3 of 58 . Bill check your email. Keep in mind what these were written for readers. Not sure these answer any applicable questions but are for info only.


Survival, Growth, and Food Habits of Walleye X Sauger Hybrids (Saugeye) in Ponds
WILLIAM E. LYNCH JR and DAVID L. JOHNSON
School of Natural Resources, Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Management, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210
SCOTT A. SCHELL
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, 360 E. State Street, Athens, Ohio 45701
Abstract
The saugeye (F1 hybrid of female walleye [Stizostedion vitreum] X male sauger [Stizostedion canadense]) was evaluated in Ohio ponds (0.29-0.37 hectares) for 3 years. Saugeye were stocked (mean total length = 34 mm) on 30 May 1979. First-summer survival estimates ranged from 0 to 81%. The lack of survivors in two of the four ponds was attributed to predation by largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus). Growth in two ponds was good (mean total length = 195 mm and 214 mm) despite the presence of dense aqaatic macrophytes. Mean total length at the end of the second year varied little (approximately 284 mm) and growth was slow due to low abundance of prey. Mean total lengths at the end of the third summer were 351 mm and 400 mm in two ponds. Minimum survival rates from July 1980 to November 1981 in two ponds were 57 aud 24%. Saugeye were exclusively piscivorous and ate fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas), golden shiners (Notemigonus crysoleucus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and green sunfish. Our results indicated that saugeye readily adapt to pond environments and show promise as a large percid for small impoundments.

Habitat Preferences, Survival, Growth, Foods, and Harvests of Walleyes and Walleye × Sanger Hybrids
BARRY L. JOHNSON, DAVID L. SMITH, and ROBERT F. CARLINE
Ohio Cooperative Fishery Research Unit,3The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
Abstract
We compared habitat preferences, survival, growth, foods, and harvests of stocked walleyes Stizostedion vitreum and walleye ♀ × sauger S. canadense ♂ hybrids in Pleasant Hill Reservoir, Ohio. Both fishes were stocked at similar rates and sizes (about 40 mm mean total length) in late May or early June 1979–1982. Neither group showed consistently better survival. Growth was similar until age 2. Thereafter, hybrids grew faster than walleyes. Age-0 walleyes occurred mostly over fine substrates in early summer and coarse substrates by fall. Habitat selection by age-0 hybrids was similar to that of walleyes, except hybrids preferred finer substrates in fall. Older hybrids and walleyes moved offshore at temperatures above 22°C. Diets of both fishes were similar, but hybrids ate more littoral fishes, whereas walleyes ate more pelagic fishes. Age-1 and older hybrids and walleyes ate mostly invertebrates in spring. Age-0 gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum were the most important prey for all ages of both groups. Hybrids and walleyes were caught by anglers in proportion to their abundances and contributed most to the fishery at ages 1 and 2. Hybrids have the potential to breed with either parent species and may introduce new genetic material into existing walleye or sauger populations. Data from our study and other Ohio waters show that hybrids can support important fisheries, particularly in tailwaters, and may be more successful than walleyes in impoundments with short water-retention times.

Development and Evaluation of
a Bioenergetics Model for Saugeye
RICHARD D. ZWEIFEL*
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Inland Fisheries Research Unit,
10517 Canal Road, Hebron, Ohio 43025, USA
ANDREW M. GASCHO LANDIS
1
The Ohio State University, Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology,
Aquatic Ecology Laboratory, 1314 Kinnear Road, Columbus, Ohio 43212, USA
R. SCOTT HALE
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, 2045 Morse Road, Columbus, Ohio 43229, USA
ROY A. STEIN
The Ohio State University, Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology,
Aquatic Ecology Laboratory, 1314 Kinnear Road, Columbus, Ohio 43212, USA

Abstract.—We parameterized and evaluated a bioenergetics model for saugeye (walleye Sander vitreus 3
sauger S. canadensis) by using laboratory experiments in an effort to improve predictions of prey
consumption. First, we measured daily prey consumption rate and growth of age-0 and age-1 saugeyes fed
two daily rations (ad libitum and 50% of maximum) at five temperatures ranging from 108C to 288C.
Additional experiments quantified routine respiration rates and waste losses for three ages of saugeye (ages 0,
1, and 2) at five temperatures ranging from 108C to 288C. Mean daily rates of prey consumption (g _ g_1 _ d_1)
by saugeyes increased from 108C to 258C, declining at 288C. Respiration rates (g O2
_ g_1 _ d_1) increased over
the entire range of water temperatures. Waste losses were minor for saugeyes as egestion averaged 3.5% of
consumed energy and energy lost via excretion was 4.5% of assimilated energy. We evaluated the accuracy of
bioenergetics model predictions of saugeye prey consumption using daily prey consumption and
corresponding growth data from our first set of experiments. Model estimates of prey consumption rates
(g _ g_1 _ d_1) closely followed observed trends, providing reasonable estimates of cumulative prey
consumption across temperature and fish size. The saugeye model provided improved estimates of
consumption compared with a model published for walleyes (Kitchell et al. 1977), especially when water
temperatures were in excess of 258C. The differences we observed in predictive performance between the two
models resulted from higher thermal optima for saugeyes compared with walleyes, and waste constants for
saugeyes were two to three times lower than those calculated from the walleye model. These differences may
largely be responsible for the walleye model’s overestimation of consumption. Saugeye thermal optima are
warmer than those of either parent species, and saugeye is better suited for warm, productive midwestern U.S.
reservoirs. The saugeye model developed herein will improve the ability of managers to more accurately
predict the consumptive demand of in situ saugeye populations and better tailor stocking rates to match
available prey biomass.