Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations 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?