Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations Adult Golden Shiner Survival....

I don't know that I have seen a study that shows how often the older female ovaries fail to this 'virus' or parasite. The mentions on the forum are more like it 'could' happen but I don't know that it actually happens with great frequency or with great infrequency. To say that any large female golden shiner must be sterile is kind of like saying that every nocturnal animal that is wandering around in broad daylight must have rabies. Probably a few do, but probably many more are still acting strange in the middle of the day but do not have rabies.

I too have adult GSH that are 6-8 years old and are 6-8" long. I have no predators that can eat them. I do have very few or maybe none? small GSH. However the same time the small size class of GSH disappeared my predators grew big enough to eat them.

So it may be that GSH eggs are viable but predators are consuming them.

I would assume 'sterile' could mean zero eggs or it could mean many eggs produced that cannot turn into living fry. I don't think the ovarian problem in GSH was from a chemical that impaired spawning but was from a parasite that invaded only the GSH ovary.

We should all probably try to find the actual studies

Check out this link

I don't know that I've seen those warnings, but perhaps. I have certainly seen golden shiners raiding spawning nests of bass, so there's surely a reduction of spawn for LMB there.


I also have not heard about the females becoming sterile, but I've never sought out any related information.

To be clear, I've amped this pond with Golden Shiners, repeatedly. But I haven't for a few years and am surprised at the large amount of GSH in the pond along with predator fish that I can see feeding. I do agree with all the input that I may not truly know what my predator population is.

Guys, if you want the predators to grow, you have to have a pond that has adult forage fish that are too big to become food. If the forage adults were small enough to become food, and the pond manager didn't stay ahead of the predators with manual harvest, then the predators would overeat the forage base and become stunted.

Sunil, you want the pond to be the way it is now. Stock some HSB or even some Hybrid Crappie. I have a customer that has a 4 ac pond that has GSH that are too big for the predators to eat and his HBC went from 2"-4" to 15" in two years.

If I had my druthers, I'd want a pond that had an overpopulation of Shiners. Cheaper on the pocket book than buying them 2x year to stock into the pond!!

esshup - makes a very point about forage fish density: "If I had my druthers, I'd want a pond that had an overpopulation of Shiners. Cheaper on the pocket book than buying them 2x year..". Can a pond have too many forage fish? IMO that would occur only in ponds where the forage fish were limiting the needed recruitment of predators for the goals.

I Agree!!!!

The problem I've seen with too many adult shiners in my 1/4 acre pond was zero recruitment of new SMB. I've removed a lot of adult GSH since restocking SMB in my pond as they were competing with the both my newly stocked SMB and and similar sized RES for food. I consider large GSH a competitors for food with similar sized or smaller fish.

2019 110 3-4" SMB stocked
2020 308 5-1/2" to 7" GSH were removed (1232 GSH per acre, mostly in the 6" to 6 1/2" size range)
2021 363 5 1/2" to 7" GSH were removed (1452 GSH per acre, mostly in the 7" size range)
2022 101 6-8" GSH were removed (404 GSH per acre, mostly in the 8" size range)

I have caught a few 6 1/2" to 9" SMB this summer which makes me believe I have had some recruitment. I had huge GSH hatch again in June, lots of 2-1/2 to to 3" shiners going into winter and good numbers of 4" to 5 1/2" from last years huge GSH hatch.

For some odd reason RES recruitment hasn't been an issue with GSH present but SMB recruitment has.

Shorty verifies our thinking that too many shiners can likely reduce the amount of recruitment of preferred sport fish and or other small beneficial forage fish. SMB are not always reliable for producing good spawns each year. Thus that may also play a role is lack of SMB recruitment for Shorty's pond. One thing that I would strongly consider if I had too many adult shiners I would start adding a few hybrid striped bass for a couple years and watch the relative density of shiners present. HSB will not reproduce in the pond so one has pretty good control of the predation pressure upon the shiners. As the HSB grow they should eat more of the larger shiners. These two fish species are IMO a real good combination of prey and predator. I also think HSB will on a yearly average eat more shiners compared to a SMB due to innate feeding habits. HSB and shiners are primarily 'open water' fish so these two species will interact a large percent of the time. Shorty has been very good keeping track of numbers of shiners removed each year. These data will allow him better see the predatory impact of HSB on the shiner population.

This thread is not going into the archives in both the HSB and Forage fish. There should be an archive topic for Golden shiners. If there isn't one I or Theo Gallus will create one sometime soon.

Bill, and all, I'm seeing a bit more of what Shorty is experiencing and that's making me wonder about the other implications of having GSH in a small pond.

On HSB, from the ones that I've had stocked in my ponds, their mouth gapes are not that big. Frankly, I've been surprised at the large size of some of my HSB with small mouths.

Just for reference, the pond is not in a sad state. I'm just really looking to better understand what all the GSH are doing in my pond.

My LMB recruitment was very, very small.

Sunil - Your GSH situation in the 0.25 ac pond and lack of LMB recruitment most likely parallels that of Shorty in that too many larger GSH can also reduce recruitment of reproducing fishes including your LMB numerous other species. Lots of adult GSH need to eat and new fish fry are probably good food items for the shiners.

Sunil previously answered my question on predator recruitment in the affirmative. Bill and Shorty's posts are exactly why I ask that question.

My concern is that GSH from hatcheries have a history of disease that makes them functionally non-reproductive after a few years.

Pleistophora ovarie infects golden shiner ovaries, reducing egg production. Egg masses appear discolored, opaque, yellow or brown instead of light green. Treatments for these diseases have not been developed and prevention requires culling of infected fish and disinfection of ponds.

The PCR and histological demonstration of the presence of O. ovariae spores in oocytes and fry, and the failure of strong DNA denaturants to reduce egg-associated copies, give evidence that O. ovariae is vertically transmitted within eggs. Denaturant = the act or process of depriving something of its natural character or properties.

ewest (and others),

I have seen this discussion about GSH reproductive disease on Pond Boss many times.

However, I have not really seen a good discussion where it was translated from "pond expert" language into "average pond owner" language. Therefore, I will try to ask some beginner questions for clarification.

If a pond has a self-sustaining population of GSH then there must be some fertile brood stock. Do you think the reproduction is from a small percentage of 3+ y.o. females that DO NOT have the infection, or the reproduction is from 1 or 2 y.o. females that have reached sexual maturity, but have not yet had the infection manifest in their egg production?

If the answer is the former, then I would expect to see the GSH population eventually extirpated if the young shiners are consumed prior to reaching sexual maturity, and the small amount of older brood stock eventually ages out of spawning. However, in that scenario I do see one very negative possibility if there are no predators in the pond capable of eating full-grown shiners. That would be a significant population of large shiners that suppress reproduction of the desirable predator species, yet supply zero forage value. In that case, the solution is obvious - you must have some predator in the pond capable of eating full-grown GSH.

If the answer is the latter, and the GSH have a viable, sustaining population in the pond, then what improvements could the pond owner make? Having the older females develop the disease in an infected ponds seems not much different than introducing new GSH that also carry the disease. I don't know how you would manage differently than any other forage species - you would just do some supplemental stockings as your sampling indicated the population was declining?

I feel like I am missing some obvious conclusion as regards pond management, or I have an erroneous assumption. Either way, I think we average readers would appreciate a little more clarification on this topic (since it seems to be a recurring discussion).

Thanks, FishinRod.

ewest - is there a study of how the Pleistophora ovarie infects golden shiner ovaries? What is the process of transmission? Is there a life cycle of the virus?. .
There is a local pond to me where GSH have been in the pond since 1974 with YP, RES and SMB The GSH are still reproducing and do not seem to be overabundant. I am wondering if the ovary virus dissipates gradually over time with infected fish getting eaten /eliminated? .

There is a public lake here that has a self sustaining population of GSH, and one customers pond that has ample spawning habitat for the GSH (which were sourced from a hatchery) also has a self sustaining population of GSH. They were initially stocked 11-10-2016 at the rate of 25#/surface acre.

Yes bill several studies. Will post some more. The major problem it seems (may be in error) is occuring in hatchery purchased stock.


Bill check your email.

Pleistophora ovarie infects golden shiner ovaries, reducing egg production. Egg masses appear discolored, opaque, yellow or brown instead of light green. Treatments for these diseases have not been developed and prevention requires culling of infected fish and disinfection of ponds. Pleistophora infections may be reduced by removing golden shiner females from brood fish ponds after two years of age.


http://aqfi.uaex.edu/grad/gradlife/thesis/pdf/proposal2.pdf

Ovipleistophora ovariae infects the ovaries and renders older fish sterile (Summerfelt 1994) forcing golden shiner farmers to use 1-year-old fish as breeders rather than more mature broodfish.

The presence of parasite spores in the ovary makes vertical transmission a likely mode.
Some researchers are confident that vertical transmission exists for O. ovariae, however they are unsure if it is transovarial (in the egg) or transovum (on the egg) (J. E. Smith, University of Leeds, personal communication).


Journal of Aquatic Animal Health
Volume 20, 2008 - Issue 1
Vertical Transmission of Ovipleistophora ovariae (Microspora) within the Eggs of the Golden Shiner
Nicholas B. D. Phelps
&
Andrew E. Goodwin
Pages 45-53 | Received 15 May 2007, Accepted 15 Sep 2007, Published online: 09 Jan 2011

Abstract
Fertilized eggs collected from broodfish infected by Ovipleistophora ovariae were tested by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and found to be positive for the O. ovariae genome at 7.77 × 102 to 3.26 × 107 copies per microgram of host DNA. Fry hatched from these eggs contained from 1.37 × 102 to 9.89 × 106 copies of the O. ovariae genome per microgram of host DNA. Surface treatments of fertilized eggs with 150 mg formalin/L (used by farms as a fungicide) or a 1.5% solution of sodium sulfite (which removes the adhesive egg matrix) did not reduce vertical transmission to fry. Treatment of eggs with a 10% solution of bleach or a proprietary commercial DNA denaturant did not reduce the number of egg-associated copies of the O. ovariae genome. Histology of ovaries of infected fish demonstrated spores within the oocytes. However, no spores were observed by histology in positive fry hatched from infected eggs. The PCR and histological demonstration of the presence of O. ovariae spores in oocytes and fry, and the failure of strong DNA denaturants to reduce egg-associated copies, give evidence that O. ovariae is vertically transmitted within eggs.

Transboundary and Emerging Diseases
An expert-based risk ranking framework for assessing potential pathogens in the live baitfish trade
Margaret C. McEachran,Fernando Sampedro,Dominic A. Travis,Nicholas B. D. Phelps
First published: 09 December 2020

https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13951
Citations: 1

Ovipleistophora ovariae is an obligate intracellular and vertically transmitted parasite, infecting the ovarian tissue of golden shiners, leading to significant declines in fecundity by age-2 (Phelps & Goodwin, 2008). Although O. ovariae is believed to be widely distributed and highly prevalent in the golden shiner supply chain, surveys of wild populations to confirm establishment have not been completed (McEachran et al., accepted), and the parasite remains of concern. Indeed, a previous qualitative risk assessment for golden shiners imported from Arkansas bait producers identified both Asian fish tapeworm and O. ovariae as high-risk

Too many golden shiners GSH are not the only fish that can limit recruitment of desired sport fish. Too many bluegills in a pond will also prevent recruitment of the largemouth. High numbers of green sunfish will severely reduce the amount of minnow, shiner and yellow perch recruitment. Actually too many of out of balance fish species will significantly affect the number of sport fish fry that will survive. I am now thinking that this can be a pro or con based on goals for the fishery.

I had a customers pond that had 0 recruitment over a 2 year period from RES,YP, FHM and GSH due to the GSF in the pond. We ended up rotenoning the pond and starting over due to the GSF. If the customer wanted a LMB pond we wouldn't have killed it but he wanted a pond full of SMB.

Very well put Bill ! Plus, guys, it is not just a question of the eggs/fry being eaten. Once this stage is reached the suppressed fish often don't try to reproduce as it is a futile event.

I think Sunil is spot on with this assessment. Absolute spot on. Also, I do like his approach to minnows in general. Stocking large enough numbers to get good recruitment of fry and/or (in the case of GSH stocking the fry in large numbers). Anyways, with regard to his observation/assessment above ... I would like to share some additional context. I use a probability function to model the probability an LMB will consume a prey item when pursuing the prey item fair chase where the prey item is in healthy condition and acclimated to predators. The function is limited where the probability intersects zero around 5% of the weight of an LMB. IOWs when a prey item is healthy and is conditioned to predation, an LMB just can't subdue and capture it if the prey item exceeds 5% of the weight of the LMB. It is important to note that an LMB can still swallow such a fish but to capture it or slight larger fish they must be unconditioned to predation and/or sick or in the process of dying.

According to the function a 7" GSH has a 1% chance of being consumed when a 18" standard weight LMB pursues it. For a 20.6" standard weight LMB (5 lbs), the probability is about 4%. Prey these sizes are consumed but they do not make up a large percentage of the consumption and once having achieved 7" stand a high chance of surviving to their natural end of life where the cause of being predated is old age and/or sickness. A 7" GSH is very good prey for a 25" LMB but it is not as energetically favorable as a 6" GSH ... when the respective prey densities are equal. To be as energetically favorable, the 7" GSH must be more numerous than the 6" GSH to compensate for the greater level of difficulty the LMB will experience in trying to subdue it.

This is a VERY good example of where book "theory", probability function & other "sit behind a desk" theories vs. actual real world "on the water experience" diverge. I stocked 200-250 GSH that looked like this in my pond.



Absolutely spot on theory and probability function would indicate that ALL of them should survive because there were absolutely zero LMB in the pond that were bigger than 18".

Real world sampling showed that absolutely NONE of them survived more than 4 months in the pond. If they would have died in the pond and not been consumed, at least one would have been seen dead in the pond. Nope, not a one. . The largemouth in the pond were pellet trained, and were eating pellets thrown by an automated feeder 2x per day. The "LMB like to eat fish between 1/4 and 1/3 their body length" statement goes out the window when the fish are soft rayed, fusiform shaped fish. LMB will eat whatever they can fit in their mouth if they are hungry and the opportunity to eat that prey is there.

They were probably very near end of life when you stocked them. 9" is a good sized GSH.

Were I to venture a guess to explain greater resistance of the RES than SMB to GSH predation in fry stages ... it would be these.

SMB are more fusiform (less laterally compressed than than RES). They hatch a little earlier than RES and may not grow any (or much) faster soon after swim-up than RES do. RES may be more fecund and have greater swimup. Shorty's efforts in removing GSH were also probably focused during the time when RES were nesting (something that would provide immediate benefit to RES but would not be soon enough to have benefitted earlier spawns of SMB). Also, the effect on SMB recruitment may benefit RES survival particularly after RES reach sizes beyond the gape of GSH.

FWIW. The gape of an 8" GSH is large enough to accommodate ~0.72" GSH.

"IT DEPENDS"! ! !

Greg Grimes has for years stated that they have trouble establishing GSH in ponds with LMB. While I have seen GSH and some BG overpopulate to the extent that LMB did not spawn. Every pond environment and fish population is different. There is a huge spectrum of outcomes that are widely variable. The factors are many and include population status, stocking plan, mortality, water quality (productivity), latitude, source of GSH, feeding/non-feeding and others. IMO there is no certain rule or outcome to be expected. It just depends.

ewest has a good point of "It Depends". One additional factor IMO affecting predtion of bass to GSH or even other prey species is Water Clarity. I think there are likely certain water clarities that have a big influence on how well a bass can capture prey items. Maybe ewest can search the literature for this topic. Water clarity could explain some of the variability of bass predation success of consuming prey foods. What was the water clarity for the predation probability function of jpsdad's referenced study? I assume the experiment for the probability function was conducted in a tank or aquarium. IMO fish research studies done in tanks are significantly different conditions than are the widely variable environmental possibilities that exist for predation success in 'wild' pond habitats.

For my comment on esshup's large 8" - 9.25" GSH and none survived more than 4 months, is these GSH were likely old near end of life fish as noted by jpsdad. We also have consider how well these GSH endured capture, transport variables, and release. esshup being a fish hauler and seller knows well that a released fish that appears to freely swim away does not mean it will in reality survive.

What happens physically to all old fish as they approach end of life? How does water quality affect their old age physicality? I think the human weakened body condition of old age also affects fish. IMO many of them as older, weak, slower individuals get swallowed if they can be swallowed. I have always wondered what happens to all those end of life short life span FHM that evey one stocks? Forage fishes all tend to have relatively short life spans to a weakened condition compared to the basses and larger predators.

Research says that ponds at capacity generally that if 25% to 30% of pond fish are not harvested each year, those fish will experience some form of "natural' mortality. Harvest them or lose them. Do you have a pond at carrying capacity? Even if the mortality was just 15% - 20%, where are all these dead fish and what happens to all the 25% of 30% of the fishery that dies each year especially if you do not see them floating???

Bill, I agree with all that you said ... but one. You said:


So, I would like to correct. The probability function I use is not from data collected from experiments conducted in tanks and/or aquariums. I inferred the probability function from data collected from field data of DOW's of multiple states. I have referenced this paper many times. Anyone interested can find it by googling "Go big or . . . don’t? A field-based diet evaluation of freshwater piscivore and prey fish size relationships". My probability function was inferred from their findings and is consistent with their findings. It is based on the assumption that the most frequently consumed prey size will be the prey that provides the maximum energy per pursuit.

Although the function pairs with their findings, I will be first to admit that it may be conservative. IOWs the probability of a successful pursuit could be higher than I model. What people will learn about me ... when they get to know me ... is that I am actually a very skeptical person. I frequently challenge my own thoughts about things. I always think I have more to learn and I am constantly amazed of how cock-sure so many others are and their unwillingness to listen, review, and converse about ideas that presently don't agree with. My understanding is moldable, my opinions are moldable, and what they moldable by are good arguments supported by reliable evidence. I am not hell bent on the probability function I use. But I am hell bent on this. LMB cannot consume prey that does not fit their gape (probability is zero) AND prey that just barely fits their gape is much more difficult to consume than prey that is smaller. My thoughts on this is that if people disagree with that ... they are just being unreasonable ... and they can't be reasoned with.

When I first pursued understanding probability of pursuit ... I did so by relating the potential for speed. I had learned that the viscosity of water inhibits the speed potential of organisms. Very small creatures are very limited for speed. So I worked up a theory based on this where the weight of the organism is proportional to its potential for the power(energy rate) required to overcome the friction of water and the friction of the water being proportional to the surface area of the organism. Simplistically, the power is proportional to L^3 while the surface area is proportional to L^2. Because speed would be proportional to power and inversely proportional to surface area resistance ... I could create a rudimentary function:

Speed is proportional to (L^3/L^2) or L

IOWs, the speed of an organism in water is proportional to its L. So, I just related these theoretical speeds of LMB to BG and found the limit at the gape of LMB is around a speed ratio of 4 (LMB 4 times faster than prey). Now keep in mind, this is totally tongue in cheek and even now I am not hell bent on saying that this should be the litmus test of probability of consumption but the linear probability relationship arising from this analysis when multiplied by the weight of the prey produced a curve like was found in the paper. This curve represented the consumption per successful pursuit. The energy per successful pursuit ... if one prefers. If one were to assume that the most frequently consumed prey is the one that provides the most energy per pursuit ... then the most frequently consumed prey would be 1/4 length BG. OK. The study of field samples does not agree with this.

The most frequently consumed BG are ~18.5% the length of LMB (<1/5 proportionately). But if I adjusted the probability function ... I could match theory with the field study. I use that probability function ... more or less ... tongue in cheek.

So let's assume alternatively, that my original speed analysis better represents the actual probability of success. I think many who claim that LMB need 1/4 to 1/3 length BG would better accept my behind the desk analysis (because it better supports their claim) than the field results in the study referenced above.

Here is what I finally decided. It doesn't matter what would maximize the energy per pursuit. What matters is the rate of consumption. What relative weight of prey is consumed on a daily basis ... this is what maintains a fish and helps it grow. Just looking at what maximizes the energy per pursuit ... this doesn't necessarily maximize energy consumed daily. To satiate with 1/4 length prey (the length optimized by my behind the desk theory) the population of 1/4 prey had to be dense enough to provide the encounter needed to provide the pursuits required to meet the satiation ration. So there is a prey density required ... below which ... the probability of successful pursuit ... would prevent consumption of the satiation ration. All that metric (the relative length/weight where energy per pursuit is maximizes) means is that this is the length/weight where the population density is minimized to meet the satiation ration. So we are comparing prey at equal populations when we define optimal sizes in this way.

If instead we compare prey at equal standing weights, a different picture emerges. Smaller prey at the same biomass density have a greater population and thus afford a greater number of encounters and a greater number of pursuits. Of those pursuits, a greater proportion of them are successful. So a fish will consume the satiation ration with less time spent foraging. Naturally, smaller prey are more abundant, and so it is clear to me that there should be no behavior of predators to avoid small prey that are easily consumed in preference for larger fish that provide more energy per pursuit.

In the end, I have come to reject Optimal Foraging Theory, even though it does seem to be apparent. Consuming prey in smaller sizes optimizes consumption but is it the LMB making choices and or having ingrained behaviors? I think not. All of this can be explained by probability of success and the natural populations of consumable forage. In so doing we can also falsify the notion that larger prey are needed to support LMB. This would only be true when the standing weights of smaller prey are too low to provide the needed consumption.