Pond Boss Magazine
https://www.pondboss.com/images/userfiles/image/20130301193901_6_150by50orangewhyshouldsubscribejpeg.jpg
Advertisment
Newest Members
TriadDawg, space30cowboys, Mark from VA, GeoKuntz, fethiye
18,406 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums36
Topics40,823
Posts556,079
Members18,407
Most Online3,612
Jan 10th, 2023
Top Posters
esshup 28,273
ewest 21,448
Cecil Baird1 20,043
Bill Cody 15,064
Who's Online Now
4 members (Theo Gallus, Bigtrh24, gehajake, MalyWheat), 578 guests, and 225 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 343
D
DJT Offline OP
Lunker
OP Offline
Lunker
D
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 343
Hello everyone. After lurking on the site over a year I have finally registered. Following everything from killer RES, Eddie, Jersey/Posiden & Brettski's grand projects, Cecil growing monster trout in his backyard, droughts, rain dances, copperheaded rattlemoccisons, etc...this site has been a great source of info and entertainment. Especially learning how to make a fish look big in a photo (thanks Bruce). I have also read enough to catch most of the inside jokes that pop up so frequently and maybe even a few that most people miss (for example why Theo named his one eyed catfish Leela {Futurama Fan}). Anyhow here is my question. Will a pond with adequate structure have a better carrying capacity than a identical pond with none or is its only purpose to concentrate fish? Bruce's post in the common question section briefly refers to energy lost in competition for available structure but if they got nothing to fight over does it matter?

Last edited by Bill Cody; 08/18/22 03:09 PM.

Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 121
B
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
B
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 121
i would asume so more habitat for the fish to hide would allow for the pond to reach its carrying capacity and hold it, but to exceed it by much would require additional airation and feeding


0.22 acre dam pond LMB, BG, and CC
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,854
Likes: 1
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,854
Likes: 1
Quote
Originally posted by DJT:
Will a pond with adequate structure have a better carrying capacity than a identical pond with none or is its only purpose to concentrate fish?
That's an excellent question, and one to which I've given a lot of thought.

Carrying capacity is ultimately a measure of available energy--in other words, a pond's ability to gather or receive sunlight, either directly or indirectly. I'd like you to refer to the following post:

When you manage a pond, you're really managing sunbeams. Every fish your pond ever produces, every lily pad that sprouts, every sneaky little screeching frog;.no exceptions. They all came from that carefully managed sunbeam.

In a vacuum, light always travels at a speed of 299,792,458 meters per second. The average distance from the sun to the earth is 150 million kilometers. When light leaves the sun, it takes 8 minutes to speed through space and reach Earth. When the beam of light hits your pond, �let's call him RAY�, it is a packet of energy that will ultimately influence how your pond meets your expectations.

The energy flowing through living organisms starts with sunlight and photosynthesis, then travels through the food chain in bite sized chunks. Primary producers will capture RAY and, through a complicated chemical procedure turn him into usable energy. The animals in your pond called primary consumers, can't do this on their own, so they aren't interested in RAY. They just want to eat who ate him. Secondary consumers eat primary consumers, so RAY moves right on up the chain. Humans can be primary consumers or secondary consumers, but they all rely on RAY as well.

If your pond has suspended silt, RAY hits these little particles, then get sent back out to space. Unless you have a pond on the moon, then this won't help you much. If you have lots of algae, which are primary producers, those near the surface capture and hold RAY, so he can get to you. But if your algae are too thick, some of RAYS friends will get sent to the moon.

A fish is a packet of energy, too. He's a lot bigger packet than a single celled algae, but you can weigh a fish and make a calculation how many sunbeams it took to make him. If you are sending your sunbeams to outer space, then you won't have as many pounds of fish. If you are adding energy into the pond in the form of pellets, you are using RAY'S buddies that landed on someone else's pond or field. Primary producers, like soybeans, may have been a pit stop for RAY. Maybe they landed in the ocean, then became algae, then became a krill, then became a whale, then became a whale poop, then became a bacterium, then became a zooplankter, then became a smelt, then became part of a salmon's spinal chord, then ended in a five gallon pail which got sold to a dude who makes pellets for pond meisters. It still all started with RAY.

Sometimes RAY becomes busy and can't help you. If you love largemouth bass, but the neighbor kid is a bucket biologist who likes to transport brown things with whiskers, then RAY may become occupied for a few years in a bullhead's left eye. If the bullhead dies, then maybe some friendly bacteria will help guide RAY to your biggest largemouth. If you are not lucky, then RAY will go to another bullhead.

Every RAY that's ever successfully met a primary producer in your pond can still be accounted for. If he left the pond, he's somewhere that you could find him. It's fairly easy to guess where he went. He may have been eaten by you. He may have gone through your overflow pipe. He didn't evaporate. He may have left in a kingfisher's body. He's definitely somewhere.

Sometimes RAY enters your pond straight from the sun. Sometimes he hitches a ride on a teeny speck of clay. Maybe RAY had already joined in a great chorus of RAYS in the form of a three inch tilapia. If you could count every RAY in, and subtract every RAY out, that would tell you how many RAYS are left. This number dictates how many pounds of precious fish you have in your pond, be they smallies, bgills, brookies, Tee-Laps, or golden shiners. Every fathead, bigmouth, little redhorse - each and every one owes his existence and thickness to RAY.

RAY is king.


These are examples of a fish community's ability to accumulate energy in the form of fish biomass.

Now, think of the food web, and how the intricate lattice of organisms work their way up the web to your favorite fish. Structure, in the form of let's say, hmmmm, submerged cedar trees, is a substrate for certain key organisms like damselfly larvae. Fish value these sorts of food items, and a properly placed structure may mean that a pond ecosystem is more efficient at moving energy up to your fish. But "efficiency" really isn't your question,is it? wink

If you look at all of the surface area, of all of your pond's substrate, in the form of aquatic plants, and pond mud, you'd be hard pressed to really add to this by putting in some sunken trees and cars and other similar items. So what I'm really getting at is that your pond, if it has lots of structure may get to your carrying capacity quicker, or it may rebound from angling pressure quicker, but it probably doesn't hold more overall biomass, because the sun's net ability to provide energy has changed in only the smallest of ways.

I think structure can be a great thing, but I'd list it's advantages as follows:

1. Concentrates fish for better angling opportunity.

2. Allows your carrying capacity of your pond to better reflect the kinds of fish that you want by providing ambush points (LMB) or hiding areas (FHM).

3. Allows for some micromanagement of environment in the form of shade.

But I'd contend, that as a broad generalization, that the pond's overall biomass, or carrying capacity remains unchanged.

I personally minimize structure because I like to seine my ponds on occasion, and the structure can be a pain in the butt.

Let me make it perfectly clear that I'm not discouraging the use of structure. I use it myself. I just personally believe that there's some misconception out there about your pond having tons more fish because you have placed structure.

Welcome, DJT. It's flattering that you've read so many posts, but it's even better that you decided to join the forum.

Bruce

Last edited by Bill Cody; 08/18/22 03:14 PM.

Holding a redear sunfish is like running with scissors.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,025
Likes: 1
B
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
B
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,025
Likes: 1
Oops! I doubled with Bruce. Welcome, DJT. I think bcm pretty much nailed it. More cover allows more fish to survive and grow in a mixed species scenario. Also, cover provides habitat for organisms that feed the fish. If this is concentrated, then less energy spent. The experts will weigh in.
BTW...If you catch most of Theo's one liners, you are a better man(person) than me. ;\)


Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 343
D
DJT Offline OP
Lunker
OP Offline
Lunker
D
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 343
Wow Bruce you HAVE given it some thought.
(Burger) I could catch at least one more of Theo's one liners if only I had learned Latin.


Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,365
B
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
B
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,365
Structure, in the form of "hiding places", can increase forage population. Some forage (fatheads come to mind) will be eaten to extinction without weeds or cover of some kind. Too much cover can support millions of insects, mollusks, and fish fry, most of which are normally eaten. That will arguably make the sport fish population a little skinnier. So,,, structure can change the *size* and *type* of critters, but doesn't have that great of an effect on the ultimate carrying capacity.

I think an ideal amount of cover promotes diversity without any 1 species starving or over-populating. I think diversity will help you maximize biomass with fewer problems than you have with a less diversified population.

Joined: May 2004
Posts: 13,907
Likes: 263
Moderator
Lunker
Online Confused
Moderator
Lunker
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 13,907
Likes: 263
IIRC Lusk makes a differentiation between "structure" and "habitat."

"Habitat" is the physical entities that fish need to live - spawning beds, places to hide when little, etc. "Structure" is physical entities which concentrate fish in certain locations, but which do not promote greater fish biomass overall - underwater forms, canyons, and rockpiles below the light penetration zone come to mind.

Using these definitions, adding "structure" cannot increase the carrying capacity of the pond; adding "habitat" may do so (if basic needs were lacking ahead of time) or may be used to tailor fish populations toward the manager's goals (adding SMB spawning beds if you desire a breeding population of bronzebacks).

BTW, nice job Bruce, totus populus diligo RAY.

Last edited by Bill Cody; 08/18/22 03:19 PM.

"Live like you'll die tomorrow, but manage your grass like you'll live forever."
-S. M. Stirling
[Linked Image from i.pinimg.com]
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,025
Likes: 1
B
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
B
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,025
Likes: 1
Theo, is correct. Structure is different from habitat or cover. It is my belief that many people, when asking or speaking of structure are actually referring to cover or habitat.


Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,615
Likes: 5
J
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
J
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,615
Likes: 5
Welcome DJT! I'm glad you joined in. It took me quite a while to figure out a third of what was being discussed here let alone joked about. Now I think I'm up to about 57%. \:D Great question!

Bruce great post, that's archive quality IMHO. Theo thanks for differentiating between habitat and structure in a way this bean counter can understand.

So how do plants play into this? I'm thinking that there must be some living beneficial plants that would provide habitat and would also concentrate fish. Would the oxygen production of the plants provide any positive to this equation as opposed to inert structure? Have I missed the whole point? (which is entirely possible).


JHAP
~~~~~~~~~~

"My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives."
...Hedley Lamarr (that's Hedley not Hedy)
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,448
Likes: 257
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,448
Likes: 257
Anyhow here is my question. Will a pond with adequate structure have a "better" [emphasis added] carrying capacity than an identical pond with none or is its only purpose to concentrate fish?

DJT did not ask if it created "bigger" or more carrying capacity.

In a word yes on the first part of the question and no on the second. I may well disagree with some on this point.

The only reason for cover is not to just concentrate fish !!

In many reservoirs as they age woody cover etc is missing through deterioration and those waters become less productive of what the manager/public want. That is fish in a balanced proportion. They may produce other stuff that fills up carrying capacity.

Not to get tangled in definitions. Carrying capacity (amount of productive ability) is a very dynamic and complex concept. It changes based on many things and is not stagnant. In some situations carrying capacity can be tripled by fertilization and quadrupled by adding supplemental feeding. Trophic ability of the water varies greatly and often changes over time. Carrying capacity (except in how that capacity is divided) is usually not a problem in ponds except in those that are managed like an aquaculture operation. Water quality can be a problem unrelated to the degree of carrying capacity in use.

Structure is the contour components of the pond bottom ( rock piles , ditches , humps , points , flats etc) while cover has to do with material which deteriorates over time (usually added by man or nature) like trees , brush , plants or others. So the two overlap and thus cover /structure is used interchangeably by many when used in the context of things we add to a pond. If one adds large rocks to make a pile it is structure and if one adds brush piles it is cover , but both are added enhancements.

http://www.pondboss.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000114;p=1


Crowder and Cooper (1979) developed a
conceptual model which predicts that fish will

maximize their feeding efficiency and growth at

some intermediate level of structural complexity.

Prey availability and vulnerability as related to

structural complexity are important components

of this model. For example, many types of prey

are less vulnerable in dense structure and have low

abundance in structureless areas. Thus, structural

complexity can influence the feeding and refuge

influence of structure. Glass's (1971) results support

this model in that increased structural complexity

reduced both attack and capture rates of

largemouth bass. Savino and Stein (1982) found

similar results in their study. Helfman (1979,

198la) found that shade-producing objects attracted

bluegilis, and he suggested that prey may

use shade to gain protection from predators.


"Variable Effects of Habitat Enhancement Structures across Species and Habitats in Michigan Reservoirs"

Fisheries managers have long recognized the potential

of habitat enhancement structures to attract

and hold fish (Brown 1986). The first state management

agency to document the use of habitat

enhancement structures was the Michigan Conservation

Department, which added brush shelters

and gravel piles to lakes in the early 1930s (Hazzard

1937). Since that time, numerous state and

federal agencies and local organizations have undertaken

habitat enhancement projects in both

freshwater and marine systems using a variety of

materials (Tugend et al. 2002).

Habitat enhancement structures are added to aquatic systems when natural habitat is perceived to be lacking or insufficient (Prince et al. 1977), with the goal of providing additional cover and concentrating fish and so increasing some combination of recruitment, survival, growth, and angler catch rates (Johnson and Stein 1979).

Habitat enhancement structures can produce

these positive effects through a variety of mechanisms.

For example, habitat enhancement structures

have been proposed to increase recruitment

by providing cover for spawning (Vogele and

Rainwater 1975; Hoff 1991; Hunt et al. 2002),

thereby increasing nest density. Nest success may

also increase if structures provide habitat that allows

adults to more effectively protect their young

(Hoff 1991). Structures can also offer refuge from

predation and alter survival by increasing cover

(Bohnsack and Sutherland 1985; Johnson et al.

1988; Moring and Nicholson 1994), providing

shade (Helfman 1979, 1981; Johnson and Lynch

1992), and providing sites for orientation and

schooling (Klima and Wickham 1971; Bohnsack

and Sutherland 1985). Accordingly, prey abundance

in the vicinity of structures may be enhanced

(Wege and Anderson 1979; Aadland 1982; Moring

et al. 1989), in turn increasing the abundance, feeding

efficiency, and growth of predators (Wege and

Anderson 1979; Bohnsack 1989). Habitat enhancement

structures, particularly in the form of

artificial reefs, also have been proposed to increase

public access by making it easier for anglers to

locate fish and to increase angler catch rates by

concentrating fish (Bohnsack 1989).


I submit that the things noted above result in a pond with better and a more utilized carrying capacity for the things most pond owners want , a balanced growing fishery.

Last edited by Bill Cody; 08/18/22 03:33 PM.















Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,587
D
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
D
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,587
Wow. I wish my students would ask and discuss questions as well as you folks here on the Forum!


Subscribe to Pond Boss Magazine

From Bob Lusk: Dr. Dave Willis passed away January 13, 2014. He continues to be a key part of our Pond Boss family...and always will be.
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,854
Likes: 1
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,854
Likes: 1
OK, It looks like it's just a matter of semantics that we're discussing.

Let's assume my definition of carrying capacity for a moment.

My definition of carrying capacity is as follows:


The carrying capacity of a pond is the total combined dry weight of all plants and animals.

This definition can be further broken down into subgroups of microphytic and macrophytic life, as well as vertebrate and invertebrate animal life.

You can even further break that down into largemouth bass or bluegill or gar if you wish.

Kill all the organisms, dry 'em out, and weigh them, and you've got the total carrying weight of a pond. The capacity of this weight is the ultimate amount of weight that can be held in the confines of that system. Hence carrying capacity is maximum dry weight of plants and animals.

I contend that the carrying capacity, as previously, arbitrarily defined by me, is essentially a constant, when defined by a certain amount of available original energy, influenced, or amplified if you will, by the plants ability to turn that energy, by photosynthesis as follows:

6H2O + 6CO2 ----------> C6H12O6+ 6O2

Six molecules of water plus six molecules of carbon dioxide produce one molecule of sugar plus six molecules of oxygen.

I further contend that the carrying capacity of a pond is almost entirely unaffected by the presence of structure or habitat.

Notice I said unaffected by structure or habitat.

Now let's make an analogy.

You own ten identical enclosures. Each enclosure is 20 X 20 feet X 12 feet high. Each enclosure has a trap door in the ceiling.

Within the enclosure you have trapped the following organisms.

1. 10 billion bacteria
2. 100 mice
3. 50 rabbits
4. 10 chimps
5. 2 orangutans

One mile away, you own a fine restaurant, and your specialty is the best soy burger ever invented. Your 'veggie burger' is the toast of the town. You also have in your employ ten couriers, who have nice bicycles to deliver your product around town.

You decide that you're going to deliver a dozen of these delicious veggie burgers to each enclosure every day. The individual courier will open the trap door in the ceiling and drop the veggie burgers into the room.

Your restaurant represents the sun. The couriers represent plant's ability to deliver energy into the system. The occupants of the building represent your live organisms in the pond.

Each courier makes his delivery at each of the enclosure at the same time and drops the food straight to the floor. It's a mad scramble for the food! Bodies and fur flying everywhere! The quickest to the food gorge themselves. Some animals thrive and others get beat out every time. You would find that if you repeated this process everyday, that a hierarchy would develop. Certain animals would always get their share. Some animals would perish. The ones that thrived would defacate and the bacteria would get their share because they're specialists, but certain types of bacteria would do well and others wouldn't.

Im contending that all ten enclosures would end up with similar hierarchies. Certain species would always rise to the top. Some would get their share by jumping to the food as it fell. Others would get their share because of their speed.

One thing would be for certain, though.

The original weight of the animals, plus the weight of the added nutrients in the form of your veggie burgers would be a simple identifiable number. The total dry weight in each room would be the same.

Now let's introduce structure.

Let's say that in two of the rooms you built shelves ten feet off of the floor. When the courier brought his food he would carefully lower the veggie burgers onto the shelves.

This is what structure and habitat do. They change the dynamic of availability.

Now the orangutans have a huge advantage. Their monstrously long arms can reach up to grab the burgers off of the shelves. The mice are probably screwed. The rabbit's speed has been negated.

But you know what?? The total weight of animal mass in these two rooms will stay the same as the rooms without the shelves. It will simply be redistributed. It will still be the added weight of the twelve veggie burgers to the original weight of the animals. Energy and matter work this way. You can't make matter without energy.

From the dictionary:

Conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant, although it may change forms (for instance, friction turns kinetic energy into thermal energy). In thermodynamics, the first law of thermodynamics is a statement of the conservation of energy for thermodynamic systems.
Put simply, The law of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created (made from nothing), or destroyed (made to disappear to no-where) and that energy can be changed from one form to another (such as electrical energy in to heat energy).
You can redistribute, but you can't create.

How can you make one of the enclosures exceed the others?

Well, for one you could provide more veggie burgers to each enclosure on a daily basis. That would be the same as improving the water clarity of your pond. This allows for more sunlight penetration into the system, which is more utilizable energy.

Another way would be to have two couriers take burgers to the enclosure each day. This would be the same as fertilizing an oligotrophic pond so that more plants, in the form of algae are working for you to bring the burgers to the enclosure occupants.

You could also start introducing other food sources like maybe some pasta. This would be like feeding the fish in your pond.

But no matter what you do with the structure, by adding shelves, or dangling the veggie burger off of a string, or hiding it in a box, all you can do is redistribute the available energy. You can't create any new mass.

Now why is this all relevant? Maybe it really isn't at all.

Most people think of increasing carrying capacity as a means to increase the mass of their combined bluegill and bass communities. This is definitely something you can accomplish. If this is your definition of carrying capacity, then you can absolutely do it by creating structures and habitats that favor the species that you like to catch. But every extra ounce of largemouth means one less ounce of something else.

So it really just comes down to what your definition of "carrying capacity" is. Once you've defined that, then you've got something to work with.

In the original carrying capacity thread, we were discussing carrying capacity as it pertains to specific species, and as it is limited by certain factors such as lack of light, or lack of suitable water for a particular fish.

As long as we're talking about carrying capacity of a single desirable species, irrespective of the pond's overall carrying capacity, then I'm on board with the structure as a means of improvement. I love the idea of structure. I can't say that enough. I just wanted to crystalize the discussion a little bit.

Here's the link:

http://www.pondboss.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=22;t=000004

Last edited by Bill Cody; 08/18/22 03:42 PM.

Holding a redear sunfish is like running with scissors.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,448
Likes: 257
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,448
Likes: 257
I understand the "sum of the parts equals the whole, even in changed form" concept very well not withstanding all the chimps, mice and burgers. wink

Carrying capacity: Every water impoundment has a limit of how many pounds of fish it can produce naturally. This is referred to as the carrying capacity. The carrying capacity can be altered and depends on the level of management one is willing to apply to meet specific stocking objectives. The manipulation of fish, the habitat or both is called management. The lowest level of management is the production of fish based upon a pond/lake's natural carrying capacity. Production can be increased by supplementing the food chain, such as feeding a commercial fish feed and/or providing increased oxygen through aeration for higher demands and so on.


A given body of water "IN ITS CURRENT STATE" has a biological capacity to produce. This is not carrying capacity as used in fisheries science i.e. standing crop (the amount of fish the water will grow "in its current state"). A pond usually does not produce at its biologic rate long without a collapse an implosion. You can't run an engine at full speed for long without a problem. Most bodies of water run at only a % of biological capacity yet they still have a carrying capacity as defined by Fisheries Science. In a given body of water , as is, and at its normal % of its biologic productive rate, you can have X lbs of fish. You can pick up an added increment of production out of that spare capacity (still staying below 100%) by a number of ways (one of which is proper structure) depending on that body of water. See the study in my first link above.

Further water "in its current state" can and is often changed. The change is not adding energy but is making the available energy more efficient. It is done by adding the elements that are missing from the water which caused the water to not be able to produce (grow fish) at its top rate. In that body of water in its current state it has a carrying capacity of X lbs of fish , but in its changed state,, energy use is greatly enhanced and the water will support 4X lbs of fish.

There is a discussion/application of carrying capacity in this SRAC fact sheet on trout farms and benefit of water renewal to increase carrying capacity.
https://fisheries.tamu.edu/files/2019/02/SRAC_0222.pdf

How about them apples ? !!

Last edited by Bill Cody; 04/20/23 05:49 PM.















Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,854
Likes: 1
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,854
Likes: 1
I love them apples. \:D

Great post, ewest!

I surrender my sword. :p


Holding a redear sunfish is like running with scissors.
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 969
T
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
T
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 969
Id say its archive time "very good" Thanks DJT for starting this thread.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,934
Likes: 2
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,934
Likes: 2


Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,854
Likes: 1
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,854
Likes: 1
If you made the brain on the left 25% smaller, then it would be mine.


Holding a redear sunfish is like running with scissors.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,025
Likes: 1
B
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
B
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,025
Likes: 1
topic by Bruce, requoted by ewest "I understand the "sum of the parts equals the whole, even in changed form" concept very well not withstanding all the chimps, mice and burgers." Well...I can see I'm held in high esteem.

\:\)


Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 343
D
DJT Offline OP
Lunker
OP Offline
Lunker
D
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 343
I must say this discussion has far exceeded my expectations. I now see that it is important to be specific in how questions are worded. I am guilty of using "structure" as sort of a catch all term for anything like rockpiles, pallets, brushpiles, pvc trees, Sunil mounds, Condellominiums, Robbie the robots, etc but I like that we have differentiated them and I will try to use the specific term in the future. Also I was thinking of carrying capacity in terms of pounds of fish and not total pounds of all organisms. I do know that the type of cover, habitat, structure can greatly influence where that wieght will be held. Be it in young BG, large bass, gambushia or whatever.


Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,854
Likes: 1
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,854
Likes: 1
Now you're obligated to hang around for a while DJT, especially with such a good signature line.

Sometimes I create a post, and I look it over, and then I say "Does anybody actually read this stuff?"


Holding a redear sunfish is like running with scissors.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 343
D
DJT Offline OP
Lunker
OP Offline
Lunker
D
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 343
I mulled over what to put for a signature for a while. Maybe sometime I will start a post of all the ones that didn't make the cut and let people use them if they wish(minus my fee of course) ;\) .


Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,448
Likes: 257
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,448
Likes: 257
I wrote a long post about how what Bruce said was right about the biological energy process and how important that is to understanding ponds. Also that I had the definitions from Fisheries Tech. 2nd and Trophy Bass so I knew the definitions said at a given point and condition. The computer ate my long post. frown

What Bruce went over is correct with his definition. It describes the total of biological processes correctly with a static carrying capacity. The pond process is however never static for long ,it is dynamic with many variables. Still though energy in has to equal energy out in one from or another. I also agree with Bruce that a pond will not have tons more fish because you have placed structure, unless it is a very very big lake.

What adding cover/structure in the proper amount and method will do is increase some combination of recruitment, survival, growth, and angler catch rates and thus let you make better use of the energy and carrying capacity in your pond to meet your goals of a better fishery. However fertile good quality water and the forage base ( including supplement feeding ) are much bigger factors at increasing the effective use of potential carrying capacity.

Burger (with a capital B) you are held in high esteem. A lot higher than the soy burgers Bruce was giving his theo-retical mice , chimps and rabbits. laugh

Last edited by Bill Cody; 08/18/22 03:49 PM.















Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,615
Likes: 5
J
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
J
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,615
Likes: 5
Wow after reading this thread three times I think I actually understand!


 Quote:
Originally posted by Bruce Condello:
If you made the brain on the left 25% smaller, then it would be mine.
I don't know about that Bruce. I can tell you done some serious book learnin. \:D


DJT, I give you 5 stars for:
1. Starting such a mind bending discussion.
2. Spending time reading the board to get acclimated. (I did the same thing)
3. Joining right in.


JHAP
~~~~~~~~~~

"My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives."
...Hedley Lamarr (that's Hedley not Hedy)
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,448
Likes: 257
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,448
Likes: 257
 Quote:
Originally posted by jeffhasapond:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bruce Condello:
[qb] If you made the brain on the left 25% smaller, then it would be mine.
I don't know about that Bruce. I can tell you done some serious book learnin. \:D


And has a LOT of practical hands on experience which he shares with us !! \:\)

Please ignore any comments Bruce makes in which he belittles his brain , knowledge , efforts , thoughts, ideas etc. as they are merely his genetic humbleness trait being exhibited . \:\)
















Joined: May 2004
Posts: 13,907
Likes: 263
Moderator
Lunker
Online Confused
Moderator
Lunker
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 13,907
Likes: 263
He'd be perfect if he'd get over that false modesty.


"Live like you'll die tomorrow, but manage your grass like you'll live forever."
-S. M. Stirling
[Linked Image from i.pinimg.com]
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Today's Birthdays
barny, davidlarson, jcummings122
Recent Posts
6 acre, LMB, Rainbow, specks, sunfish
by gehajake - 02/24/24 02:26 PM
New pond middle TN: establishing food chain?
by BJ Nick - 02/24/24 01:33 PM
Congratulations Bob Lusk!!
by teehjaeh57 - 02/24/24 01:17 PM
Caloric Densities for bass forage
by jpsdad - 02/24/24 10:13 AM
Dissolved Oxygen under ice, longer days
by Tinylake - 02/24/24 07:13 AM
Fish delivery SE Michigan
by Dergib - 02/23/24 09:43 PM
HB George
by Dave Davidson1 - 02/23/24 09:36 PM
Sludge floating in pond
by Mark from VA - 02/23/24 08:54 PM
Pond liner for Redneck Pool
by FishinRod - 02/23/24 05:04 PM
Leasing Fountains
by Justin W - 02/23/24 01:04 PM
Kubota, LS, Branson & Mahindra Tractors
by Dave Davidson1 - 02/22/24 10:00 PM
Raft gardening on my ponds
by Dave Davidson1 - 02/22/24 09:15 PM
Newly Uploaded Images
Eagles Over The Pond Yesterday
Eagles Over The Pond Yesterday
by Tbar, December 10
Deer at Theo's 2023
Deer at Theo's 2023
by Theo Gallus, November 13
Minnow identification
Minnow identification
by Mike Troyer, October 6
Sharing the Food
Sharing the Food
by FishinRod, September 9
Nice BGxRES
Nice BGxRES
by Theo Gallus, July 28
Snake Identification
Snake Identification
by Rangersedge, July 12

� 2014 POND BOSS INC. all rights reserved USA and Worldwide

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5