Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations What is the lifespan of a lmb in north carolina?

Northern strain I believe. Original stocking of a new pond in November of 2003. The reason I ask is that I have had 4 lmb of about 6 pounds that all look identical that have passed this year. Has the life cycle ended for this original stocking?

thanks

Interesting question docg. I had no idea so I googled "life span of large mouth bass." I got ranges of 10 to 16 years. One site stated that the northern strain lives longer that FLA strain.

Experts?

I dont know exact percentages, but 10 years is a very long time for a bass to live up here in Illinois. Some do live that long, some even live longer, but by about 7-8 years old most will have died already.

A stocked fish in 2003 could have been hatched in 2003, 2002, or 2001 depending on what size you bought them.

My guess is that most of your original stocked bass are gone by now but there will still be a few hanging around for the next couple years. Usually years 7, 8, 9, and 10 are big transition years for pond fish as the original stocked fish start to die off and the predator to prey relationships start to change.

Anybody else have any observations of how long their original stocked bass lived and what ramifications that had on their overall fish population?

For those who have stocked new ponds originally I am also curious as to what you guys think the average size of your original stocked bass was and also what the average size of their offspring amounted too?

Nate very surprsing dying that early in Illinois. The bass all "grow" the same amount of time. If they are growing 10 months out of the year it is less years than in an area where they grow only 5 months of the year. It is really that simple. I think here in N. GA it would similiar to NC 10-12 years is more the norm. Up north is shorter season 12-15 years more common.

Matt mentioned Doc did any of the bass have a big bluegill stuck in throat, etc. That is strange to lose that many big bass.

I've disected every one of them and their stomachs are empty. One of them was the one I hooked and didn't survive. If I had pics of all of them, they would look identical. Large heads and thinner bodies than I'm used to. I caught a 6 pounder yesterday and was healthy and the one I'm feeding of the end of the pier is eating really good. He just ate this morning. I don't know if culling massive numbers of cc in the past year could have any effect? Greg we definitely put in plenty of cnbg for them to feed on and I've had several big spawns between the bg and the tilapia.

Greg,
In your opinion then, out of 100 original stocked bass how many will typically still be alive at age 8? I would assume that more than half your original bass are dead by age 7 or 8 even down in Georgia. Bass can live easily to 10, 12 and even 15 years, but a majority of the population cannot and typically don't I would imagine.

I would also assume that in a pond type setting mortality would be higher with increased competition for precious resources.

A few points.

TPWD did a 16 year study following LMB in ponds. Yes a few were that old.

One in Conn. (IIRC lived to 23).

Don't deal with average age in LMB because 90 % die in the first year and that skews averages.

Fla LMB live a good bit longer than Northern strain LMB in waters good for both.

In general sportfish we deal with (not trout , WE , YP , Esox) live longer in cooler areas (see Greg's post) but grow slower. They actually have a faster growth ability spurt but it is more than offset by the short growing season (water temps).

In general the written data provide that an old LMB up north is 12-15 and an old LMB in the south is 8-9.

Yep Nate as with any population curve naturally mortaility comes into play. As ewest mentions in established population most die before they have a chance. Kinda like baby sea turtles, most never make it out to sea. However on first year stocking little more predictable. Somewhere around here I have the natural mortality curve for many fish species but being lazy (actually super busy) to look it up. Your correct in that many die over the course of time and not make it to full "normal" life span-good point. I do think you get a good percentage though to adulthood with a new pond stocking program.

Yep, lets just talk about original stocked fish and not reproduced averages....How many of your original stockers would you think would still be alive at age 8 in a typical pond setting?

See this

Can someone interpret those results for me?

Yes. Look at the last column and that is the % of the current population that died that year. For example in yr 1 23.8% of the stocked LMB died. In yr 2 22.3 % of the remaining ( now 76.2 %) original stockers died . So in the first 2 years 40.79% of the stocked LMB died ( 23.8% x 100% + 22.3% X 76.2% = 40.79% ).

JHAP (my numbers guy), or anyone who beats him to it, can you continue Erics interpretations all the way down to age 10 in a format for dummies. Can you do it starting with lets say 100 original stocked fish how many typically will die each year or how many are left out of the original 100 stocked fish each year? I realize this is just an average situation in Texas, but I am interested to see and actually have learned quite a bit just thinking about these numbers.

100 stocked bass originally
76 of them still alive after one year
??? still alive after two years
??? still alive after three years
etc

I used the second year survival rate.

100 stocked bass originally
76 of them still alive after one year
59 still alive after two years
46 still alive after three years
36 still alive after 4 years
28 still alive after 5 years
22 still alive after 6 years
17 still alive after 7 years
13 still alive after 8 years
10 still alive after 9 years
8 still alive after 10 years

This is just one study. Another one might have different outside influences that changes the numbers.

Where is Doc Willis on this stuff?

Yes just one and on Fla LMB in TX for 17 years. I will get out the data and report back.

please do I am very interested. where is mr. willis?

OK, guys, here is the basic lecture on longevity. Across the range of a species, they tend to be longer lived, but slower growing as latitude increases. An 18-in walleye in Kansas reservoirs typically is 3 years of age. In northern Manitoba, an 18-in walleye may very well be 18 years old.

HOWEVER, at any given latitude or general location: slower-growing populations of fish tend to be longer lived, while faster-growing populations tend have lower maximum ages.

Remember, I have to come up with these generalities to teach. However, one can always find specific exceptions.

Does that help? The correct answer, of course is that "It all depends." Ha!! The Pond Boss mantra.

so Dr. Dave would you say my commment on they all "grow" the same amount of time is true?

Cody gets all the pub on the "it all depends" comment but I looked back over my post I have used it on 284 post,

Greg, that's the thought in my mind. They have so much "grow" in them. Do it fast, and life is short. Some people I know have used the term physiological burnout, which I'm sure is not very scientific, but makes sense.

It all depends -- one of our young, assistant profs in fisheries picked up on that. Now the running joke among the grad students is that everything from that professor "just depends." It's spreading!

According to the chart most of the dying happened in the first few years. I hear you on the "grow" aging, but the chart disagrees somewhat. The chart doesn't show sizes though

Hard to imagine the biggest strongest fish dying in the first few years.

I knew this would get me into trouble. Fish do have "L-shaped" mortality curves. They have high initial mortality, and then it slows. When we report annual mortality rates for different populations, we generally just do it for the time period after that high, early mortality. So, Kansas walleyes averaged about 50-55% total annual mortality. About half died each year, whether anglers took some or not (an exception, of course, would be overharvest where anglers took too many, and the total mortality for the year would then exceed 50%). It looks like South Dakota walleyes average about 30-35% total annual mortality. They are slower growing, and tend to have longer lifespans; thus, fewer of them die each year.

Nate, I didn't say dying in the first few years (although I can give you an example). Fast-growing LMB get to 6 pounds in SD in about 8 years. They don't very often live much longer. Moderate-growing LMB get to 6 pounds in about 12 years in SD. They don't often live much longer. Slow-growing LMB probably never get to 6 pounds in a stunted population.

My example of too fast growth = young fish actually dying. When I was a budding young biologist in KS, I inherited a public impoundment in east-central KS. It had been drained to work on the dam. The impoundment bottom was covered by terrestrial plants, of course, when it was re-flooded. Before I got there, they stocked northern pike. Now, the natural limit on northern pike was probably about the Nebraska-Kansas border, so this was south of their "native" range. I sampled in the fall of their second year (so, just finishing their second growing season). Those darn pike were 28-32 inches long (6-9 pounds)! I've never seen anything like that. Pike grow fast in eastern SD, but it's still usually 16-20 inches (1-1.5 pounds) at age 2. I was pumped -- I figured the next spring, we'd have a great spawning stock, and the fishing should be great. Well, we never saw another one of those fish ever again. I never again sampled even one. No angler, to my knowledge, ever caught one. I truly believe they grew too fast, and died young. Smaller pike can handle warmer water than larger pike, and central KS was just too warm for them.

Looks like Dave explained first.

Reply to Nate and others questions:

No that is not true in all respects. Dave is talking in terms of populations generally and not specific fish. Individual genetics and envior make a lot of difference on an individual fish or pond basis. That is one reason the TPWD study chart above , as Nate notes, disagrees somewhat. That is because much of the genetic variation was eliminated from the TPWD study (small genetic source).

Think about what Dave says in this context. People as a population have an average lifespan but some live to 110 and others to 50. Fish the same way. Same with growth in people some big ,some little ,some don't grow until 20ish while others are big at 10 and slow down.

Here is the concept in general each animal species has a metabolic rate (heart rate)that reflects muscle limits (limited contractions and expansions before exhaustion). Both among different species and within a single species the faster it is the shorter the life span (with a few exceptions). If you hurry it up (fast growth) the span goes down on a population basis but not necessarily for every fish or person.

This from the study may help.

Yes, good point for the discussion, Eric. I am always talking generalities, about averages for the population, etc. Any individual fish can do something "wild." It might live very long, very short, grow fast, grow slow, etc., compared to the average for the population in which it lives.