|
Forums36
Topics42,113
Posts571,659
Members19,114
| |
Most Online13,012 Jun 7th, 2026
|
|
|
2 members (DrLuke, Theo Gallus),
951
guests, and
71
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2025
Posts: 21 Likes: 9
|
|
Joined: Jun 2025
Posts: 21 Likes: 9 |
As the title says, 2 of my larger, shallower ponds have substantial mussel populations.
Good, bad or indifferent?
Thank you,
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,555 Likes: 411
Moderator Lunker
|
|
Moderator Lunker
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,555 Likes: 411 |
Pretty much indifferent to me.
It's not about the fish. It's about the pond. Take care of the pond and the fish will be fine. PB subscriber since before it was in color.
Without a sense of urgency, Nothing ever gets done.
Boy, if I say "sic em", you'd better look for something to bite. Sam Shelley Rancher and Farmer Muleshoe Texas 1892-1985 RIP Grandpa
|
|
1 member likes this:
3pondsinMaine |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,914 Likes: 1004
Lunker
|
|
Lunker
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,914 Likes: 1004 |
Mussels are filter feeders, so a substantial population will make your pond water more clear during blooms. That can be a positive or a negative depending on your goals.
Mussels can be a vector during the life cycle of certain parasites. Do you ever observe any grubs on your fish?
I assume you are too cold for RES in your ponds. I can't remember, do you have any pumpkinseeds? I doubt they can wipe out your entire population of mussels, but it might not hurt to add pumpkinseeds, or manage your existing pumpkinseeds to get some large ones, to reduce your population of mussels. (As long as that does not interfere with your main goals for your ponds.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2025
Posts: 21 Likes: 9
|
|
Joined: Jun 2025
Posts: 21 Likes: 9 |
I've caught fish out of pond 1 and pond 2. In pond 1, in May, right after ice out, I caught many "sunfish". I stood there on the edge of the pond trying to internet search some comparison pics to identify what I was catching. They looked most like GS to me and that would make sense for the situation, so that's what I assumed. Now, I looked at a dozen comparison pics, you think I took any pics of those fish? Ughh. But, there seemed to be about 1/3 of them that were much more red. I thought maybe RES, but the more I read and learn, that seems, as you point out, unlikely. When I'm there, I have little time to fish, but when I spotted BRKT swimming in pond 2, I made it a point to catch one and I got 3. Along the way, I caught many PS. which look exactly like the pictures. Did not however, catch any that I would say were the ones I caught in pond 1. As for pond 3, it's physically just like pond 2, but about 20% smaller. Visibly, I think I see BRKT, sunfish, and something else "minnowy" which are also in pond 2 Heading up this week with a minnow trap. Should be interesting to see what I get! Eventually I'll be able to spend the time to better understand exactly what's there. For now, I need to do a better job of cataloging what I do catch lol. Appreciate all the advice.
Last edited by 3pondsinMaine; 09/01/25 06:11 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,914 Likes: 1004
Lunker
|
|
Lunker
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,914 Likes: 1004 |
3ponds,
Your abbreviation of BT might be confusing.
The acronym guide for Pond Boss recommends: BRKT for brook trout, and BRNT for brown trout.
Have fun sampling your pond, I frequently trap things I did not expect.
I do sometimes catch green sunfish in my minnow traps - even with pretty small entrance holes.
The people on the forum that trap frequently to sample their sunfish, usually use larger traps, like z-traps and some other configurations.
For proper identification, you will probably need to post some really good pictures. Many of the sunfish look very similar to my non-expert eye, and they also like to hybridize. The males can even change their appearance quite a bit just based on the time of year.
Good luck!
|
|
1 member likes this:
3pondsinMaine |
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 2,386 Likes: 416
|
|
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 2,386 Likes: 416 |
Below is Swingle's experience with one species of mussel over a 6 year study: 2.1.3 Fish and freshwater mussel
Other animals may be combined with fish in stocking to obtain higher total protein production. An edible soft-shelled mussel, Lampsilis claibornensis, was introduced into bluegill-largemouth bass ponds to determine if it could be successfully cultured along with fish. This mussel was used fried or in soups and considered to be a desirable species for this purpose. Production of mussels (including shells) per ha in a 12-month period was as follows:
Unfertilized - - - - - - - 58.2 kg Fertilized - - - - - - - - 1010.2 kg
The mussel was stocked into an 0.8-ha pond along with a standard stocking of per ha of 2500 bluegills, 1250 redear sunfish, and 250 largemouth bass. Mussels became very abundant over the pond bottom and were harvested for a period of 5 years along with the fish. At the end of the 6th year, the pond was drained with the following recovery per ha.
Total fish 464..4 kg Total mussel meats 399.6
The total weight of mussel plus shells was 1270.8 kg per ha, of which the shucked weight of meats was 31.5 percent. In addition to the fish re-covered on draining, an additional 139.7 kg per ha had been removed by fishing. The average standing crop of fish where no mussels were present was 316.6 kg per ha (Swingle, 1961). In this case the presence of mussels appeared to increase fish production. It is postulated that the apparent increase was real and probably caused by cleaner water resulting from the filtering action of the 49,440 mussels per ha distributed over the pond bottom. Their combined effect in filtering out the detritus and organisms upon which they feed should have helped to reduce the waste materials that are limiting factor in fish production. The effectiveness of these and other animals in maintaining cleaner pond waters should be a rewarding field of research.
It is noteworthy that the difference in production obtained from Congo and Java tilapia receiving daily feeding, as mentioned in Section 1.1, appeared to depend upon their relative ability to maintain clean water. The Java tilapia feed upon artificial feeds, decaying organic matter, their own feces and upon plankton. Consequently, they can be fed at a high daily rate because the pond bottom and waters are kept clean.
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,914 Likes: 1004
Lunker
|
|
Lunker
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,914 Likes: 1004 |
Amazing results in that study, jpsdad.
I would have guessed that it would be very difficult to have a thriving population of mussels in a pond with RES.
It appears that they may have stocked the mussels and the fish at approximately the same time, so they were all getting "established" simultaneously?
Unsurprising though, that actual studies are better than my guesses!
The very large total biomass of aquatic "flesh" was the most surprising result to me. The life cycle of all of the many, many plants and animals (including insects) certainly create a more complex web of interconnections than we can easily observe.
I wonder if the clearer water also allowed for more sunlight to reach the autotrophs that make up the base of the food chains in a pond?
Further, I believe all of the state biologists hate the invasion of zebra mussels in our large reservoirs. Now that is has been well established over a decade in many locations, I wonder what their fish population surveys are showing as the response? I suspect their professional journal publications may have some interesting articles.
Last edited by Bill Cody; 09/02/25 03:46 PM. Reason: well established
|
|
1 member likes this:
4CornersPuddle |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 573 Likes: 161
|
|
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 573 Likes: 161 |
Do mussels have a life stage that is beneficial to fish? Maybe a larvae that is fed upon by minnows or bluegill? Any time energy is converted to fish it's a good thing.
19 acre watershed pond LMB, BC/WC, Bluegill, Crawfish, GShiners
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 2,386 Likes: 416
|
|
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 2,386 Likes: 416 |
Amazing results in that study, jpsdad
Further, I believe all of the state biologists hate the invasion of zebra mussels in our large reservoirs. Now that is has been well over a decade in many locations, I wonder what their fish population surveys are showing as the response? I suspect their professional journal publications may have some interesting articles. Regarding, the RES. I am sure they were consuming mussels when mussels were small enough. They reach a size however, that are too large for RES to consume. In the later years, I suspect that fewer and fewer mussels were being recruited each year due to competition for food by the large standing weight of mussels. Catchscratch, to what extent mussels provided food for the RES? I don't know. It seems plausible that RES faired better in ponds without mussels ... IF ... snails were more abundant when mussels were absent. I'll not venture a guess. FishingRod, I think it seems very intuitional that before Swingle performed his study, many would have bet that results would have been the opposite. Seems to make sense that supporting a large standing weight of mussels would remove energy from the food web available to fish. And yet there appeared to a be a benefit. This benefit may have been what Swingle suggested, OR, it may be multifaceted. For example, their presence may benefit periphyton production. Their presence on the bottom, does increase bottom surface area and provide substrate for periphyton and habitat for organisms. I don't know. Also, if the water is clearer, it may reduce foraging energy expenditures making foraging more efficient for fish. I don't know. But this much I can say, I have yet to find any study documenting that native mussels are detrimental to fish. So I posted Swingle's findings so that people may not be discouraged by their presence in their ponds. The biggest problem is the potential for cutting the feet of barefoot swimmers, IMHO. One species, is called the heel splitter, I presume because its shells have been documented to split heels. Regarding invasive mussels, they are impacting food webs and restructuring them. Such an effect is called a trophic cascade. In the end, the effect for fish standing weights may be positive. This seems to be the case for Lake Erie. But just keep in mind that trophic cascades reshape the community and that in this reshaping there are winners and losers. Some losers could be extirpated if they are not able to adapt. There will always be costs to some and benefits to others. The same is true of introducing native mussels to your pond. The food web will be different with them than without them. But the energy available for retention in stocked fish combinations does not appear to be negatively impacted by the presence of native mussels. In Swingles study, there was a 46% increase in fish standing weights associated with their presence.
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers
|
|
1 member likes this:
FishinRod |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,993 Likes: 1496
Moderator Ambassador Field Correspondent Lunker
|
|
Moderator Ambassador Field Correspondent Lunker
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,993 Likes: 1496 |
Freshwater Mussel Summary Information Most freshwater mussels in the USA are riverine (moving water) mussels and prefer coarse sand and gravel substrates, in slow to moderate current velocity, at depths ranging from one to 30 feet.
However three mussel species living in Maine lakes and ponds and many other northern lakes (e.g., eastern floater, eastern elliptio, and eastern lampmussel in Maine) typically do not show a strong habitat preference. In general, they are numerous in sand, gravel, and cobble substrates in shallow waters (< 30 feet), and tend to avoid deep water and soft silt (Cvancara 1972, Ghent et al. 1978, Nalepa and Gauvin 1988). Some species, such as the eastern floater, have thin shells and can inhabit soft silt. Some species, such as the eastern floater, plus four other 'floater species' have thin shells and can inhabit soft silty bottoms.
The mussel that lives in my pond is the Giant Foater (Pyganodon grandis aka Anadonta grandis). It is one of the most widely distributed and common species in the middle and eastern US and Canada. It occurs in the Mississippi, Great Lakes, and Hudson Bay drainages. Also occurs in the Gulf of Mexico drainages of Louisiana and Texas. It is introduced and spread to some waters via the glochidia as an immature host on stocked fish. P. grandis is reportedly a host generalist of numerous fish species, thus it is very widespread in both rivers, reservoirs, and ponds. Giant floaters are a Habitat generalist that is able to tolerate ponds, lakes, and rivers of various sizes. They are usually found in soft or muddy substrates and it is Very tolerant of low oxygen. Moving fish from a mussel inhabitated pond, stream or river to your pond can introduce the attached "glochidia" from the host fish. If conditions are right, the glochidia developes into the miniature mussel specie and then drops off the fish and can survive, thrive and develop as a reproducing population in your pond. This how they arrived in my pond - from selected minnows from the local creek that has some Giant Floaters. .
BENEFITS FW mussels have the ability to filter water; a lot of water daily. Particulate sizes filtered are generaly around 0.002mm to 1mm or more larger sizes.
Compared to the volume of a lake, an individual mussel filters a tiny amount of water annually. However, the cumulative filtering capacity of an entire mussel community can be quite remarkable. The mussels’ filter feeding removes a large quantity of suspended material from the water column — including bacteria, plankton, very tiny particulate organic material, and inorganic materials — and does reduce turbidity in some situations (Strayer et al. 1999). Most of these nutrients are quickly released back to the aquatic environment by biodeposition and excretion. Biodeposition is the release of feces or pseudofeces (material released before it is digested), whereas excretion is the release of dissolved inorganic nutrients such as ammonia. Freshwater mussels can have a significant influence on nutrient cycling in aquatic systems by converting food resources into forms readily assimilated by other animals and plants
Typically, individual mussel filtration rates range from 0.5 to 1.25 gallons of water per hour as 12 to 30 gallons daily depending on the size of the individual (Kryger and Riisgard 1988). The native mussel community in Lake St. Clair (a minor Great Lake) filtered 1.4–5.3% of the total lake volume per day, depending on the season (Vanderploeg et al. 1995). After the exotic zebra mussel reached maximum densities of over 5000 individuals per square meter, it was estimated that the entire volume of the lake was filtered 1 to 2 times daily (Hebert et al. 1991)! James (1987) estimated that the population of 10.9 million mussels in a small New Zealand lake (88,600/ac) had a profound effect on nutrient cycling. The population removed an estimated 1200 pounds of particulate nitrogen, 170 pounds of particulate phosphorus, and generated nearly 300 pounds of ammonia-nitrogen annually — in a lake with a surface area of only 123 acres. This equates to 9.75lbs nitrogen, 1.38 lb phosphorus and 2.44lb of ammonia-nitrogen per acre per year.
The movements of freshwater mussels across the bottom sediment may have an important effect on the benthic environment of aquatic ecosystems. By moving horizontally and vertically through the sediment, they “stir up” the sediment and enhance the exchange of important elements (e.g., oxygen and nutrients) between the water column and the substrate (McCall et al. 1979, Nalepa et al. 1991). Freshwater mussels also affect other qualities of the substrate, including retention of organic material, substrate heterogeneity, and sediment porosity (McCall et al. 1979). In this regard, mussels perform a function similar to that of earthworms in your garden — just as earthworms contribute to the quality of the garden soil, mussels contribute to the quality of the substrate on the bottom of a river, lake or pond. Some scientists have found that freshwater mussels actually promote the diversity and abundance of other aquatic organisms by improving local conditions (Sephton et al. 1980)
Freshwater mussels are eaten by a number of invertebrate and vertebrate predators (Fuller 1974). Flatworms, leeches, and crayfish are able to eat small juveniles. There are some fish that are predators of freshwater mussels, including carp, sturgeon, shad, freshwater drum, catfishes, sunfishes, and suckers (McMahon 1991). Some gut contents of yellow perch from Lake Erie contain small zebra mussels (personal observation). Most fish cannot eat mussels larger than a half-inch long.
Impairments to mussel growths or development are heavy metals and many organic chemicals that can accumulate in the tissue of freshwater animals (Elder and Collins 1991, Metcalfe-Smith 1994, Walker and Peterson 1994, Metcalfe-Smith et al. 1996, Keller and Lydy 1997, Anderson et al. 1999), yet we do not know what the long-term consequences are for freshwater mussel communities. I wonder about the health of mussel communities or their ability to reside in ponds where frequent use of heavy metal copper based algaecides have been used and the copper based metal accumulates in sediments of those ponds.
Excellent Advanced Reading https://www.maine.gov/ifw/docs/Nedeau,%20E.J.%20et%20al.%202000.%20The%20Freshwater%20Mussels%20of%20Maine.pdf
Last edited by Bill Cody; 09/02/25 08:20 PM. Reason: Improvements
aka Pond Doctor & Dr. Perca Read Pond Boss Magazine - America's Journal of Pond Management
|
|
5 members like this:
jpsdad, J. E. Craig, 4CornersPuddle, FishinRod, 3pondsinMaine |
|
|
Moderated by Bill Cody, Bruce Condello, catmandoo, Chris Steelman, Dave Davidson1, esshup, ewest, FireIsHot, Omaha, Sunil, teehjaeh57
|
|