While the topic is about Female Only with TP as primary forage the thought of reproducing lepomis has not escape my attention. Given the strength of the TP as a fractional spawner capable of producing a generation of reproducing offspring one doesn't need BG to support the LMB females. But one would want different forage species to fill the gap from winter die off until fry or TP adult additions the following mid to late spring. Water temps are lower during this period and the demand for forage would not be as high as during the growing season. I am thinking other lepomis could fill this gap and what would be ideal are species that fill the gap but not much more. This species should not be prone to over production and not accumulate very large standing weights (we have TP for that).
If you do a google on "Standing weights Oklahoma ponds" you will find an interesting study where biologists determined the population structures of 42 ponds. One of the metrics they determined was percentage of weight in harvestable sizes. The order of the winners in this category were first-CC, second-LMB, third-WM, and fourth-RES. The percentage for RES was 52%, for WM was 73%, for LMB was 82% and finally CC at 100%.
Considering the proportion of harvestable weight (translates to fun fish to catch) what seems key to this metric is relatively low rates of reproduction. Maximum standing weight for RES was 160 lbs and for WM was 120 lbs which contrasts with BG with standing weights as high as 472. I find these two species the most interesting to fill the gap after TP die off in the winter.
Were I to worry, it would be that with a population of very large LMB ... would smaller versions of these fish tend to pile just 3" where most are picked off by LMB as they break this threshold .... or ... would they reproduce at low enough density so as to make good growth with 100 or so surviving to 6" annually. The latter would be ideal where the former may not sustain sufficient recruitment to maintain the lepomis population at optimum levels. Its untested but may have potential and may actually be better in combination than the two separably. The WM with their big gape may serve as crowd control for the RES and help them attain the optimum forage length of 4" by their first fall. Just a really interesting prey fish combination for filling the gap left by TP while potentially providing a vibrant pan fish fishery as well. In combination with TP, I think they would help to make the TP more accessible to hook and line in comparison to BG (BG seem to be quicker than TP at getting to a baited hook making fishing for TP somewhat difficult when they are present). Just thinking .....
Last edited by jpsdad; 11/03/20 01:12 PM.
