Pond Boss Forums Thread Like Summary - Questions and Feedback on SMB

For a little background before the questions.

Bill Cody and Dave Willis co-authored and independently authored some very informative articles on SMB. One which I found interesting was one where SMB were not stocked with other sport fish. Research on SMB monoculture was studied by Buck and Thoits and their conclusion was that of all the fish studied (SMB, LMB, BG, YP, BBH, WCP) SMB had the greatest potential for harvestable crops. They found that ponds could be cropped such that annual crop would exceed the winter carrying capacity. No less than three attributes contribute to this potential. Three that come to mind are modest reproduction, cannibalism, and a broad trophic exploitation. By the latter I mean that foods that are sub par for LMB are exploited efficiently by SMB. So these include insects and other invertebrates. The solo SMB is "kinda like" its own combination of predator and prey. Of the six species studied, only the predators SMB and LMB could stand alone as self sustaining systems for growing harvestable fish. We now know, of course, that predators are keystones to diverse communities and so Buck and Thoit's findings on monocultures should fit within the importance of predation.

So despite the SMB's potential in combination with invertebrates and their offspring as forage, we can think of combinations with a forage fish that might enhance SMB growth and ultimate size by providing additional high quality fish forage. RES seem to have proven to fill this niche. On the other hand, WIllis and Cody mention that BG, GSF, redbreast sunfish, crappie, gizzard shad, bullhead catfish, and Orange Spotted Sunfish are detrimental to SMB. So this brings me to the first question.

Why are OSS detrimental to SMB?

All of the detrimental fish came as no surprise to me save for one. The Orange spotted sunfish in most populations has a mean length between 2" and 3" in length and very rarely achieves a length greater than 4". They also tend to die in only 3 to 4 years and so the question is ... for what reasons would the OSS be detrimental. Are they not good forage, so prolific that they outcompete the SMB for invertebrates, or perhaps do they interfere too much with SMB on their spawning beds? In Oklahoma, one study found that the OSS presence was positively correlated with higher LMB standing weights. So I am wondering what dynamic is working there.

Could SMB benefit from a very limited number of LMB?

So in keeping with the SMB as a stand alone reproducing sport fish, there are opportunities to add other non reproductive fish in small quantities as bonus fish. So ideas around this theme may be positively sexed BG or YP of sufficient size to escape predation, or perhaps a predator like HSB or LMB where the latter are positively identified females. So along this theme, the idea is a ladder where LMB are stocked at a rate of 3 (1 year old females/acre) every 4 years. Would the smaller SMB provide acceptable forage for LMB to grow at reasonable rates? Would the SMB require too much energy in capture to be good forage, for example. At this low stocking rate, could the SMB reproduce sufficiently and would the increased growth of surviving SMB be sufficient so as to not diminish the annual crop of SMB?

What are best reproducing forage fish (not sport fish) to introduce for the benefit of SMB?

So along this theme what may represent optimum? I know some members have had good success with GSH but what are your thoughts about whether it they are an optimal forage? But do they get too large, for example, to be optimal? Snipe has introduced RSH and BNM and has observed reproduction in a pond already stocked with fish. Many ponds can also sustain populations of Gams. Are they large enough to represent optimal forage? Can a combination of these smaller minnows contribute as much usable forage as can GSH?

" Prey that can persist without extirpation, that remain small and vulnerable to predators throughout life, have high reproduction rates, produce large crops of offspring relative to their standing weight, exploit lower trophic levels, and have short spans of life that turnover the population are what I would consider "ideal" for this purpose."

I like this. This is also one of the reasons I felt the Red shiner would fit well. They seldom achieve a size larger than 3" but have the same body mass as a slightly larger GSH without the potential of outgrowing the predator and turning the table as GSH do.
I have many thoughts on this but am enjoying the reading too much at this point. :-))

When you re-read you will notice I didn't say that "BG don't make LMB bigger". I said ''with BG there are fewer LMB where some attain much larger ultimate weight". The distinction is this. Having larger LMB doesn't make the standing weight or the carrying capacity of LMB larger. The thing to keep in mind is that most of the biomass of BG are too big for most LMB to eat. The sheer horde of them eat every other thing the LMB might otherwise eat. What the BG do is provide as much food as the LMB would otherwise get without them with one major difference. The food is mostly in the form of fish rather than a combination of fish and invertebrates (where fish are higher quality feed). BG are so competitive with YOY LMB that they reduce LMB recruitment. Reduced LMB recruitment and more fish in the diet of LMB allow LMB attain greater individual sizes when BG are present but it doesn't substantially increase the carrying capacity nor standing weights of LMB.

Last year just feed a low quality food periodically 4-5 times a week, Plan on High Quality feed with Automatic feeder this Spring. Just a "Broke Teacher" here, Thanks guys, I try to keep my eye on it closely. There have been some Hiccups, but things are headed in the right direction.