Pond Boss Forums POND CONSTRUCTION Creating habitat ? Adding cover = greater fish growth

Does adding cover help your fish grow more ?

What do you think ? The question is talking about material added by man (like xmas trees, trees, brush piles, pallets, fences, tires ) not natural structure like humps ,creek channels ,points etc.

Most agree they concentrate fish and thus make it easier to locate and catch them. This question based on a controlled scientific study involves growth with equal ponds some with added cover some without. What do you think it revealed? ewest

Yes, unless there is supplemental feeding as you stated everything else being equal.

But the question is too easy, I have a feeling the study proved otherwise.

I think it depends on the size of fish and a few other variables.

For small fish and up to young adult fish, normal amounts of manmade structure have less than significant affects on growth rates compared to the control situations.

For large adult or mature fish, especially predatory fish, the structure could easily contribute to increased growth rates due to more forage fish being drawn or attracted to the structure compared to completely bare bottom areas. Increased concentrations of forage fish at structure sites should improve the predator's catch rate of forage fish (assuming the predator was an ambush predator).

However this concept would also be affected by the type of predator species (feeding habits) and the amount or percentage of structure in relation to surface area of the water body. AS the amount of structure increases the growth rates would increase but not necessarily in direct proportion. Varying the amount of structure could affect the study's outcome. The type of structure (interstitial spacing) and overall density of both predator and forage fish would also have impacts on growth rates. The type of forage fish could also have an influence on the study results. Not all forage fish respond the same way to structure. Numerous variables may or may not influence the growth rates.

The study design or methods could easily introduce a bias to the results.

Guys :

I should have included more info. The ponds (4) between 1/2 and 1 acre were LMB-BG/RE and fathead ponds in the deep south. It measured only the first year growth. Ponds were equal, stocked the same time and fish. No supp. feeding but used normal fert. program with water sol. fert. Only difference was 2 ponds had clean bottoms the other 2 had several 3-4 clusters ( 9 trees per cluster) of Virginia pines ( xmas trees) ancored to the bottom. The BG were sampled by seine every 3 mths, the bass in the middle of the survey by hook and line , at the end the ponds were rotenoned and all fish measured and weighed to asses growth and condition. No tricks just intended to start the thought/conversation process among interested forum members. ewest

ewest,

I think the BG and RE were larger in the ponds with cover. I think the bass would probably be only slightly smaller...maybe insignificantly smaller.

Wisdom in my parts is that fish need 30% weeds and shallows to maintain a healthy, "self-supporting" pond. (no fertilizer, no feeding, and no frequent corrective stocking needed.)

I think your study showed free ranging fish using humps and channels slaughtered the smaller fish that coundn't hide in dense structure, the big fish grew bigger in the pond without structure.

I'll also bet, over time, it became out of balance a lot faster than the one with x-mas trees, etc.

I thought humps and channels were structure and trees etc. were cover. Great discussion by the way I'm just trying to clarify for myself. Are you guys talking about a pond without structure or cover like a swimming pool? Or a pond with bottom contours (humps, channels,and ledges) but with no cover?

Guys :

This was not my study , I read about it. It was conducted by Jason Olive while studying fisheries science at Miss. State Univ. He is now a District Fisheries Biologist for the Ark. Game and Fish Comm. I have not seen the entire study just a short 300 word+- summary.

The results. After one year the BG in the ponds with added cover averaged one inch longer. My estimate 7 inches vs 6 inches or about 15% bigger. Bass in the cover added ponds 3 mths after stocking averaged 2 inches longer. At 6 mths after stocking the bass in the cover added ponds averaged 13 inches vs 11 inches in the no cover ponds that is 18% larger. Some of the bass in the cover added ponds were 15 inches at 6 mths after stocking. The faster growth of the cover added bass occured mostly in the first 3 mths when the bass were under 10 inches. The author believes this is because of the nature of the added cover, xmas trees ,because of the dense limbs bass feeding efficiency went down as they got larger (above 10 inches). ewest

Had a huge problem in a newly stocked dam with comorants eating everything. 5 acre pond with 50 comorants resident during first spawn. Tried shooting etc - numbers increased faster than we could shoot. Added brush piles made of thorntree branches (acacia karoo). Worked almost instantly - comorants gone and lots of fingerling sized fish visible within a month.

Great information AlAfrica. I looked up acacia karoo on the web because I wanted to see If I had plants with similar thorns: http://www.plantzafrica.com/plantab/acaciakar.htm

I have some with less foliage but same thorn structure. I am going to try some in my pond. Thank you! Great first informative post and I hope you will be around with many more.

Al :

Welcome to the PB forum . I would sure like to see a pic. of an underwater buzzard (water turkey/cormorant) flapping his wings under water chasing a fish when he unknowingly ran into an acacia placed by a smart pondmiester! It is hard to believe that some grazers eat the stuff.