They all have so many unofficial names it's hard for me to keep up with, especially with local and regional name favorites. A Pumpknseed to me might not be a Pumpkinseed in another area.

To my understanding, Mystacalis and Purpurescens are now generally regarded as the same fish, a CNBG? I think I remember reading where there was a question as to parts of Florida producing a slightly different looking CNBG, hence the subspecies differential.

Now, I see the names used interchangeably quite often.

If you look up the post I made a couple months back, I go into all the different subspecies, what they look like and where they are found.

Here from a prior thread

http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=66840&page=1

http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.ph...true#Post279613


From PB mag. - order it now.

THE CUTTING EDGE – SCIENCE REVIEW
By Eric West


Coppernose Bluegill vs. Regular Bluegill – which one for you?


A question we often get on the Pond Boss Forum is should I stock Regular Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus macrochirus or Coppernose Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus mystacalis also previously classified and referred to as Lepomis m. purpurescens . To answer that question we should look at the traits of both and use the one that will work best for the particular goals for the water in question. As we all know traits come from genetics. So what is the difference in the genetics of Coppernose vs. Regular Bluegill? Well it started a long time ago and it took a long time to get there. Here is the basic story. Millions of years ago peninsular Florida was, like it is today, connected to the mainland. Bluegill were present all over the eastern US. Sea level rose and peninsular Florida was cut off by the sea from the mainland creating two separate populations. Bluegill on both the mainland and on the peninsula continued to evolve separately each influenced by local conditions with a divergence time of roughly 2.3 million years. After a few million years of this separate path sea level fell and the two land masses were connected again. However the two bluegill sub-species were now a little different genetically. The rivers were connected and the two subspecies migrated and integrated in a zone along the deep southeast where the two sub-species mixed. If this sounds familiar it should – it’s the same story as the Florida Largemouth Bass and the Northern Largemouth Bass where the divergence time between Northern (M. salmoides) and Florida (M. floridanus) bass is approximately 2.8 million years. If you know one story you should have a fairly good idea of outcome of the other. Surely as a pond owner you have heard the bass story. Florida Bass get bigger under the proper circumstance and do not due well in cold climates. Yes Bluegill have a similar story.

Coppernose Bluegill get bigger under the right circumstance but do not flourish in colder climates. In fact Coppernose are susceptible to poor results and substantial winter kill in northern US regions as are Florida Largemouth Bass. So how do you tell Coppernose and Regular Bluegill apart. Take a look at the pictures included. The Coppernose has a copper band across its head/nose in adult males, has fewer and wider vertical bars, has orangish/red fin margins and tail coloration , 12 anal fin rays and often light/white fin edges most visible when young. The Regular Bluegill has 11 anal fin rays and none of the other traits mentioned.

So how do they compare? Here are some points from a study on the subject titled Performance Comparison between Coppernose and Native Texas Bluegill Populations by John A. Prentice and J. Warren Schlechte in the 2000 Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies , Vol. 54 at pgs 196-206 looking at growth (size at age) , survival and catchability.

Coppernose Bluegill were significantly larger than Native Bluegill in all scenarios tested with the largest observed difference being 19.2 mm total length (.756 inch) and 33.5 grams ( 1.18 ounces) over 2 years. At 3 years there was a 16 mm (.63 inch) difference on average and at 4 years 24 mm (.945 inch). With other fish species present there was no difference in angling vulnerability between the types. Spawning activity of the brooders began at the same time (last week of Feb in 1995 and first week of March in 1997) and produced the same size offspring for tagging at the same time each year ( mid-April) in what appeared to be similar numbers. Survival of young of the year Coppernose was substantially greater than for Native Bluegill.

Before you draw to many conclusions note this was in Texas where the weather is close to that of the Coppernose’s native range. That is a critical key to success with Coppernose. While there is an often cited study titled Cold Tolerance in Two Subspecies of Bluegill by , A. J. Sonski , K. E. Kulzer , and J. A. Prentice, in the 1988 Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies , Vol. 42 at pgs 120-127 , that states Coppernose and Native Bluegill have similar cold tolerances the key is the test was done on bluegill all from the same area (Texas). Its purpose was to determine if Coppernose could survive the Texas climate. There is substantial observed and anecdotal evidence that Coppernose do not do well in cold climates (roughly north of the north line of Arkansas/Tennessee extended) . In the far northern US Coppernose become subject to high winterkill rates. This would be consistent with their similar relationship to Florida Largemouth Bass which have repeatedly been tested to do poorly and die in cold climates. The study first cited above was also in ponds with no supplemental feeding. Reported scientific evidence is substantial that in ponds the most common cause of reduced growth is a shortage of food. It is not known how much, if any, of the early growth difference between the two sub-species was due to limited forage. The two sub species will integrate (inter-breed) with the offspring exhibiting mixed traits and no apparent negatives but there is very little published data on them.So the answer to the question should I stock Coppernose Bluegill or Regular (native) Bluegill or both is – it depends. Your location (climate) and your goals are key factors. If you are in the Deep South or the Southwest (including Southern California) and not at high elevation (Appalachian, Rocky or Sierra Mountains) Coppernose should be considered. In short is your temperature profile similar to those areas? To some extent management practices and the existing bluegill population, if any, are also possible factors. Whichever type you choose keep in mind that the most important factor to growing nice bluegill is to be sure they have enough food to eat and not to much competition.



Edited by Bill Cody (17/07/12 09:30 AM)
Edit Reason: enhancements