Pond Boss Forums STOCKING A NEW POND Types of fish to choose northern pike in small pond

I have a 3 acre pond in central illinois with what looks to be a northern or a muskie. you can see him lurking around if the waters clear. My question is, is this a problem for the bass and bluegill. The fishing was real slow this year, and i wonder if this guy could wipe out the smaller fish

Without more info. on your goals, joey d, you'd most likely want it out of there.

However, such a fish, if it is a loner, could offer population control for a slot-limit type of culling. For example, he could control populations of 8-12" fish.

If he's larger, he may not want to expend the energy to eat smaller fish.

Welcome aboard.

Tell me what else u need to know. My goal is to have small and large fish to catch so if I get bored with a monster spinner bait I can get out the ultralight and have fun with the bg or smaller bass.

The pike or musky is targeting mostly bass that are 1/4 to maybe 1/3 the pikes length. Pike-musky at 36" long often eat bass in 10"-12" range.

so how many of these 12 to 14" bass will he eat in a week? or is it not enough to impact the population?

Ewest or others: what can you contribute to this?

Feeding frequency of pike is greatest during optimum water temps for the fish. As a rule larger pike tend to favor cooler water than the smaller pike. I do not have optimum feeding temps for the various sizes of pike memorized. I am pretty sure that musky have different optimum feeding temperature preferences. So firstly to get a good answer to your question you need to know if you have a northern pike or musky and then its approximate size.

Generally large pike will feed less when water is above abt 70F-74F. Smaller pike are more tolerant of warmer waters. So in mid-summer your large pike may eat less if it cannot find a adequate cool water refuge. Based on general water temps for all the months in northern US, I calculated that a 30"-38" pike would consume some where in the neighborhood of 70-90 full sized feedings per year. A full sized feeding would consist of a full stomach of an equivelent of a 12"-14" bass. I guessed the digestion rate of a full meal to be an average of 3 days in water temps of 60F-70F; more days for digestion at cooler temps. No or very little feeding at above optimum temps. I may look in In-Fishermen for some more detailed answers to your question which interests me.

Bill I will check on this and post tonight. We could use a good discussion on Esox.

Bill and Eric: I have one case history that might help with this discussion. We looked at northern pike and largemouth bass diets in a 60-acre lake in north-central Nebraska.

We estimated that the lake contained 24 pounds/acre northern pike and 71 pounds/acre of largemouth bass. Both of those values are at the upper range of biomass for these two species. Northern pike ranged from 10 inches to 30 inches; about 45% were over 21 inches. The largemouth bass ranged from 4 to 20 inches, and about 90% were over 12 inches long.

We looked at pike and bass total food consumption for two primary prey fishes (yellow perch and bluegills) during one growing season (approximately April through October).

Both predators primarily consumed yellow perch and bluegills. The only other northern pike food item was largemouth bass. Other largemouth bass food items included scuds, dragonfly larvae, frogs, leeches, northern pike, largemouth bass, and several other aquatic invertebrates.

The 24 pounds/acre of northern pike consumed an estimated 94 pounds/acre of yellow perch and 1 pound/acre of bluegills. The 71 pounds/acre of largemouth bass consumed an estimated 51 pounds/acre of yellow perch and 10 pounds/acre of bluegill.

At the start of that year, we estimated that the lake contained 142 pounds/acre of yellow perch. Northern pike and largemouth bass ate 145 pounds/acre (remember, the perch “grew” a lot of pounds of flesh during that growing season, making such a consumption feasible). We estimated that there were 17 pounds/acre of bluegills in the lake, and the pike and bass ate an estimated total of 11 pounds/acre. So, can predators affect prey? Yes they can.

I wonder if the ratios will hold true for joey d's situation if he only has one pike. Then again, I suppose we need to know if it's a pike or a muskie.

If there was one pike at 5lbs, then he might eat 19.5lbs. of yellow perch (if there are YP in his pond), and maybe 0.2lbs of bluegill??

Perhaps this is a good time to ask joey d for more details on his body of water such as what all species are present, depths, amount of cover etc.

Sunil -- that's why I didn't try to answer the question any further. I'm with you on the estimates, but there are a bunch of "ifs." If the temperature regime is similar to Nebraska (Bill's point above), if the prey base is similar, if northern pike growth rates are similar. I'm sure I could think of more but you see my point.

Predators tend to eat what is most vulnerable. Surprsingly, we have seen northern pike eating moderate numbers of big bluegills on occasion. I had not expected that given the compressed body form of the bluegill. Pike typically prefer soft-rayed over spiny-rayed, and fusiform (torpedo shape) over compressed. So, in Joey D's pond, they may eat more bass than bluegill. It depends on abundance of each prey type, and how vulnerable that prey type is to predation by a particular type of predator.

Don't you just love it when people don't (or can't ) answer a simple question?

Thanks Dr. Willis, I was just about to ask a body shape preferences and what prey itmes might be prefered if YP where absent from the prey base. You answered my question, well sort of, before I could even ask it.

PIKE FEEDING BAHAVIOR In-Fisherman Notes: From Pike – Handbook of Strategies and Pike On The Prowl (Mar 2006).

“A pike is not a pike, is not a pike “. Small, medium and large pike can and do exhibit different behaviors within the same water body. The different sizes behave so differently you have to almost treat them as different species. Considered the “coolest of the cool water fish”. Angling success for big trophy sized pike drops at water temps above high 60’s. All fish “march to their own internal drummers” and big pike are prone to be more active in water temperatures from 39F to 65F than in waters greater than 65F. Warmer water stresses them. Experiences have shown the big pike in summer will retreat from waters that are too warm into cool areas (49F-60F) if available.

Large pike are reported to be SOMEWHAT adaptable in inhospitable habitats such as eutrophic lakes. It is theorized that pike will retreat to oxygen poor, deeper bottom zones when pH levels remain opportune. It has been suggested that these fish go into a survival mode and lie in or on cool, pH acceptable sediments where they are lethargic and rarely feed.

I think the smaller pike are, the more they tend to be more opportunistic feeders. Young or small pike live in different environmental niches than large mature and even average sized pike. Young and or stunted pike are warm water tolerant and stay active and feed all summer long in most all warm water temps. “The window of prey sizes that pike are willing to eat appears much wider and includes items that seem surprisingly small”. Medium to large pike have also been found to seasonally feed on invertebrates. However, large predator fish feeding on invertebrates is not conducive to producing efficient growth rates.

The larger the pike, the more the warm water stresses them. Where waters warm too big pike can be come so stressed that eating stops in mid-summer, growth ceases and weight loss can even occur. Large pike actively feed and do GROW in length in cold water of winter months. The cooler the water bodies remain into the summer the longer big pike remain actively feeding. Optimal Foraging Theory that Bruce Condello often mentions (search) and Kleptoparasitism are two feeding behaviors commonly used by pike. Kleptoparasitism is having captured prey stolen by another fish. Kleptoparasitism is thought to allow predators to reach maximum size by obtaining meals with lower energy costs than that expended during typical feeding. Have you ever seen
another similar sized fish following one that you have hooked and are “playing”? The following behind fish is practicing Kleptoparasitism whereby it is waiting for a drop or trying to seal the food item from the other fish.


NICHE - specific place within an environment. Most fish are different from other animals in that they are not born into the niche where they ultimately grow and exist in. Most animals are born in a niche and they operate in that niche most of their lives. Not so with many fish. Fish, especially predatory fish, usually graduate from one niche to another or it finds itself stranded in a particular level of habitat and food usage. Fish can become locked into a given pattern of hunting, in a certain lake zone and into foraging on a given size of prey. If this happens growth usually slows or ceases.

For example, walleye fry move to the surface areas of open water and feed on microscopic critters – zooplankton. When they reach the fingerling stage, they move back to shallow water and feed on tiny fish, insects and other large invertebrates. Thus they wean themselves from one kind of food type and size to another. As walleye continue to grow the walleye’s diet becomes almost exclusively small fish like YOY perch and larger minnows that inhabit edges of weedlines. Again walleye have made a change in niche they utilize. As walleye graduate to larger and larger sized perch and forage items that inhabit deeper more off shore areas, the walleye make another move to a different zone of the lake. As the walleye grow to lunker sizes they often move again to more open water to feed on larger sized ciscos, smelt, alewives, and or adult perch. At each growth stage, walleye switch their prey source and lake zone (habitat) usage.

However if one of the links in the chain series is missing the fish often become stranded in growth rate. Even if the water body holds the large sized bluegills the walleyes won’t be able to OPTIMALLY prey on them because the walleyes mouth size and teeth can’t effectively and efficiently handle them – wrong size or shape of forage fish. They will eat BG if they are most abundant or dominant and encountered most frequently. So in a water body like this the walleye top-out at about 4 lbs. In cases like this, an occasional fish may get to trophy status by getting a head start and grow faster than its siblings. However with a missing link in the niche food chain no significant number of this species will grow to largest size range.

Pike are even more dependent on all steps of the food chain being correct AND AT THE RIGHT SEASON OF THE YEAR to consistently produce trophies. Shad might be available in the lake, but shad have a preference for a much warmer water temperature than that of pike. So this food source although plentiful with high fat content and various sizes are not available to pike throughout the year. Despite what looks like plenty of food, overall pike may likely stay relatively small sized. The food of pike not only has to be the right type and size but it must be in HARMONY with the pike’s life style and be available in the different lake zones pike use as they grow from one size to another. For pike to continually and optimally grow their entire life span, they must pass the threshold from one niche to another. Note this can sometimes become less important as the water body becomes smaller and less diverse. This phenomenon is why it can sometimes be more difficult to grow or find trophy fish in smaller waters.



The niche threshold is important to all fish, although it is less important or critical in fish species that do not have a large disparity of size between small and trophy categories such as crappie – bgill of 0.5lb to 1.5 lb compared to pike - musky 0.5 lb to 30 lb. One half pound pike often cannot function in the same niche required by the 30 lb pike whereas the 0.5 lb crappie can usually function in the niche of the 1.5 lb crappie.

Numerous other things such as competition from similar sized individuals for food, abundance of food items and optimum temperature regime affecting the life span probably enter in to growing trophy sized predators such as pike.

Bill, where does the In-Fisherman excerpt end and your writing begin?

Or has Condello been referenced in an In-Fisherman article?

I've written two In-Fisherman articles. :p :p

...sort-of articles.....mmmmm, blurbs, really.

I will look to see if I can find a bioenergetics article on Esox.

I checked 100 of 912 possible Esox studies. Here is a sampling. Note the formula at the bottom.

Factors Affecting Growth of Northern Pike in Small Northern Wisconsin Lakes
Terry L. Margenau

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 810 West Maple Street, Spooner, Wisconsin 54801, USA

Paul W. Rasmussen

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 1350 Femrite Drive, Monona, Wisconsin 53716, USA

Jeffrey M. Kampa

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 810 West Maple Street, Spooner, Wisconsin 54801, USA

Abstract.—Fish assemblages that include northern pike Esox lucius as a dominant predator were sampled in 19 small (less than 120 ha) northern Wisconsin lakes. The purpose of this sampling was to describe northern pike population characteristics and identify factors affecting growth rates. Fish assemblages in these lakes were dominated by centrarchids, primarily bluegill Lepomis macrochirus, and small fusiform species such as yellow perch Perca flavescens. Northern pike population size structures were typically truncated at around 53 cm. Average density of northern pike (35 cm) was 16.1 fish/ha and ranged 2.8–38.0 fish/ha. Growth of northern pike decreased, in comparison with a growth standard, as early as age 4. Most northern pike were less than age 6, and few fish were older than age 8. Diet of northern pike generally indicated opportunistic feeding strategies with some preference for fusiform prey. Multiple factors were identified as potentially limiting northern pike growth and size structure. Northern pike growth was negatively related to northern pike density, water transparency (Secchi depth), and abundance of small bluegills. Extensive littoral areas, water temperatures greater than 21°C during the growing season, and winterkill also limit northern pike growth and size structure. Effective management of these small lakes will probably require an individual-lake approach to identify specific mechanisms limiting growth.

Received: December 4, 1996; Accepted: January 13, 1998


Selective Predation by Three Esocids: The Role of Prey Behavior and Morphology
DAVID H. WAHL and ROY A. STEIN

Ohio Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit,1 and Department of Zoology, The Ohio State University, 1735 Neil Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA

Abstract.—We documented differential vulnerability of fathead minnows Pimephales promelas, gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum, and bluegills Lepomis macrochirus to predation by muskellunge Esox masquinongy, northern pike E. lucius, and tiger muskellunge E. masquinongy × E. lucius in a 700-L tank. Individual esocids (150–225 mm in total length) were combined with single species groups (N = 15) of optimal-sized prey (25–30% of predator length for bluegills, 37–43% for fathead minnows, and 30–36% for gizzard shad). Capture ability did not differ among esocids; however, mean captures per strike were higher for fathead minnow (0.67) and gizzard shad (0.78) than for bluegill (0A4). Morphology and antipredatory behavior, unique to each prey species, contributed to this differential vulnerability. In the field, we introduced equal numbers and similar sizes of these esocids into two systems, one with centrarchid prey and one with both centrarchid and gizzard shad prey. As predicted from laboratory work, esocids ate fewer prey and grew more slowly when centrarchids were the only prey than they did when gizzard were available, In a third reservoir, containing bluegills and gizzard shad, esocids strongly preferred gizzard shad over bluegills. To maximize growth and survival, esocids should be stocked in systems with soft-rayed or fusiform prey, such as cyprinids or shad, rather than in centrarchid-dominated systems.


Food Consumption and Growth of Three Esocids: Field Tests of a Bioenergetic Model
DAVID H. WAHL and ROY A. STEIN

Department of Zoology and Ohio Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit,2 The Ohio State University, 1735 Neil Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA

Abstract.—We quantified diet and compared field estimates of growth and daily ration with predictions from a bioenergetic model for young-of-year muskellunge Esox masquinongy, northern pike E. lucius, and tiger muskellunge E. masquinongy × E. lucius introduced into five Ohio reservoirs. Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum dominated esocid diets (77-97% by weight) through autumn but were absent by spring. Diets in late autumn and spring included sunfishes Lepomis spp. and brook silversides Labidesthes sicculus. Northern pike and tiger muskellunge grew faster than muskellunge through the first year. Food consumption was highest for tiger muskellunge, followed by northern pike, then muskellunge. Growth rates and rations were highest immediately after stocking, declining through autumn to their lowest levels in December and spring. A bioenergetic model underestimated final mass by a factor of two to three for all esocids; predictions for food consumption were better than those for growth but still overestimated observed values by 39–52%. Neither behavioral thermoregulation nor incorporation of seasonal energetic content of prey altered predictions (maximum of 2% increase). In contrast, adjustments in metabolic rates to account for differences in season and temperature substantially improved model predictions. Size-selective mortality did not account for the inaccuracies in model predictions. Conversion efficiencies (39–63%) exceeded those previously measured for esocids fed maximum rations, suggesting that model variables should be determined for a range of ration levels. Though used extensively, the predictions of bioenergetic models should not be accepted until the models have been subjected to additional field verification.


Simplified Method Based on Bioenergetics Modeling to Estimate
Food Consumption by Largemouth Bass and Northern Pike
ROBERT F. CARLINE
PennsylvaniaC ooperativFe ish and WildlifeR esearchU nit,2 PennsylvaniaS tate University
UniversityP ark, Pennsylvania1 6802, USA
Abstract.--I used results derived from a bioenergetics model to develop a simplified method of
estimating food consumption by largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides and northern pike Esox
lucius. Growth data for each of three populations of each species from lakes covering a wide
latitudinal portion of their ranges were used together with temperature data to estimate cumulative
consumption rates with the model. For each species, a multiple regression with the independent
variables of initial mean weight, weight gain, and degree-days accountedf or 99% of the variability
in estimated consumption rates. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the magnitude
of errors associated with the assumptions made in using the model. The following assumptions
were made: (1) close correspondence existed between simulated temperatures and those experienced
by the fish; (2) feeding rates throughout the simulation period were a constant proportion
of the maximum consumption rate; (3) gonad losses could be disregarded;( 4) average swimming
speed was 1 cm/s; and (5) energy densities of predators and prey were similar. In general, the errors
associated with these assumptions were + 10% of the estimated values, suggesting that the predictive
equations could provide reasonable approximations of cumulative consumption rates.


From the last study.

Estimated cumulative consumption per fish for
each age-group (Table 2) was used with different
combinations of fish size, growth parameters, and
temperature to derive the best regression model
to predict consumption. The best fits were obtained
with the dependent variables of initial mean weight (W0), weight gain (dW), and degree-days
(DD) above 10øC (for largemouth bass) or above
0øC (for northern pike). Equations for predicting
cumulative consumption (CC) per fish are as follows.
Largemouth bass:
CC = -504 + 1.01(W0) + 2.89(dW)
+ 0.292(DD greater than 10øC); R 2 = 0.99. (1)
Northern pike:
CC = -1,758 + 2.39(W0) + 3.02(dW)
+ 0.617(DD greater than 0øC); R 2 = 0.99. (2)

Sunil - Most every thing in my lengthy post was paraphrased from In-Fisherman. Only occassionally I added my thoughts.

Readers should realize that when In-Fisherman refers to large or trophy pike they are often talking about individuals 15 - 25 lbs. Lunkers are 30 lbs or more. Medium or good sized pike are 8-14 lbs which are large pike in most anglers opinions. Small pike range from 3 lbs to 6 - 7 lbs.

One thing to keep in mind about the studies Ewest referenced. Almost always those studies use small pike as research animals. Sometimes medium pike are researched. Very very rare are the scientific studies that use northern pike in the 15lb to 25+ lb class and individuals that In-Fisherman considers as large or big pike. Most mesotrophic or eutrophic lakes with pike do not have individuals in the largest 15-25 lb category. Keep in mind that In-Fisherman emphasized the big pike are the ones most prove to be the cold water seeking fish. The bigger the pike get the more they prefer colder waters.