mu PGPU‘LATmNS ANDMANAGEMENT ; . '-  5 " :75;

PROBLEMS EN MICHIGAN ARTI'HCIAL .

PONDS OF VARIABLE DESIGN _

mesh for the Degree of M. S.
MICHEGAN STATE UNIVERSITY.
PATRICK J. RUSZ
197,5

......

-----
......

v

.....
.....

'''''
oooooooooo

"o ...........

""""
vvvvvvv

 

-.
'7

P.
u

‘14? _ M “‘83.

Ail-A)

.‘ ,1

“Mn-c-“ --~-~r<.~ my
' ' I
§

£3

.1

I ‘ ; 2’." h. v.
' up .a. I Jf-nul r
Ea.
‘t

3‘.~’o -. .L'x JQ""—o}\"‘ .M.cb‘m2'

 
 
 
 

     
     
     
 

V.
.-

amm 1‘
H0“ G “3*
‘ 800K BINDERY INC.

‘ L'BRARY BINDEF 3
SPRsfifiPORI. MIOUIGII
» 5:2”, 1“; ~ _, ‘5}

ABSTRACT

FISH POPULATIONS AND MANAGEMENT
PROBLEMS IN MICHIGAN ARTIFICIAL
PONDS OF VARIABLE DESIGN

By

Patrick J. Rusz

This study was conducted in the Saginaw Valley, Michigan to in-
vestigate: (1) present status of artificial ponds as recreational
fisheries; (2) nature and frequency of management problems; and (3)
relationships of certain aspects of pond design to fish populations.

Interviews were conducted with 60 pond owners. Thirty-three
percent of the ponds were located on farms. Fishing and swimming were
by far the leading purposes for building the ponds, as well as the
most frequent uses. Sixty percent of the owners stated that they were
generally satisfied with their ponds; however, only 8% felt they had
no major management problems. Excessive algal growth, stunted fish,
and trespass were the problems most frequently listed by owners.
Twenty—seven percent of the owners had stocked their ponds with trout;
of these, only 18% harvested any of the fish. Poor success with
trout was probably due largely to shallow depth in many of these
ponds. Other pond and owner characteristics and management problems
are listed and discussed.

Fish populations were sampled in 25 ponds. Age and growth data,
p0pulation and standing crop estimates, bluegillzlargemouth bass
ratios, and percentages and standing crops of catchable-size gamefish

are given. Variability among ponds in regard to these fish

Patrick J. Rusz

population parameters was pronounced. Standing crops ranged from.99l
to 0.0 kg/hectare.

Results cast suspicion on the merits of the largemouth bass-
bluegill CGMbination in such ponds. Undesirable results included
low standing crops and densities of catchable-size fish, poor growth
of both largemouth bass and.bluegills, and poor reproduction of bass
in.many ponds. Nine of 20 inventoried ponds previously stocked with
this caMbination contained no catchable-size bluegills, and 9 con-
tained no catchable-size largemouth bass. Growth of both largemouth
bass and especially bluegills, as compared with stateawide averages,
was slow in most ponds.

Linear step-wise multiple regression analyses of ll fish popula-
tion parameters on 6 pond variables (maximum.depth, mean depth, sur-
face area, age of the pond, soil type, and bottom type) explained
21% to 731 of the variability in the fish population variables. Mean
depth appeared to influence fish populations more than did any other
pond variable. Mean depth.was positively correlated with total
standing crop, standing crop of catchable-size gamefish, population
density of bluegills, and population density of catchable-size
largemouth bass. Relationships among other variables are delineated

and discussed.

FISH POPULATIONS AND MANAGEMENT
PROBLEMS IN MICHIGAN ARTIFICIAL

PONDS OF VARIABLE DESIGN

By

Patrick J. Rusz

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

1975

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my graduate committee: Dr. Eckhart Dersch,
Dr. Howard Johnson, Dr. Eugene Roelofs, and Dr. Ray J. White for
their help and guidance. While serving as my major professor, Dr.
White obtained funding for the study through the Agriculture EXperi-
ment Station, Michigan State University, and offered valuable advice
and assistance.

I am grateful to Mr. Barry D. Floyd who assisted with computer
analyses of data.

I am appreciative of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
for helping obtain fish.from the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries and Wild-
life for stocking ponds reclaimed with.rotenone.

I am indebted to the many pond owners who submitted to inter-
views and allowed their ponds to be studied.

I would also like to thank my wife, June, for her patience, help,
and moral support.

Lastly, I wish to thank Rick.and Jerry Rusz for their invalua-

ble help in collecting the field data.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA AND PONDS . . . . . . . . . 3
MODS O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6
Interviewing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Fish Population Sampling . . . . . . . . . 7
Determination of Age and Growth . . . . . . . . 9
Determination of Pond Dimensions . . . . . . . . 10
Statistical Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 2

Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
History of pond construction and.management . . . 12
Owner expectations and satisfactions. . . . . . l6
Pond use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Management advice sought . . . . . . . . . 17
Owner characteristics . . . . . . . . . . l7
Pond prdblems perceived by owners . . . . . . 17

Fish Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Me md Growth . C C . . C . C O . . O O O 21

Relationships Among Pond Characteristics and
Fish Population Parameters . . . . . . . . . . 26

Total standing crop . . . . . . . 26
Standing crop of catchable-size gamefish . . . . 26
Percentage of total standing crop as

catchable-size gamefish . . . . . . . . . . 26
BG: LMB ratio . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Population density of BG . . . . . . . . . 30

iii

Population density of IMB . . . . . . .
Population density of catchable-size LMB . . .
Population density of catchable-size BG . . .
Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Relationships among fish population variables .

DISCUSSION

Interviews of Pond Owners . . . . . . . . .

Fish Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Management Implications . . . . . . . . . . .
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX A: Estimates of numbers and biomass of largemouth

APPENDIX B:

APPENDIX C:

APPENDIX D:

APPENDIX E:

APPENDIX F:

bass by size class in 15 inventoried ponds
(Tables M-MS ) o o o o o o o o o 0

Estimates of numbers and biomass of bluegills
by size class in 17 inventoried ponds (Tables
Bl-BlT ) o o o o o o o o o o o o o

Biomass estimates of fishes (excluding blue-
gills and largemouth bass) in 1h inventoried
ponds (Tables Cl-Clh) . . . . . . . .

Average total lengths and weights at capture
and back-calculated total lengths at annulus
formation for largemouth bass in sampled
ponds (Tables D1-Dl9). . , . . . . . .

Average total lengths and weights at capture
and back-calculated total lengths at annulus
formation for bluegills in sampled ponds
(Tables El-E22) . . . . . . . . . .

Owners and locations of the 25 ponds in which
fish populations were sampled . . . . . .

iv

Page
30
30
3O
31
31
32
32
33
37

39

Al

55

72

80

92

108

12.

13-

LIST OF TABLES

Physical characteristics of the 25 ponds in which
fish populations were inventoried . . . . . . .

Dates of fish sampling in 25 ponds . . . . . .

Percentages of pond owners who built their ponds
for various purposes (n=h5) . . . . . . . . .

Percentages of ponds used for various purposes
according to the owners (n=60) . . . . . . . .

Frequency of occurrence of various problems in 60
artificial ponds as perceived by the owners . . .

Variation among measured.maximum pond depths and
estimates of owners in 25 ponds . . . . . . .

Frequency of occurrence of fish species in 25 ponds .
Standing crops (kg/hectare) of fishes in 20 ponds .

Standing crop (kg/hectare) of catchable-size
gamefish in 20 ponds . . . . . . . . . . .

Population densities of largemouth bass and blue-
gills in 20 ponds previously stocked with these species

Averages of mean total lengths and weights at
capture and.mean back-calculated total lengths at
annulus formation for largemouth bass in

sampled ponds. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Averages of mean total lengths and weights at
capture and mean back-calculated total lengths at
annulus formation for bluegills in sampled ponds . .

' 2
Coefficients of multiple determi ations (R ) and
coefficients of determination (r ) of independent
variables (X) affecting various dependent variables .

Page

13

1h

15

19
2O

22

23

2h

25

25

27

Table Page

1%. Significant correlation coefficients (r) between
independent and dependent variables . . . . . . 28
15. Significant correlation coefficients (r) between
selected variables . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Al—AlS. APPENDIX A: Estimates of numbers and biomass of
largemouth bass by size class in 15 inventoried
Ponds (Tables Al-A15 ) o o o o o o o o o o o ’41

Bl—B17. APPENDIX B: Estimates of numbers and biomass of
bluegills by size class in 17 inventoried ponds
(Table 3 Bl-BlT) o o o o o o o o o o o o o 5 5

Cl—Clh. APPENDIX C: Biomass estimates of fishes (exclud-
ing bluegills and largemouth bass) in 1% inven-
toried ponds (Tables Cl-Clh). . . . . . . . . 72

D1-Dl9. APPENDIX D: Average total lengths and weights at
capture and.back-calcu1ated total lengths at annu-
lus formation for largemouth.bass in sampled
ponds (Tables Dl-Dl9) . . . . . . . . . . . 80

El-E22. APPENDIX E: Average total lengths and weights at
capture and back-calculated total lengths at annup
lus formation for bluegills in sampled ponds (Tables
El-E22). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

F1. Owners and locations of the 25 ponds in which fish
populations were sampled . . . . . . . . . . 109

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Comparison of growth rates of 14-year-old large-

mouth bass and bluegills from sampled ponds with
state-wide averages from Laarman (1963) . . . 3’:

vii

INTRODUCTION

According to officials of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
(SCS), 20-30 thousand artificial ponds have been constructed in Mich-
igan. The question arises whether many of these ponds have lived up
to the expectations of their owners in regard to recreational fish-
ing.

For many years, the wide application of common pond management
guidelines to different locales has been practiced in the United
States. Many of these guidelines have been developed from studies by
Swingle (1950), Moss and Hester (1956), and other authors of the south-
eastern U.S. Ball (1952) stated that data originating in the South
may not be applicable to artificial ponds in Michigan in regard to
fish stocking, and Regier (1962a), Bennett (1971), and others have
discussed many of the problems resulting from regional policies and
standards.

Management standards followed by SCS in Michigan include advoca-
tion of the largemouth bass-bluegill combination, and various specifi-
cations for pond design. The unpredictability of the largemouth bass-
bluegill combination in northern waters has been cited by several
authors (Bennett, 1971; Krumholtz, 1952). No data from Michigan's
privately-owned artificial ponds have been published in fisheries
literature. The study by Ball (1952) was conducted in experimental

ponds under controlled conditions.

Biologists and administrators from several agencies receive many
requests for aid in solving management problems from pond owners in
various areas of the State. One such area is the Saginaw Valley
where this study was conducted to investigate: (1) present status of
artificial ponds as recreational fisheries; (2) nature and frequency
of management problems; and (3) relationship of certain aspects of

pond design to fish populations.

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA AND PONDS

The study area consisted of the Swan Creek and Bad River drain-
age basins of Saginaw County, Michigan. Saginaw County is located in
the east-central portion of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The
county is part of the Saginaw lowland, a smooth low-lying plain, un-
derlain by unconsolidated clayey till of the Wisconsin glaciation
(USDA, 1938). Soils are intricately mixed in small bodies and drain-
age is slow in most of the study area.

According to USDA (1938), the salient features of the climate
are long cold winters, mild summers, and well distributed moderate
precipitation. Average annual precipitation is 35.8 in. The average

difference between winter and summer mean temperatures is about h5 F;

the mean frost-free season is 157 days.

All ponds in the study area were constructed by excavation; all
but two with a drag-line. Mbst of the ponds are less than 100 ft
wide, owing to the 50—ft span of the drag-line equipment. SCS ass-
isted in the development of many of these ponds; thus their influence
on design was substantial. SCS specifications for pond depth, basin
slope, site location, and fish stocking were followed in most cases.

0f the 25 ponds whose fish populations were sampled, 2h had been

stocked with 100 largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and 500 blue-

 

gill (Lepomis macrochirus) fingerlings per acre.1 Owners Obtained the

fish from the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries and Wildlife. The owners in-

troduced additional fish and fish species into a number of the ponds

lHereafter, the abbreviations LMB and BG for largemouth bass and
bluegills respectively, will be used.

in subsequent years and/or the fish entered accidently, as by overflow
of nearby ditches or via trespassers. Ten of the 25 ponds were locat-
ed on farms, the remainder in rural—suburban areas.l Owners and loca-
tions of ponds are listed in Appendix F.

Aquatic vegetation ranged from absent to very abundant with Chaps
sp. the dominant form. Table 1 lists physical characteristics of the

25 ponds in which fish populations were sampled.

A farm.was defined as a parcel of land containing more than one
acre of cultivated cropland and/or grazing area for livestock.within
the last 10 years.

Physical characteristics of the 25 ponds in which fish pop-

ulations were inventoried.

TABLE 1.

 

 

Percent Clay

Soil of

 

Age
(Hectares) (Years)

Area

Mean

Maximum

Pond Depth (m) Depth (111)

Surrounding Soil of

Pond Bed

Area

 

0000000000000000000000000
00057 100 000 5 00 00
11.1. 11 111 ll 1.].

988666h57h326529263556 986

1 ll 33 2 2

71.2510/02069332215873018992

0h233l2222053526232925001

))\I’\’)))))))))))))))))))))

773M99167IQ/hh 91502230922193

0000000000000000000000000

56 768665776 77756659857h8 9
((E(((((((((((((((((((((

81207797hh0.“..2359968862389

1222221122222211112212122

a )\|l\ll\ll) ‘11)) \II)) \ll)) )))
)0o00000)0.0o5)005)))00nUo)\IIOOS
5 00 0 o 055 o 0 55 o 0
28331 551 091 o . 13/0. . 259.—
al.11111911191118891118911.l.

((E((I\(((((((((((((I\((((
3750 0‘4866 58 18 556 9.4 0 0697169

23Eh32hh323532223h5223h3

123h567890123h567890123h5
1111111111222222

 

8Numbers in parentheses are feet.

METHODS

Interviewing

 

A table of random numbers was used to select 60 pond owners for

canvassing by personal interview. The interviews were to gain informa-

tion on:

(1) history of pond construction and management; (2) owner

expectations and satisfactions; (3) pond use; (h) management advice

sought; (5) owner characteristics; and (6) pond problems perceived by

owners .

10.

ll.

12.

13.

The following 18 questions were asked:
In what year was your pond constructed?
How many owners has the pond had?

Did you originally buy your land with the idea of creating
a pond later?

Could you recall for me why you first wanted a pond?
Did it live up to your expectations?

Do you feel that you have any problems with your pond? If
so, what are they?

Have you attempted to improve your pond since its construc-
tion? (For example by fertilization, weed control, addi-
tional digging, etc.)

Has upkeep or repair been necessary? If so, what kind?

If you were to create your pond again, what would you do
differently?

Approximately how many fish were stocked in this pond?
When? What kinds? What sizes?

Have you noticed any fish die—offs in your pond? If so,
when? What kinds? How often?

What do you now use or value your pond for? List as many as
you'wish.

Which of these is the main use or benefit to you?

1h. Do persons outside the family use the pond? Public? Invi-
ted guests? For what activities?

15. Is there any conflict of interest within the family about
use oI'management of the pond?

16. What sources of advice or information have out sought in re—
gard to your pond? If you were to seek information, what
sources would you choose?

17. To what extent would you allow your pond to be studied? I
will list alternatives.

. Depth measurements and surface area measurements.

Samples of water.

Netting with fish returned alive and unharmed.

Entire fish population removed and subsequent restocking.

#‘UOI'DH
I.

18. What is your age and occupation?
Fish Population Sampling

Based on information from pond owners and from my personal ob-
servations, ponds were divided into strata (for sampling purposes)
according to depth, soil and bottom types, and age of the pond. A
table of random numbers was used to select ponds by proportional al-
location for fish population sampling.

Fish pOpulations were sampled by either seining or rotenone
poisoning. Sampling dates are listed in Table 2. A 100 x 8—ft bag
seine with 3/8-inch mesh was used. Removal of some of the cork floats
and addition of weights on the lead line allowed seining down to depths
of about 1h ft. As most of the ponds were less than 100 ft wide, sein-
ing encompassed the entire area of the ponds in which population esti—
mates were made. Six seine hauls were usually made over the entire
pond area on each sampling day. Population extimates were made by
the Petersen method, according to the formula Nggi where N is the

p0pulation present, m is the total number of marked fish at large,

TABLE 2. Dates of fish sampling in 25 ponds.

 

 

 

Pond Date (197%) Pond Date (197A)
1 June 2h-25 1h July 2h-28
2 June 25-26 15 July 25-26
3 June 28-29 16 July 29-August 2
A July 1 17 July 31-August 3
5 July 1-2 18 August 5-6
6 July 3-h 19 August 7-11
7 July h-s 20 August 8
8 July 8-9 21 August 19
9 July 10-11 22 August l9-2h
10 July 15-19 23 August 20
11 July 17-21 2h August 22-23
12 July 18-22 25 August 23

13 July 22-23

 

c is the total sample taken, and r is the number of marked fish in c.
Fish were marked by clipping the upper portion of the caudal fin,
and recapture seining was done the following day. Population esti-
mates were computed for l-cm size intervals for LMB and BG; estimates
of other species were subdivided into S-cm size groups. Scale samples
were taken from LMB and BG for determination of age and growth.
Rotenone was used in 7 ponds (with permission of the owners)
where it was thought that seining would be inefficient or yield un-
reliable estimates. Pilot tests with the seine in ponds having sub-
merged brush or substantial populations of fishes adept at avoiding
capture (e.g. carp) indicated that poisoning was needed in such ponds.
Prior to poisoning in the first 3 ponds, 100-200 fish of various
species were marked and released so that recovery rates could be de-
termined. In each case recovery of marked fish.was complete, so this
procedure was abandoned for the A subsequent ponds which were poison-
ed. Poisoning was confined to periods of extremely warm weather
(mid-day air temperatures exceeded 90 F) to facilitate rapid recovery
of fish. Extensive snorkel diving revealed few fish.which sank to

the bottom and failed to surface within 3 days.

Determination of Age and Growth

 

Scale samples from LMB and BG were processed for determination
of age and growth. Scale impressions were made with a roller press
on unheated plastic and examined with the aid of a projection appar-
atus. Back-calculations of previous years growth were made by a com—
puter program.modified from Hogman (1970). The values for the con—

stants (intercepts) used in the calculations were taken from

10

regressions incorporating data from all ponds. These "a" values

were substituted into the equation:

Lx = SRx (Lo-e)
SRc

 

where Lx is the calculated length at annulus fomation, SRx is the
scale radius (magnified) at that age, Lc is the total length at cap-
ture, and Site is the scale radius (magnified) at capture. Regier

n n
a

(1962a) found errors induced by the use of average values to be

negligible and the scale method valid for BG from New York farm ponds.
Determination of Pond Dimensions

Measurements of surface area, maximum depth, and mean depth were
made for each of the 25 ponds in which fish populations were sampled.
Bottom type and soil type in the catchment basin were determined and
quantified according to the percentage of the area covered by clay.
Age of the pond was considered the number of years since the pond

filled with water.
Statistical Analyses

Confidence limits for population estimates obtained.by the
Petersen method are based on the binomial distribution. Ricker (1937)
states that when the r/c ratio is less than 0.05 the Poisson distri-
bution is appropriate; values above 0.05 (as in estimates in this
study) warrant use of the bionomial distribution. Standard errors of
population estimates were computed by the formula of Robson and

Regier (1958):

S.E.(N) = N/(N-m)(N-c)

V mc(N-1)

11

One-way analyses of variances were computed according to Snedecor
and Cochran (1967) for growth data for age—I—IV LMB and age-II-VI BG.
Age-I BG were not considered due to the variability induced by dif-
ferent spawning times. Other age groups were excluded due to small
numbers of fish and/or ponds involved.

Other results presented in this study were derived by linear
step-wise multiple regression analyses of 11 fish population paremeters
on 6 pond variables according to the method of Draper and Smith (1966).
The 11 fish population parameters were: total standing crop (Y1);
standing crop of catchable-size gamefish (Y2); percentage of the
total standing crop as catchable-size gamefish (Y3); the ratio of the
number of BC to the number of LMB (Yh); population densities of BC

(Y5) and LMB and (Y6); population densities of catchable-size BG

(Y7) and catchable-size LMB (Y8); total length of age-II and age-IV

LMB at formation of last annulus (Y9 and Y10, respectively); and

total length of age-II BG at formation of last annulus (Yll). The

6 independent variables were maximum depth (X1), mean depth (X2),
surface area (X3), age of the pond (Xh), soil type (X5), and bottom
type (X6). Arithmetic-to-arithmetic analyses of Y's on X's were fitted
by computer at the Michigan State University Computer Center utilizing
the MSU STAT System. In this algorithm, variables are deleted from

the equation in accordance with a preset level of significance. In
this study, two regressions--one withD(=.05 and the other with 0(=.10

were calculated for each Y.

RESULTS

Interviews
Tables 3-5 summarize information obtained by interviewing owners
concerning reasons for creating the ponds, uses, and management prob-
lems. In addition to these data, several other points were brought
to focus by the interviews and personal observations.

History of pond construction and management. Eighty-five percent

 

of ponds whose owners were interviewed were constructed within the last
20 years. The oldest pond was 76-years-old. This pond was dug by
hand-shovel in 1898 while removing clay for use as brickAbuilding mat-
erial. The history of several ponds could not be traced due to fre-
quent changes in ownership. Seventy—five percent of the ponds had had
only one owner. Only 2 of these owners had originally bought their
land with the idea of creating a pond later.

When questioned as to what they would do differently if recreating
their ponds, h8% of the owners said they would make their pond
deeper (increasing both mean and maximum depth). Twenty—five percent
said they would make it larger. Two owners said they would create a
sharper-sloping basin to discourage growth of rooted hydrophytes.
One owner would choose a different site for the pond to try to avoid
mid-summer drop in water level. Thirty-six percent of the owners said
they would do nothing differently, and one owner said he would not cre-
ate a pond at all owing to increased property tax after construction of
the pond.

All owners said that they had tried to improve their pond since

its construction. In some cases, these efforts centered around

12

13

TABLE 3. Percentages of pond owners who built their ponds for
various purposes (n=h5).

 

 

 

Purpose Percentage
Fishing 69
Swimming 52
Other forms of recreation 27
Removal of fill material 23
Wildlife viewing 12
Irrigation 10
Esthetics 8
Livestock watering 7
Provide fish for stocking purposes 2
Water for concrete-making 2

For something to do 2

 

1h

TABLE h. Percentages of ponds used for various purposes according

to the owners (n=60).

 

 

Percentage of Ponds

Percentage of Ponds
in Which This Use

 

Use Used for This Purpose Was the Main Use
Fishing 76 32
Swimming 61 17
Esthetics 27 8
Ice skating l6 0
Wildlife viewing 13 10
None 10 10
Irrigation 10 8
Picnicking 6 6
Livestock watering 5 2
Water skiing 1 0
Snowmobiling 1 0
water for concrete—making 1 1
To provide fish for stocking
purposes 1 1
Removal of fill material 1 l

 

15

TABLE 5. Frequency of occurrence of various problems in 60 artificial
ponds as perceived by the owners.a

 

 

 

Prdblem Frequency of Occurrence (%)
Excessive growth of algae 27
Stunted panfish l8
Trespassing 17
Excessive growth of aquatic weeds l3
Abundance of rough fish 10
Disappearance of stocked trout 8
Fish refuse to bite 5
Poor growth of LMB 5
Shallow depth 5
Winterkill 5
Disappearance of LMB 3

Failure of Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service to prOVide 3
promised funds

Basin sedimentation 1
Pollution from coal mine drainage 1
Pollution from high iron content 1
in soil

Loss of water in summer 1
Littering l
Muck bottom 1
Muskrat damage along shoreline l

 

aEight percent of the owners felt that they had no major problems
in regard to their ponds.

16

regular upkeep (mowing grass, picking up litter, etc.). Only 3 owners
had enlarged the surface area of their pond since its construction.

Approximately 70% had added small numbers of fish taken from var-
ious waters by angling to their ponds. No owners regularly restocked
their ponds, however. One owner attempted to reduce numbers of stunt-
ed bluegills by exploding dynamite in his pond. None of the 25 ponds
in which fish populations were sampled received plantings of LMB or
B0 subsequent to initial stocking (at least to the owner's knowledge).

Twenty-five percent of the owners had attempted to control algae
and/or rooted hydrophytes—-h with chemicals and 11 by dragging home-
made devices (bed frames, logs wrapped.with.barbed wire, etc.) along
the pond bottom. The latter method, according to the owners, was es—
pecially effective in controlling gh§£§_sp. Dragging was less suc-
cessful in controlling other forms of filamentous algae.

Only 2 owners stated that there was conflict of interest within
the family about management of their ponds. In both of these cases,
conflict centered around methods of controlling stunted populations
of bluegills. While owners favored poisoning, other members of the
family objected to this method.

Owner expectations and satisfactions. Despite the numerous man-
agement prdblems listed by owners in Table 5, 60% stated that they
were generally satisfied with their ponds. Only 8%, however, felt
that they had no major management problems.

Pond use. A variety of reasons were listed by owners as to why
they built their ponds, with fishing (69%) and swimming (52%) the lead-
ing purposes by far (Table 3). Sixty-five percent listed.more than

one reason; 97% of ponds created for recreation were intended for more

17

than one use.

According to many owners, large numbers of people make use of
their ponds. Twenty-three percent said they grant permission for rec-
reational use to anyone requesting it. An additional 63% said they
allow invited guests, friend, and relatives. Fourteen percent res-
tricted use to their immediate family. Several owners indicated re—
luctance to let others use their ponds, owing to fear of liability for
injury or drowning. This apprehension was also evident in regard to
trespassers.

As indicated in Table h, fishing was listed as the main pond use
by 32% of the owners. Ten percent of the owners, however, now have
no use for their ponds. In the case of each of these owners, their
ponds were created for purposes other than recreation, such as remov-
al of fill material.

Management advice sought. Fifty-seven percent of interviewed ow-
ners had sought help from the Soil Conservation Service, 20% had con—
tacted the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, but 37% had not
sought advice from any source. One owner had received information re—
garding a fish-feeding program from Purina Company.

Owner characteristics. Thirty-three percent of the ponds whose

 

owners were interviewed were located on farms; the remainder in rural-
suburban areas. Only four owners were full-time farmers. Owners in-
cluded factory laborers, morticians, doctors, businessmen, forestors,
teachers, and many others. Ages of owners ranged from 29-81 years—old;
hlfl were more than 50 years-old.

Pond problems perceived bygowners. Table 5 lists problems per-

ceived'by owners. Excessive algal growth, stunted fish, and trespass

18

were the problems most frequently listed by owners.

Trespass was considered a major problem by 17% of the owners for
several reasons. Trespassers were blamed for introducing undesirable
fishes into ponds, overfishing of gamefish, littering, and vandalism.
Neighborhood children were frequently cited for "stocking" ponds with
rough fish Obtained from nearby ditches and creeks.

Twenty-seven percent of the interviewed owners had stocked their
ponds with trout; of these, only 18% harvested any of the fish.

A large percentage of owners overestimated the maximum depths of
their ponds (Table 6). In 10 of the 25 ponds where depth was measured,
the owners overestimated the maximum depth by 33% or more. The mean
difference between actual and estimated maximum depth was 3.5 ft which
was statistically significant 0x-.001).

Only 2 owners refused permission to sample fish populations in

their ponds. Ten gave permission for rotenone poisoning (with restock-

ing).

Fish Populations

A total of 27 fish species were found in the 25 sampled ponds.
Frequencies of occurrence are listed in Table 7. BG and LMB c0rinhab-
ited 2O ponds; 5 ponds contained these two species only.fl Despite in-
tensive seining, no fish were captured in pond 21. According to the
owner, a complete winterkill had apparently occurred during winter
1972-73. The pond had previously been stocked with LMB and BG.

Total standing crops and standing crops of catchable-size

19

TABLE 6. Variation among measured maximum pond depths and estimates
of owners in 25 ponds.

 

 

 

 

Owner's
Estimate of Measured Error of Owner's Estimate

Pond. Max. Depth (ft) Max. Depth (ft) (ft) (%)
l 8 7.5 +0.5 +6.7
2 12 12.0 0.0 0.0
3 16 18.0 —2.0 -11.1
h 15 13.0 +2.0 +15.h
5 15 13.0 +2.0 +15.h
6 12 11.0 +1.0 +9.1
7 12 13.0 -1.0 -7.7
8 12 9.0 +3.0 +33.3
9 16 15.0 +1.0 +6.7
10 13 11.0 +2.0 +18.2
ll 15 9.0 +6.0 +66.7
12 18 10.0 +8.0 +8o.o
13 18 19.0 -1.0 -S.3
1h 25 11.5 +13.5 +117.u
15 10 8.0 +2.0 +25.0
16 12 8.5 +3.5 +h1.2
17 20 9.5 +10.5 +110.5
18 17 11.0 +6.0 +5h.6
19 16 13.0 +3.0 +23.1
20 17 16.0 +1.0 +6.3
21 11 8.5 +2.5 +29.h
22 17 9.5 +7.5 +79.0
23 22 12.0 +10.0 +83.3
2h 16 15.0 +1.0 -6.7
25 20 12.0 +7.5 +6o.0

 

20

TABLE 7. Frequency of occurrence of fish species in 25 ponds.

 

 

 

 

 

Species Number of ponds
Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) 22
Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) 19
Pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus)’ 10

 

Yellow perch (Perca flavescens)
White crappie (Pomoxis annularis)
Black bullhead (Ictaluru§.melas)
Carp (Cyprinus cagpio)

Green sunfish (Lepomis c anellus)
Northern pike (Esox lucious

Rock bass (Agbloplites rupestris)
Brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus)
Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)
White sucker (Catostomus commersoni)
Golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas)
Central mudminnow (Umbra limi)
Spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius)
Fathead.minnow (Pimephales promelas)
Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum)
Blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus)
White bass (Morone Chrysops)

Johnny darterfi(Etheostoma nigrum)
Bluntnose minnow (Pimphales notatus)
Goldfish (Carassius auratus)
Riverchub (Hybopsis micropogon)
Redear sunfish (Lepomis microlgphus)

 

 

 

 

FJIHIJIJ F'F’F‘F‘U)U)U)U)U)thrV10\~J-J-JCDVD

 

21

gamefish for individual ponds are shown in Tables 8 and 9.1 Popula-
tion densities for LMB and BG and numbers of BG/LMB are listed in
Table 10. Population and biomass estimates for LMB and BG by size
class are presented in Appendices A and.B. Appendix C shows biomass
estimates for other species.

In addition to pond 21, no BG were found in ponds 16 and 19.
no LMB were found in ponds 16,.19, 22, and 2h. Six of the 17 ponds
in which BG were found contained no catchable-size BG; h of the 17
ponds in which LMB were present contained no catchable-size bass
(Table 9). BG:LMB ratios varied widely ranging from 1.1 to 632
(Table 10).

Populations of other species were found in 19 of the 25 ponds.
Carp were the dominant species in terms of biomass in each of the 5
ponds where they were feund (ponds 11, l2, l7, l9, and 22). All carp

were large, weighing 3-10 pounds.
Age and Growth

Tables 11 and 12 summarize age and growth data for-LMB and BG
respectively, from sampled.ponds. Data for these species from indiv-
idual ponds are presented in Appendices D and E.

Analyses of variances of growth for both LMB and BG indicated
highly significant differences between ponds for each age group con-

sidered.

1Catchable-size gamefish were defined as follows: LMB and small-
mouth bass 2.250 mm; BG, other sunfish, and yellow perch z 150 mm;
northern pike 2. I500 m; white crappie z 175 mm; channel catfish _>_
225 mm.

TABIE 8.

Standing crops (kg/hectare) of fishes in 20 ponds.a

22

 

 

 

 

Species
Pond Total BG LMB Other
1 198.8 172.0 (87) 26.9 (13) 0.0
2 137.9 108.3 (79) 29.5 (21) 0.0
3 519.8 h80.9 (93) 37.2 (6.7) 1.7 (0.3)
5 99h.3 882.1 (89) 112.2 (11) 0.0
6 116.9 8h.1 (72) 32.8 (28) 0.0
7 81.h 60.h (7h) 21.3 (26) 0.0
8 31.h 12.5 (ho) 13.8 (hh) 5.0 (16)
9 30h.3 275.h (90) 1h.6 (5) 11h.2 (5)
10 233.0 209.h (89.9) 23.3 (9.9) 0.5 (0.2)
11 329.0 3h.7 (11) 16.9 (5) 277.h (8h)
12 266.2 109.8 (hl) 25.6 (10) 130.9 (h9)
13 hh5.6 h30.h (97) 12.3 (2.7) 2.9 (0.3)
15 103.h u.5 (h) 9.3 (9.5) 89.6 (86.5)
16 h08.8 0.0 0.0 u08.8 (100)
17 356.9 113.h (32) 8.7 (2) 23h.8 (66)
18 89.1 27.0 (30) h2.7 (h8) 19.h (22)
19 229.6 0.0 0.0 229.6 (100)
21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
22 629.5 1.2 (0.3) 0.0 628.3 (99.7)
2h 579.3 2h0.1 (hl) 0.0 339.1 (59)

 

8Numbers in parentheses are percentages of
crop.

the total standing

23

TABLE 9. Standing crop (kg/hectare) of catchable-size gamefish in

 

 

 

 

20 ponds.a
Percentage of
the Total Standing
Species Crop as Catchable-
Pond Total BG LMB Other size Gamefish
1 86.h 65.h 20.6 0.0 AB
2 12.0 0.0 12.6 0.0 0.9
3 227.6 206.9 19.0 1.7 hh
5 170.5 80.8 89.7 0.0 17
6 83.6 83.6 0.0 0.0 80
7 5h.0 5h.0 0.0 0.0 66
8 16.0 12.0 0.0 h.0 51
9 5h.7 3h.1 7.0 13.6 18
10 26.7 9.2 17.h 0.0 11
11 20.0 0.0 lh.5 5.5 6
12 32.6 0.0 22.6 10.0 12
13 h.5 0.0 h.5 0.0 1
15 5.1 0.0 0.0 5.1 5
16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
17 18.h 1.0 7.5 9.8 5
18 19.3 0.0 19.3 0.0 22
19 20.5 0.0 0.0 20.5 9
22 35.8 0.8 0.0 35.0 6
2h 359.9 20.7 0.0 339.1 62
21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mean 6h.6 25.7
Stand.
Dev. 93.1 2h.7

 

aCatcha'ble-size gamefish were defined as follows: LMB and
smallmouth bass 2. 250 mm; BG, other sunfish and yellow perch Z 150 mm;
northern pikez 500 m; white crappie z 175 mm; channel catfish Z 225
mm.

214

TABLE 10. Population densities of largemouth bass and bluegills in
20 ponds previously stocked with these species.

 

 

Number of Catchable-
Number/Hectare sizea Fish/Hectare

 

 

 

Pond BG LMB BG 1MB Number of BG/LMB
1 h7ho 219 10h3 28 21.6
2 6235 2h7 0 h2 25.3
3 17883 583 250k hl 30.7
5 h31h9 526 129k 89 82.0
6 851. 208 825 0 h.1
7 6h9 151 539 0 h.3
8 17h 100 12h 0 1.7
9 2h859 131 h97 20 189.3

10 1939b 239 155 26 81.0
11 26h3 99 0 17 26.6
12 10038 86 0 38 117.3
13 3h109 191 0 0 178.9
15 332 56 0 0 5.9
16 0 o o 0
17 12806 20 26 12 631.9
18 1590 1h78 o 15 1.1
19 ‘ 0 0 0 0
21 0 0 0 0
22 1 0 0 0
2% 61112 0 2th 0

 

a'Catchable—size BG were defined as 2- 150 mm; catchable-size LMB
as 2 250 mm.

25

TABLE 11. Averages of mean total lengths and weights at capture and
‘mean backscalculated total lengths at annulus formation for

largemouth.bass in sampled.ponds.

 

 

 

 

Av. T.L. Av. Back-calculated T. L. (mm)

No. of at Capture Av. Wt. No. of-i‘ at Annulus Formation
Ponds Age (mm) (gm) Fish *1 2‘ 3 h‘ 5 “6‘
13 I 102 16 120 68
16 II 158 58 2MB 60 123
in III 206 120 87 58 120 162
12 IV 275 297 73 57 130 189 2h7

7 v 336 573 23 6h 128 200 257 305

5 VI 3&0 669 28 6h 115 169 270 311

 

TABLE 12. Averages of mean total lengths and weights at capture and
mean'hackrcalculated total lengths at annulus formation for
bluegills in sampled ponds.

 

 

Av. T.L. Av. Back—calculated T. L. (mm)

 

No. of at Capture Av. Wt. No. of a; Annulu g Eggmat 19g?
Ponds Age (mm) (gm) Fish 1 5

13 I 66 7 172 hl

18 II 92 17 3h6 35 73

17 III 110 23 hh9 3h 66 9h

18 Iv 131 h6 261 36 72 10h 126

15 v 1A2 56 106 30 60 9h 11k 130

15 v1 1h8 67 15h 29 56 8h 10h 121 137

13 VII 156 66 hh 28 52 83 103 119 1h5 1h8

 

26

Relationships Amopngond Characteristics and Fish Population Parameters

Table 13 summarizes results of multiple regression analyses of
11 dependent variables on mean pond depth, maximum pond depth, pond
surface area, pond age, bottom type, and soil type in the catchment
basin. The portion of variability of Y explained by the independent
variables before and after deletion of non-significant factors is ex-
pressed as R3 and R2 (or r2), respectively. Significant simple cor-

relation coefficients between variables are listed in Tables IA and 15.
Total standipg crop. The coefficient of multiple determination

for total standing crop was 0.72h6, indicating that the 6 indepen—
dent variables accounted for 72% of the variability in standing
crop. Mean depth, age, and surface area accounted for 70%; average
depth alone explained 56% (Table 13). The resultant predictive
equation is:

r = -1090.1 + 197.hx2 + 2h2.68x3 - 11.82xh

where: X2 = mean depth of pond in feet, X = surface area in acres,

3

and Xh = age of pond in years. The regression coefficients indicate
total standing crop increases with greater mean depth and area, and
decreases with increased pond age.

Standipg_crop of catchable-size gamefish. A sigificant positive
correlation between standing crop of catchable-size gamefish and
mean depth was found (Table 1h). The 6 independent variables explain-
ed 56% of variability in standing crop of catchable-size gamefish;

mean pond depth accounted for hl%.

Percentgge of total standigg crop as catchable-sizeggamefish.

 

The independent variables accounted for h0% of the variability in this

parameter. Area was the most important factor, accounting for 29%.

TABLE 13.

27

Coefficients of multiple determinations (R2) and coeffi-

cients of determination (r2) of independent variables (x)
affecting various dependent variables.

 

 

X

 

X
Dependent Variable R: (ot= . OS) (r2) (0(=.10) R2
mean depth
Total standing crop 0.725 mean depth 0.562 age 0.701
area
Standing crop of
catchable-size 0.563 mean depth 0.h07 __a
gamefish
% of total standing
crop as catchable- 0.397 area 0.29h —-
size gamefish
BG:LMB ratio 0.639 age o.h77 --
Population density 0.733 mean depth 0.6h8 mean depth 0.706
of BG max. depth
Pepulation density 0.317 soil type 0.233 --
of LMB
Pepulation density of 0.286 All variables max. depth 0.190
catchable-size BG were deleted
Population density of 0.h19 mean depth 0.237 —-
catchable-size LMB
Length of age-II LMB 0.30h All variables All variables
at formation of last were deleted ‘were deleted
annulus
Length of age-IV LMB 0.210 All variables All variables
at formation of last were deleted were deleted
annulus
Length of age-II BG 0.38h mean depth 0.2h6 --

at formation of last
annulus

 

6“The same variable remained in the equation at u=.1o.

28

TABLE 1h. Significant correlation coefficients (r) between indepen-
dent and dependent variables.

 

 

Pond (Independent) Variables

 

Fish Pepulation Maximum Mean % Clay
(Dependent) Variable Depth Depth Area Age in Soil
Total standing crop 0.7h99**

Standing crop of
catchable-size
gamefish 0.h812* 0.6383**

% of total standing
crop as catchable-
size gamefish -0. 5h20* -0. 1523*

BG:DMB ratio 0.687h** 0.690h*

Population density
of BG 0.6550* 0.8051**

Population density
of LMB -0.h825*

Population density
of catchable-size
LMB 0.h867*

Length of age-II BG
at formation of
last annulus -0.h960*

 

*
Significant at 0(=. 05 .

“Significant at tau-.01.

29

TABLE 15. Significant correlation coefficients (r) between selected
variables.

 

 

Fish.P0pulation Variable Y1 Y2

 

Yl-Total standing crOp

Yz-Standing crop of catch-
able-size gamefish .53790*

Y3-% of total standing crop
as catchable-size game-
fish . 51h05*

YS-Population density of BG .6622h* .73132*

Y7-Population density of
catchable-size BG .57939*

Y -Population density of
catchable-size LMB .51910* .50201*

 

*Significant at o: = . 05 .

**Significant at “=. 01.

30

Smaller surface area was associated with a greater percentage of the
total standing crop as catchable-size gamefish (Table 1h).

BG:LMB ratio. The independent variables accounted for 6h% of
variability in number of BG to number of LMB. Age of pond was the
most important factor, accounting for h8%. A highly significant pos-
itive correlation existed between pond age and the BGzLMB ratio (Tab-
le 1h).

Population density of BG. The independent variables accounted
for 73% of variability in the population density of BG. Mean pond
depth explained 65%. The resultant prediction equation is:

Y = -68.77 + 12.1x2
where Y = thousands of BG/hectare. Both.mean depth and maximum depth
were positively correlated with BC population density.

Pepulation dengity of LMB. The independent variables explained
32% of variability in population density of LEM. Soil type was the
most important factor, accounting for 23% of variability.

Population deppity of catchgble-size LMB. The independent var-
iables accounted for h2% of variabliity in population density of catch-
able-size LMB. Mean depth was most important and explained 2h%.

Mean pond depth was positively correlated with this dependent varia-
ble (Table 1h).

Population density of catchable-size BG. Maximum depth was the
most important measured factor affecting population density of catch—
able-size BG, but accounted for only 19% of variability. Increasing
maximum depth was associated with increase in numbers of catchable-

size BG.

31

Growth. Linear multiple regression analyses of lengths of 2-year-
old and h—year—old LMB on the independent variables produced empty
‘ equations; all variables were deleted. Mean depth was the most impor-
tant factor regarding length of 2-year-old BG, but accounted for only
25% of the variability. The correlation coefficient was negative.

Relationships among_fi§hgpopulation variables. Simple correla-
tions among 7 of the dependent variables are shown in Table 15. Sig-
nificant positive correlations occurred between total standing crop
and the following variables; standing crop of catchable-size gamefish,
population density of BG, and population density of catchable-size
LMB. Significant positive correlations were found between standing
crop of catchable-size gamefish and 3 variables; population density
of BG, percentage of the standing crop as catchable-size gamefish,
and population density of catchable-size B0. A significant positive
correlation was also found between population densities of catchable-

size BG and catchable-size LMB.

DISCUSSION

Interviews of Pond Owners

 

The results of the interviews must be interpreted in light of
several points. It must be emphasized that Table 5 represents only
what the owners perceive as problems and may not indicate the actual
frequency of various problems. For example, only 5% of owners listed
fish kills as a prdblem; however, when questioned directly, 27% stat-
ed they had observed.major winter and/or summer fish die-offs. Sim-
ilarly, only 23% mentioned stunted panfish and poor growth of LMB;
however, the data shown in Appendices D and E suggest these problems
probably occurred.with much greater frequency.

That many ponds were created and used for more than one purpose
has undoubtedly contributed to management problems in many cases.
Perhaps the most common problem occurs when a pond is constructed for
both fishing and swimming. In that case, the shallow, gently-sloping
areas desirable for swimming encourage growth of aquatic plants and
provide abundant spawning area for sunfish, thus compounding stunting
problems (Bennett, 1971). In this study, excessive growth of algae
and stunted panfish.were the problems most frequently perceived by
owners. Another potential source of management problems may be that
many owners overestimate the maximum depth of their ponds (Table 6).
Conversations with owners indicated that most excavators measured
depth of the pond basin during construction from ground level rather
than from the expected level of the water table. Thus, owners contrac—
ting for a given depth often were left with a pond several feet shal-

lower.

32

33

Since many owners were apparently unaware of this, stocking of trout
in unsuitably shallow waters occurred in a number of cases. Trout in
these ponds failed to survive, probably owing to intolerable tempera-
ture and/or low dissolve oxygen levels.

That only 33% of the ponds whose owners were interviewed were
located on farms suggests that the term "farm ponds" traditionally used
by many as a synonym.for artificial ponds, is hardly applicable within
the study area. This point may be of significance to extension per-
sonnel, natural resource agency administrators, and biologists who of-
ten stereotype Michigan's artificial ponds as "farm ponds" with assoc-
iated characteristics and problems. Management publications geared

to farmers may not be ideally suited to many pond owners.

Fish Populations

While other fishes were present in many of the ponds, BG and LMB
made up most of the biomass and numbers in 16 ponds. Thus, the data
from these ponds provide some opportunity to assess success of the
LMB-BG combination. The effect of interspecific competition and pre-
dation on results of this study cannot be accurately determined. Nev-
ertheless, the results. cast suspicion on the merits of the LMB-BG
combination. Undesirable results included low standing crops and den-
sities of catchable-size fish, and poor growth of both LMB and BG.

Growth of both LMB and BG as compared to stateawide averages
(Laarman, 1963) was slow in most ponds (Figure 1). Growth of BG in
many ponds was very poor (Appendix E). Considerably better growth
was fOund in ponds 7, lb, and 20, of which all were less than 5 years

old. It must be emphasized that data in Tables 11 and 12 represent

3h

-—- from Laarman (1963)
300.- __ from sampled ponds
I one standard deviation / “4"

280. on either side of mean

260-

2hQ_

. [MB

220.-

 

200--
180...
1601.
1&0...
120_L ’00

100-.

 

TOTAL LENGTH (mm)

80.-

60-—

ho ..

 

20.".

 

I
l

1
1
0 I II III

AGE at Annulus Formation

l
_1
IV

FIGURE 1. Comparison of growth rates of h-year-old largemouth bass
and bluegills from sampled ponds‘with.stateewide averages
from Laarman (1963).

35

avergges (equally weighted) of mean back—calculated lengths at annul-
us formation. Thus, what appears to be an example of Lee's phenomena
(Table 12) is probably largely the result of differences in age struc—
ture and growth rates between BG populations.

Several authors from midwestern and northern U.S. areas have doc-
.umented the poor results often obtained with this species combination.
Krumholtz (1950) cited both the prolificness of BC and the inadequacy
of LMB as a predator of B0 for poor results obtained with this com-
bination in Indiana ponds. Bennett (l97h:10) states:

The largemouth bass is less affected by the fishing activ-

ities of man than most other species of fishes. However,

bass are highly vulnerable to predation in embryo and fry

stages when living with stunted populations of other cen—

trarchids.

Bennett (1952:2h9) also acknowledged the inefficiency of the LMB as a
predator of BC in midwestern ponds:

As is suggested in the discussion of stocking, bluegills

are more effective in controlling bass than are bass in

controlling bluegills.

Werner and Hall (l97h) found that prey-size selectivity by BC varies
with prey abundance. The assumption that BG will feed low on the
food chain may not hold for stunted populations. Rawson and Ruttan
(1952) in Saskatchewan and Saia (1952) in New York also provided ev-
idence that the LMB-BG combination is poorly suited for ponds in
northern climates.

Data from several ponds in this study exemplify some of the class—
ical problems associated with the LMB—B0 combination such as slow
growth of B0 due to overcrowding, poor reproduction of LMB, and the

unpredictability of results obtained with this combination. Pond 6,

for example, had low density of B0, with over 80% larger than 150 mm.

36

IUMB in this pond, however, grew very slowly; the mean total length at
capture of 6—year-old LMB was 207 mm. No other year class of bass was
evident in the pond. Similarly, in ponds l, 2, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, and
17, LMB reproduction was poor. LMB disappeared from pond 2h, while

BG continued to multiply. The unpredictability of the LMB-B0 combin-
ation is reflected in the wide variability between ponds in regard to
the fish population parameters examined in this study (Tables 8-10).

Conversations with owners indicated that most ponds in this study
had provided good fishing during the first 2-5 years after stocking.
subsequently, the situation had steadily worsened. In this study, a
significant positive correlation between age of pond and ratio of B0
to LMB was found.

Results of linear stepwise multiple regression analyses must be
interpreted in light of the limitations of my methods. Range and dis-
tribution of the data points upon which analyses are based, discourage
both broad interpolation and extrapolation of results. While multi-
ple regression analyses, as used in this study, are useful in identi-
fying associations among variables, no cause-effect relationship can
be directly inferred (Snedecor and Cochran, 1967). It is encourag—
ing, however, that pond design features explained a high proportion
of the variability in several fish pOpulation parameters.

Results indicate mean pond depth is an important factor influenc-
ing several population parameters. Greater mean depth is associated
with larger total standing crop, standing crop of catchable-size
gamefish, population density of BG, and standing crop of catchable-

size LMB. Several authors have recognized the importance of mean depth

37

to fish productivity and survival. Ryder et a1 (1971;) defined the
morphoedaphic index as the total dissolved solids divided by mean
depth of a body of water and associated this variable with fish pro-
ductivity. Rawson and Ruttan (1952) found depth to be of critical
importance to fish populations in Saskatchewan ponds; winterkill
was common in shallow ponds.

Relationships between mean depth, water temperatures and diss-
olved oxygen are well documented in limnological literature. The
importance of temperature and dissolved oxygen to survival and growth
rates of fishes have been established (Stewart et a1, 1967). No
significant correlations between growth of LMB and depth were observ-
ed in this study. A significant correlation between growth of age-
II BG and.mean depth.was observed, but mean depth accounted for only
25% of variability. This suggests that depth may be associated more
closely with mortality and recruitment rates than with growth in
these ponds.

It is somewhat surprising that carp apparently were not repro-
ducing in the ponds in which they were found. In each case, the carp
had entered the pond via overflow from nearby ditches. Mraz and
Cooper (1957) reported poor reproduction of carp in Wisconsin lakes

but noted high natural reproduction rates in experimental ponds.

Management Implications

Results of this study emphasize the importance of pond design,
particularly mean depth, in regard to fish populations. Increasing
mean depth may be a practical way for future pond builders to main-

tain more-desirable fish populations. At any rate, mean depth

38

should be a.major consideration in pond design.

Several basic patterns of competition and predation and growth—
production strategies described by various authors seemed to hold for
these ponds. Problems associated with the LMB-B0 combination seemed
obvious in many of these Michigan ponds. Alternative species combi-
nations, such as the LMB-golden Shiner combination, have been more
successful in other northern states (Regier, 1963). Ball (1952) found
that this combination produced superior results in experimental ponds
in Michigan. As Krumholtz (1950) states:

In Indiana, and probably elsewhere as well, the correct

solution to initial stocking policies for small ponds

lies in the selection of the proper kind or kinds of fish.

It seems that proper selection of the kind or kinds of fish is
also an important key to successful management in this part of Mich-
igan. It has often been said that the LMB-B0 combination simply re-
quires management by pond owners. According to USDA (1965:10):

These species reproduce regularly and fishing is usually good

unless mismanagement or an accidental fish kill upsets the pop—

ulation. Unfortunately, many fish ponds become overpopulated
with intermediate-size sunfish. Some people, therefore, feel
that good fishing year after year is not possible with the
bass-bluegill or redear combination. The fact is that thou-
sands of ponds with this combination have been successfully
fished for many years with regular and proper management.

Overpopulation results from.muddy water, faulty management,

incorrect stocking, or unusual mishaps such as too much flood-

water or a fish kill by insecticides.
But Hackney (l97h) stated that often 75-90% of a stunted population
must be removed to achieve balance. This would obviously require
considerable effort, as well as technique. A species combination re-

quiring such intensive management seems ill-suited for a recreational

resource 0

LITERATURE CITED

Ball, R.C. 1952. Farm pond.management in Michigan. J. Wildlife Man-
agement. 16(3):266—269.

Bennett, G.W. 1952. Pond management in Illinois. J. Wildlife Manage-
ment. 16(3):2h9-253.

Bennett, G.W. 1971. Management of lakes and_ponds. Linton Educational
Publishing, Inc. 375 pp.

Bennett, G.W. 197h. Ecology and management of largemouth bass (Mic-
ropterus salmoides). N. Cent. Div. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec.

Draper, N.R., and H. Smith. 1966. Applied regpession analysis. Wil-
ey & Sons Pub. Co., New York. h07 pp.

Hackney, P.A. 197k. On the theory of fish density. Prog. Fish. Cult.
36(2):66-71.

Hogman, W.J. 1970. A computer program for stock analysis in Fortran
IV, Univac 1108. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 99(2):h26-h27.

Krumholtz, L.A. 1950. New fish stocking policies for Indiana ponds.
N. Am, Wildlife Conf. Trans. 15:251-270.

Krumholtz, L.A. 1952. Management of Indiana ponds for fishing. J.
Wildlife Management 16(3):25h-257.

Laarman, P.W. 1963. Average growth rates of fishes in Michigan.
Instit. Fish. Res. Rep. No. 1675. 9 pp,

Moss, D.D., and.J.M. Hester. 1956. Farm.pond investigations in Ala-

Mraz, D., and L. Cooper. 1957. Natural reproduction and survival of
carp in small ponds. J. Wildlife Management. 21(1):66—69.

Rawson, D.S., and R. A. Ruttan. 1952. Pond studies in Saskatchewan.
J. Wildlife Management. 16(3):283-288.

Regier, H.A. 1962a. On the evolution of bass-bluegill stocking pol-
icies and management recommendations. Prog. Fish. Cult.

2h(3):99—111.
Regier, H.A. 1962b. Validation of the scale method for estimating age

and growth of bluegills. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 91(h):362-
37h.

39

hO

Regier, H.A. 1963. Ecology and.management of largemouth bass and gold-
en shiners in farm ponds in New York. N.Y. Fish. Game J.
10(1):1-89.

Ricker,'W.E. 1937. The concept of confidence or fiducial limits appli-
ed to the Poisson frequency distribution. J. Am. Stat. Soc.
32:3h9-356.

Ryder, R.A., S.R. Kerr, K.H. Loftus, and H.A. Regier. l97h. The mor-
phoedaphic index, a fish yield estimator-—review and eval-
uation. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 31:663-688.

RObson, D.S., and H.A. Regier. 1968. Estimation of population numbers
and mortality rates. In (ed) W.E. Ricker. Methods for
assessment of fish producpion in fresh waters. William
Brothers Limited, Brinkenhead:l2h-158.

Saila, S.B. 1952. Some results of farm pond management studies in New
York. J. Wildlife Management. 16(3):270-282.

Snedecor, G.W., and W.C. Cochran. 1967. Statistical methods. Iowa
State U. Press. Ames, Iowa. 593 pp,

Stewart, N.E., D.L. Shumway, and.P. Doudoroff. 1967. Influence of ox-
ygen concentration on the growth of juvenile largemouth bass.
J. Fish. Res. Board. Can. 2h(3):h75-h9§.

Swingle, 3.8. 1950. Relationships and dynamics of balanced and unbal-
anced fish populations. Alabama Ag. Expt. Sta. Bull. 2714:
1-7’40

U.S.D.A. 1938. Soil survey of Saginaw County, Michigan. 53 pp.

U.S.D.A. 1965. Warmdwater ponds for fishing. Farmer's Bull. 2210:16.

Werner, E.E., and D.J. Hall. l97h. Optimal foraging and the size-sel—

ection of prey by the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis machrochirus).
Ecology. 55:10h2-1052.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A:

Estimates of numbers and biomass of largemouth bass by size class
in 15 inventoried ponds (Tables Al-AlS) .

141

'1

£1

figm‘éfiiw

Key to TABLES Al—A15.

number of marked fish

number of recaptured fish

number of unmarked fish

population estimate

lower 95% confidence limit for population estimate
upper 95% confidence limit for population estimate
biomass estimate

lower 95% confidence limit for biomass estimate

upper 95% confidence limit for biomass estimate

hla

h2

TABLE Al. Estimates of numbers and biomass of largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

 

pond 1.a
Size Class Numbers Biomass (an)
(mm) ii 1' u .P LP UP B LE. UB
60-69 1 1 1 2 1h
70—79 3 2 2 6 53
8o89 1 1 0 1 19
9099 1 1 0 1 17
110-119 1 1 0 1 ~ 22
150-159 1 1 0 l 55
170-179 1 1 0 1 70
190-199 1 1 0 1 110
3ho-3h9 1 1 o 1 518
too—hog 1 1 o 1 1816

Totals 12 11 3 16 15 18 269h 2525 3031

 

8Estimates by Petersen method.

A3

TABLE A2. Estimates of numbers and biomass of largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

 

pond 2.8‘

Size Class Numbers Biomass (E)
(mm) m. r u P LP UP B LB uB
80-89 1 1 2 3 33

130-139 3 1 3 12 6 29 312 156 75h
150-159 2 1 h 10 6 23 h50 270 1035
160-169 3 1 3 12 6 29 780 390 1885
170-189 2 1 h 10 6 23 750 hso 1725
190-209 A 2 6 16 10 30 1760 1100 3300
210-229 3 1 12 6 29 1608 80h 3886
‘230-2h9 h 2 6 16 10 30 2800 1750 5250
270-279 1 1 2 3 750

300-309 1 1 2 3 125A

330-339 1 1 2 3 1h70

Totals 25 13 37 100 67 133 11967 8020 15920

 

aEstimates by Petersen method.

AA

TABLE A3. Estimates of numbers and biomass of largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

pond 3.8‘

Size Class Numbers ’ Biomass 'm)

(mm) Fr-'-'rr u P LP UP B UB
90-99 2 '1 2 6 A 13 62 A1 13A
100-109 6 A 3 10 9 13 159 1A3 206
110-119 12 11 16 29 28 32 A93 A76 5AA
120-129 15 13 7 23 22 25 55A 530 602
130-139 7 5 6 15 13 20 530 A59 706
1A0-1A9 8 5 A 1A 12 19 529 A53 718
150-159 3 2 2 6 5 10 27A 228 A56
160-169 3 2 2 6 5 10 301 250 501
170-179 3 2 0 3 20A
180-189 2 1 0 2 166
200-209 3 1 0 3 300
210-219 1 1 1 2 232
230-239 1 1 1 2 272
310-319 1 1 1 3 7A0
320-329 2 1 0 2 836
3A0-3A9 1 1 1 2 912
350-359 3 2 o 3 17Ao
Totals 7A 56 A2 130 119 1A1 8306 7603 9008

 

8‘Estimates by Peterson method.

 

 

 

 

 

 

AS
TABLE Ah. Estimates of numbers and biomass of largemouth bass in

pond 5.a
Size Class Numbers ' Bums (522

(mm) m r u P LP UP B _LB UB

80-89 A 1 A 20 8 51 .160 6A A08
90-99 3 1 3 l2 6 30 120 60 300
100-109 2 1 2 6 A 13 72 A8 156
1A0-1A9 A 2 A 12 8 20 A32 288 720
150-159 5 2 A 15 9 28 690 AlA 1288
170-179 8 2 11 52 19 111 375A 1371 8013
180-189 2 1 2 6 A 13 A98 332 1079
200-209 3 1 3 12 6 30 1206 603 3015
320-329 ’ 2 1 2 6 A 13 33A8 2232 725A
3Ao-3A9 3 1 2 9 5 21 5256 2920 1226A
Aoo-A09 2 1 2 6 A 13 A860 32A0 10530
AA0-A59 2 1 2 6 A 13 1A160 9AA0 30680
Totals A0 15 A1 162 81 356 3A556 21012 75707

 

8'Estimates by Petersa1 method.

A6

TABLE A5. Estimates of numbers and biomass of largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

 

pond 6.8‘

Size Class Numbers Biomass jgm)

(mm) m r 11 P LP UP B LB UB
180-189 2 1 2 6 A 13 366 2AA 793
190-199 A 2 1 6 5 10 56A A70 9A0
200-209 10 7 A 15 1A 18 1A75 1376 1769
210-219 3 2 1 A A 5 AA0 AAO 510
220-229 3 2 1 A A 5 A68 A68 585
Totals 22 1A 9 35 31 51 3313 2998 A597

 

TABLE A6. Estimates of numbers and Biomass of largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

 

pond 7.
Size 013.33 Numbers Biomass (g)
(m) m r u P LP UP B LB UB
220-229 6 2 2 12 8 22 1612 107A 2820
230-239 1A 5 A 25 18 35 3555 2559 A977
2A0-2A9 2 1 0 2 338
Totals 22 8 6 39 28 56 5505 3971 8135

 

8Estimates by Petersen method.

57

TABLE A7. Estimates of numbers and biomass of largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

pond 8.3
Size Class . 1 .‘Numbers Biomass (gm)
(mm) m. r u P’ LP UP B LB UB
210-219 2 2 1 3 366
220-229 9 6 o 9 1175
230-239 6 5 o 6 852
2A0-2A9 A A o A 627
Totals 21 16 1 22 22 23 3020 3020 3157

 

aEstimates by Petersen method.

A8

TABLE A8. Estimates of numbers and biomass of largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

pond 9.3
Size class Numbers _ Bi omass (gp)
(mm) m r u P 1P UP B LB UB
80-89 1 1 0 1 9
90-99 1 1 0 1 11
100-109 1 1 1 2 28
110-119 1 1 0 1 17
170-179 1 1 2 3 166
180-189 1 . 1 1 2 120
190-199 2 2 3 5 A07
200-209 1 1 3 A 380
210-219 2 1 0 2 212
230-239 1 1 o 1 1AA
290-299 1 1 0 1 28A
300-309 1 l 1 2 686
360-369 1 1 0 1 A27
Totals 15 1A 11 26 26 28 2892 2892 311A

 

8'Estimates by Petersen method.

 

A9

TABLE A9. Estimates of numbers and biomass of largemouth bass in

 

 

 

pond 10.8.
Size Class
(mm) P B (gm)

100-109 10 123
110-119 8 150
120-129 1A 3A5
130-139 13 373
1A0-1A9 2 80
150-159 6 268
160-169 1 56
170-179 1 58
270-279 1 230
320-329 3 1286
3A0-3A9 2 1100
A70-A79 1 1898
Totals 62 5967

 

aInventoried by rotenone poisoning.

50

TABLE A10. Estimates of numbers and biomass of largemouth bass in

 

 

 

pond ll.a

Size Class
(mm) P B (gm)
90-99 26 296
loo-109 21 263
110-119 A 62
120-129 12 301
130-139 1 3A
1A0-1A9 1 3A
150-159 3 121
160-169 1 53
170-179 8 A80
180-189 2 151
190-199 1 68
200-209 3 328
210-219 1 138
220-229 1 1A0
260-269 1 2A9
350-359 2 1156
360—369 2 13A?
370-379 1 692
380-389 3 2530
390-399 2 18A1
A00-A09 3 3017
A30-A39 2 2622
AA0-AA9 1 1AA7
Totals 62 5967

 

aInventoried by rotenone poisoning.

51

TABLE All. Estimates of numbers and biomass of largemouth bass in

 

 

 

pond 12.3

Size Class
(mm) P B (gm)
100-109 A 6A
120—129 1 26
1A0-1A9 2 6A
150-159 2 86
160-169 2 11A
170-179 2 118
180-189 1 69
190-199 1 88
200—209 5 638
210-219 2 266
230-239 1 1A8
2A0-2A9 2 A18
260—269 1 232
270-279 2 5A0
280-289 1 296
290-299 1 330
300-309 5 2075
330-339 1 537
3A0—3A9 1 565
350-359 1 567
360-369 3 2536
AOO—A09 2 1970
A10-A19 1 2260
{Potals A5 13AA3

 

8‘Inventoried by rotenone poisoning.

52

TABLE A12. Estimates of numbers and biomass of largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

pond 13.a
Size class Numbers Biomass (gm)
(mm) m r u P LP UP B LB UB
90-99 2 1 1 A 3 9 36
100-109 9 A 3 21 12 36 287
110-119 5 2 A 15 9 29 252
120-129 3 2 3 7 6 12 158
130-139 2 1 1 A 3 9 96
190-199 1 1 1 2 160
210-219 1 1 1 2 2A8
220-229 1 1 1 2 276
300-309 2 1 0 2 700
A00-A09 1 1 1 2 1726
Totals 27 15 16 61 A3 88 3939

 

TABLE A13. Estimates

of numbers and.biomass of largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

pond 15.a
Size 01888 Numbers Biomass (gm)
(mm) m r u P LP UP B LB UB
200-209 3 2 0 3 381
210-219 A 2 0 A 627
220-229 1 1 0 1 19A
230-239 3 3 1 A 79A
Totals 11 8 1 12 12 13 1996 1996 2162

 

3Estimates by Petersen method.

 

I] II II 0.. H

53

TABLE AlA. Estimates of numbers and biomass of largemouth bass in

 

 

 

pond 17.
Size Class
(mm) P B (8m)
110-119 1 16
1A0-1A9 1 30
160-169 2 112
230-239 3 A93
2A0-2A9 A 799
250-259 1 19A
260-269 1 256
270-279 1 270
290—299 1 326
360-369 3 1938
370-379 6 AA32
390-399 1 922
A80-A89 1 13A1
Totals 26 '11113

 

alnventoried by rotenone poisoning.

5A

TABLE A15. Estimates of numbers and biomass of largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

pond 18.a

Size Class NumberS' Biomass (gm)

(mm) m r u P LP UP B LB. UB
70-79 76 1A 12 1A2 9A 190 99A 658 1130
80-89 1A5 A6 37 261 220 302 1827 15A0 211A
90-99 8 A A 16 12 2A 160 120 2A0
100-109 3 1 2 9 5 21 99 55 231
110-119 6 3 3 12 9 19 192 1AA 30A
120-129 9 3 A 21 13 36 A83 299 828
130-139 8 5 A 1A 12 19 36A 312 A9A
160-169 10 5 3 16 13 22 79A 6A5 1091
180-189 12 5 3 19 15 27 1292 1020 1936
190-199 1A 6 6 28 20 A0 2A22 1730 3A6o
380-389 3 1 1 A 3 8 2836 2127 5672
A60-A69 1 1 0 1 1791
500-509 1 1 0 1 2A62
Totals 295 95 79 5AA A18 710 15706 12903 21853

 

8Estimates by Petersen method.

APPENDIX B:

Estimates of numbers and.biomass of bluegills by size class in
17 inventoried ponds (Tables Bl-Bl7).

55

LP

UP

LB

UB

Key to TABLES Bl-Bl7.

number of marked fish

number of recaptured fish

number of unmarked fish

population estimate

lower 95% confidence limit for population estimate
upper 95% confidence limit for population estimate
biomass estimate

lower 95% confidence limit for biomass estimate

upper 95% confidence limit for biomass estimate

55a

56

TABLE B1. Estimates of numbers and biomass of bluegills in pond l.a

 

 

 

 

 

Size Class Numbers Bipmass (fie)
(mm) m. r u P LP UP B LB UB
A0-A9 1 1 0 1 0 01
50—59 6 5 1 7 7 8 0.0A 0 0A 0 05
60-69 9 8 1 10 10 11 0.07 0.07 0.08
70-79 A 3 0 A 0.03
80-89 8 8 1 9 9 10 0.1A 0 1A 0 15

90-99 28 22 2 30 30 31 0.38 0.38 0.Ao
100-109 18 16 2 20 20 21 0.A5 0.A5 0.A7
110-119 63 58 A 67 67 68 1.71 1.71 1.73
120-129 56 53 3 59 59 60 2.0A 2.0A 2.08
130-131 33 30 2 35 35 36 1.55 1.55 1.59
1A0-1A9 26 2A 2 28 28 29 1.36 1.36 1.A1
150-159 56 55 3 59 59 60 3.60 3.60 3.66
160-169 12 9 3 16 15 17 1.10 1.0A 1.17
170-179 1 1 0 1 0.07

Totals 322 293 2A 3A6 3A6 35A 12.55 12.55 12.8A

 

aEstimates by Peterson method.

57

TABLE B2. Estimates of numbers and biomass of bluegills in pond 2.a

 

 

 

 

 

Size Class Numbers Biomass(kg‘)
(mm) m r u P LP UP B LB UB
70.79 9 3 11 A2 20 76 0.A2 0.20 0.76

80-89 61 15 A5 2AA 151 337 2.78 1.72 3.8A

90-99 125 33 169 765 561 969 9.87 7.2A 12.A9
100-109 113 30 1A8 670 A83 857 9.58 6.91 12.26
110-119 95 21 79 A52 301 603 9.31 6.20 12.A2

120-129 26 10 A2 135 76 19A 3.29 1.85 A.73
130-139 29 12 56 16A 100 228 5.20 3.17 7.23
1A0-1A9 1A 5 2A 81 29 133 3.A3 1.23 5.63
Totals A72 129 561 2525 1721 3397. A3.88 28.52 59.36

 

8‘Estimates by Petersen method.

58

TABLE B3. Estimates of numbers and biomass of bluegills in pond 3.8‘

_1_

 

Size Class Numbers Biomass (kg)
(mm) m. r u P LP UP B LB UB

 

60-69 10 A 10 35 20 58 0.21 0.12 0.35
70-79 133 50 167 577 A67 687 A.39 3.55 5.22
80-89 276 98 276 1053 909 1197 10.86 9.37 12.33
90-99 75 27 81 302 223 381 5.29 3.90 6.67
100-109 96 38 110 373 26A A52 7.83 5.5A 9.A9

120-129 113 A2 108 A03 321 A85 11.81 .oA 1A.21

110-119 12A A5 128 A76 380 562 11.33 9.A1 1A.01
9
130-139 A5 17 A8 172 122 222 7.09 5.03 9.15
1A0-1A9 17 7 1A 51 31 75 2.30 1.A0 3.38
150-159 67 2A A9 203 1A1 261 11.53 8.01 1A.82
160-169 A1 15 36 139 99 179 10.19 7.26 13.12
170-179 10 A 9 32 19 53 2.62 1.16 A.35
180-189 3A 1A 28 102 69 135 10.51 7.12 13.91
190-199 11 5 12 37 23 51 5.33 3.31 7.3A
200-209 8 3 8 29 16 A7 A.93 2.72 7.99
250-259 2 1 1 A 3 9 1.0A 0.8A 2.52

Totals 1062 39A 1085 3988 3107 A85A 107.23 77.76 136.21

 

8'Estimates by Petersen method.

59

TABLE BA. Estimates of numbers and biomass of bluegills in pond A5.6L

 

 

Size Class Numbers Biomass (kg)
(mm) m r u P LP UP B LB UB

 

60-69 89 9 38 A6A 206 722 3.75 1.67 5.8A
70-79 166 17 72 869 517 1221 8.26 A.91 11.60
80-89 20A 25 107 1077 721 1A33 1A.76 9.88 19.63
90-99 5A1 68 A87 AA15 3A96 533A 73.29 58.0A 88.5A
100-109 301 37 310 2822 2017 3627 56.72 A0.5A 72.90
110-119 290 30 199 2213 151A 2912 50.2A 3A.37 66.10
120-129 129 15 78 799 A52 11A6 26.A5 1A.96 37.93
1A0-1A9 51 8 3A 267 85 A27 13.35 A.25 21.35
150-159 A9 7 31 266 201 A31 17.02 12.86 27.58
160-169 12 2 9 66 21 1A5 5.21 .1.66 11.A6
170-179 8 2 6 32 1A 55 2.66 1.16 A.57

Totals 18A0 220 1371 13290 92AA 17A53 271.70 18A.30 367.51

 

a
Estimates by Petersen method.

60

TABLE B5. Estimates of numbers and biomass of bluegills in pond 6.8‘

 

 

 

 

 

Size Class Numbers Biomass (gm)
(mm) m r u P LP UP 'B LB UB
50-59 1 1 0 1 6
90-99 1 1 0 1 20

110-119 1 1 0 1 21

150-159 3 2 1 A A 5 28A 28A 355
160-169 15 12 1 16 16 17 1211 1211 1286

170-179 27 2A 1 28 28 29 2629 2629 2722

180-189 18 16 1 19 19 20 2113 2113 219A
190-199 11 9 0 11 1A05
200-209 5 5 o 5 802

Totals 82 71 A 86 86 90 8A91 8A91 8811

 

3'Estimates by Petersen method.

61

TABLE B6. Estimates of numbers and biomass of bluegills in pond 7.a

 

 

 

 

Size Class Numbers Biomass (kg)
(mm) m. r u P 'LP UP B LB UB

130-139 3 1 1 6 A 13 0.28 0.19 0.60

1A0-1A9 11 2 2 22 13 A2 1.37 0.81 2.60

150-159 2A 7 13 68 37 102 -A.77 2.59 7.1A
160-169 7 2 2 1A 9 26 1.38 0.88 2.55
170-179 6 2 2 12 8 22 1.31 0.87 2.A0
180-189 8 2 3 20 11 39 2.50 1.37 A.8A
190-199 10 A 5 22 15 38 3.A5 2.35 5.93
200-209 2 1 1 A 3 9 0.60 0.A5 1.35

Totals 71 21 29 168 100 291 15.6A 9.52 27.A1

 

aEstimates by Petersen method.

62

TABLE B7. Estimates of numbers and.biomass of bluegills in pond 8.a

 

 

 

 

Size Class Numbers
(mm) m r u P B (am)
50-59 A 3 0 A 22
60-69 6 5 0 6 A3
1A0-1A9 1 1 0 1 61
150-159 3 3 0 3 263
160-169 7 6 0 7 579
170-179 13 11 0 13 128A
180-189 A A 0 A A91
Totals 38 33 0 38 27A3

 

8Estimates by Petersen method.

63

TABLE B8. Estimates of numbers and biomass of bluegills in pond 9.a

 

 

 

 

 

Size Class Numbers Biomass (kg)
(mm) m r n P LP UP B LB UB
30-39 16 3 12 80 28 153 0.08 0.03 0.16
A0-A9 75 11 67 531 266 796 1.06 0.53 1.59
50-59 101 16 98 719 A18 1020 2.AA 1.A2 3.A7
60-69, . 130 19 1A9 11A9 713 1585 5.52 3.A2 7.61
70.79 59 8 A8 A13 165 661 2.89 1.16 A.63
80-89 38 6 26 202 65 339 1.90 0.61 3.19
90-99 73 12 71 50A 231 76A 6.A0 2.93 9.70
100-109 71 10 60 A97 229 765 8.68 A.00 13.35
110-119 A3 7 A1 29A 120 A68 5.97 2.AA 9.50
120-129 A0 6 32 253 81 A25 6.71 2.15 11.26
130-139 21 A 16 105 37 189 3.21 1.13 5.78
1A0-1A9 11 2 10 66 21 136 2.92 0.93 6.02
150-159 10 2 11 65 21 ' 139 3.56 1.15 7.60
160-169 8 2 5 28 13 57 1.78 0.83 3.62
170-179 A l 3 16 7 38 1.A2 0.62 3.38
Totals 700 109 658 A922 2A15 7535 5A.5A 23.3A 90.86

 

aEstimates by Peterson method.

6A

TABLE B9. Estimates of numbers and biomass of bluegills in pond 10.3

 

 

 

Size Class
(mm) P 3 (kg)

30-39 65 0.07
A0-A9 390 0-70
50-59 65A 2.22
60-69 13A 0.73
70-79 387 2.83
80-89 150A 1A.1A
90-99 A56 5.15
100-109 199 3.2A
110-119 581 11.56
120-129 3A1 9.72
130-139 2A0 8.A0
1A0-1A9 36 1.82
150-159 2A 1.16
160-169 3 0.22
170-179 A 0.32
180-189 6 0.57
190-199 1 0.12
Totals 5023 5A.23

 

aInventoried by rotenone poisoning.

65

TABLE 310. Estimates of numbers and biomass of bluegills in pond ll.a

 

 

 

Size Class P B (kg)
(mm)
60-69 109 0.38
70-79 272 2.38
80-89 A89 A.55
90-99 1060 13.67
100-109 598 9.93
110-119 163 3.A7
120-129 5A 1.35
Totals 2717 35.73

 

aInventoried by rotenone poisoning.

66

TABLE B11. Estimates of numbers and biomass of bluegills in pond 12.a

 

 

 

Size(m1(il)ass P B (kg)
A0-A9 531 1-70
50-59 72A 3.19
60-69 735 2.82
70-79 212 1.27
80-89. 8A7 7.5A
90-99 639 6.90
100-109 635 9.3A
110-119 7AA 15.92
130-139 106 3.82
1A0-1A9 107 A.25
Totals 5280 57.75

 

8'Inventoried by rotenone poisoning.

67

TABLE B12. Estimates of numbers and biomass of bluegills in pond 13.a

 

 

 

 

Size Class Numbers Biomass_(hg)
(mm) m. r u P LP UP B LB UB
Ao-A9 69 9 A8 A37 193 681 0.88 0.39 1.36
50-59 188 26 155 1308 877 1739 3.A1 2.28 A.52
60-69 170 2A 1A5 1197 786 1608 A.A1 2.91 5.92
70-79 379 52 361 3010 2300 3720 18.38 1A.0A 22.69
80-89 183 27 166 1308 871 17A5 11.80 7.86 15.71
90-99 217 37 262 1753 1272. 223A 19.80 1A.37 25.23
loo-109 107 16 9A 735 A29 10A1 10.28 6.01 1A.55
110-119 119 19 121 876 732 1020 20.32 16.98 23.66
120-129 89 12 67 585 302 868 17.A0 8.98 25.78
130-139 A5 7 A3 321 119 523 11.75 A.36 19.1A
1A0-1A9 6A 7 38 A11 1A7 675 19.30 6.90 31.69
Totals 1630 236 1500 10915 8028 1585A137.72 85.08 190.25

 

aEstimates by Petersen method.

TABLE B13.

68

Estimates of numbers and biomass of bluegills in pond 15.‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

Size Class NUmbers Biomaes (gm)
(mm) m. r u P LP UP B LB UB
60-69 3 2 1 A A 5 31 31 38
70-79 12 9 A 17 16 21 153 1AA 189
80-89 16 13 A 20 20 2A .226 226 288
90-99 20 15 A 25 2A 28 A58 A39 512
100-109 A 3 1 5 5 6 10A 10A 125
Totals 50 A2 1A 71 69 8A 972 9AA 1152
TABLE BlA. Estimates of numbers and biomass of bluegills in pond 17.b

 

 

 

Siziflébass P B (kg)
70-79 1129 6.76
80-89 11273 93.57
90-99 3226 3A.20
loo-109 771 9.6A
150-159 31 1.33
Totals 16A30 1A5.52

 

8.Estimates by Petersen.method.

bInventoriedby rotenone poisoning.

69

TABLE B15. Estimates of numbers and biomass of bluegills in pond 18.a

 

 

 

 

 

Size Class Numbers Biomass (kg)
(mm) m r u P LP UP B LB UB
60-69 3 1 1 6 A 13 .0A 0.02 0.08
70-79 7 2 2 1A 9 26 .09 0.06 0.17
80-89 13 3 9 52 22 97 0.A7 0.20 0.87
90-99 12 3 9 A8 21 92 0.51 0.22 0.98
loo-109 A6 11 25 150 8A 216 2.55 1.A3 3.67
110-119 9A 20 A2 291 198 38A 5.62 3.82 7.A0
120-129 8 2 3 20 11 39 0.5A 0.30 1.05
130-139 2 1 1 A 3 9 0.13 0.10 0.30
Totals 185 A3 92 585 352 876 9,95 6.15 1A.53

 

8'Estimates by Petersen method.

70

TABLE 816. Estimates of numbers and biomass of bluegills in pond 22.a

 

 

 

Size Class P B (gm)
I m)
110-119 1 37
120-129 2 72
130-139 2 95
1A0-1A9 1 53
ISO-159 2 125
160-169 2 161
170-179 2 166
Totals 12 709

 

a'Inventoried by rotenone poisoning.

TABLE 317 .

71

Estimates of numbers and biomass of bluegills in pond 2A.a

 

 

 

 

 

Size 01333 numbers Biomass,(kg),
(mm) m. r u P LP UP B LB UB
A0-A9 878 A59 A79 179A 171A 187A 2.87 2.7A 2.99
50-59 80A A28 A71 1688 1606 1770 2.21 2.10 2.30
70-79 227 117 137 A79 A36 522 2.A0 2118 2.61
80-89 200 108 106 396 361 A31 2.77 2.53 3.01
90-99 395 202 216 817 762 872 3.18 2.96 3.38

loo-109 56 31 29 108 91 125 1.91 1.61 2.21
110-119 79 38 3A 1A9 126 172 2.30 1.9A 2.65
120-129 11 7 5 18 16 23 0.62 0.55 0.79
1A0-1A9 15 9 8 28 23 3A 1.29 1.06 1.60
150-159 5 3 3 10 8 15 0.51 0.A1 0.76
160-169 A 2 2 8 6 1A 0.70 0.53 1.23
200-209 3 2 2 6 5 10 0.6A 0.53 1.06
Totals 2671 1A06 1A58 5A39 515A 5862 21.37 19.1A 2A.59

 

8Estimates by Petersen method.

APPENDIX C:

Biomass estimates of fishes (excluding bluegills and largemouth
bass) in 1A inventoried ponds (Tables Cl-ClA).

72

73

TABLE Cl. Biomass estimates of fishes (excluding bluegills and
largemouth bass) in Pond 3.3

 

 

Species Biomass estimate (gm)

 

Pumpkinseed 379 (1 )b

 

TABLE C2. Biomass estimates of fishes (excluding bluegills and
largemouth bass) in Pond 8.8’

 

 

 

SPF-“€133 Biomass estimate (gm)
Pmnpkinseed '459
Rock bass 230
Yellow perch 617
Total 1306

 

TABLE C3. Biomass estimates of fishes (excluding bluegills and
largemouth bass) in Pond 9.a

 

 

 

Species Biomass estimate (gm)
White crappie I 2690
Pumpkinseed sunfish 120

Central mudminnow 7 (1)b
Total 2820

 

3'Estimates by Petersen method.

bNumbers in parentheses are numbers of individuals.

7A

TABLE CA. Biomass estimates of fishes (excluding bluegills and
largemouth bass) in pond 10.a

 

 

Species Biomass (k8)-

 

Green sunfish 0.1A

 

TABLE 05. Biomass estimates of fishes (excluding bluegills and
largemouth bass) in pond 11.

 

 

 

Species Biomass (kg)
Carp 208.39
White sucker ‘ 2.72
Nerthern pike 1.3A
Black bullhead 6.1A
Brown bullhead 0.88
Green sunfish 1.75
Golden Shiner 5.13
White crappie 0.52
Rock bass 55-50
Channel catfish 0.A8
Total 285.13

 

a'Inventoried by rotenone poisoning.

-75

TABLE C6. Biomass estimates of fishes (excluding bluegills and
1argemouth.bass) in pond l2.

 

 

 

Species Biomass (kg)
Carp 58.3A
White crappie 3.A0
Yellow perch 0.05
Northern pike 5.53 (l)b
Pumpkinseed sunfish 0.12
Black bullhead 1.Al
Total 68.85

 

TABLE C7. Biomass estimates of fishes (excluding bluegills and
largemouth bass) in pond 13.

 

 

Species Biomass (kg)

Yellow perch 0.92

Green sunfish 0.03
Total 0-95

 

aInventoriedby rotenone poisoning.
bNumbers in parentheses are numbers of individuals.

c:Estimates by Peteran method.

76

TABLE 08. Biomass estimates of fishes (excluding bluegills and
largemouth bass) in pond 15.

 

 

 

Species Biomass (k8)
Rock bass 1.20
River chub 0.A8
Channel catfish 0.76
Redear sunfish 16.73
Total 19.17

 

TABLE C9. Biomass estimates of fishes (excluding bluegills and
largemouth bass) in pond 16.

 

 

 

Species Biomass (kg)
BIBCk bullhead 189.96
Miscellaneous minnows ' 73.87
Goldfish " 0.A1 (1)C
White crappie 0.27 (2)
Total ' 26h.52

 

aEstimatesby PeterSen method.

bInventoried.by rotenone poisoning.

cNumbers in parentheses are numbers of individuals.

77

TABLE 010. Biomass estimates of fishes (excluding bluegills and
largemouth bass) in pond 17.a

 

 

 

Species Biomass (kg)
Carp 232.22
Yellow'perch 1.01
Channel catfish 2.95
Northern pike 6.30
White sucker 2.90
Golden shiners 0.85
Pumpkinseed sunfish 2.80
Black bullheads 1.13
White crappie 50.62
Central.mudminnow 0.20
'White bass 0.22
Total 301.22

 

TABLE 011. Biomass estimates of fishes (excluding bluegills and
largemouth bass) in pond 18.

 

 

Species Biomass (k8)

 

Yellow perch 7.13

 

a .
Inventoried by rotenone poisoning.

bEstimates by Peterson method.

78

TABLE 012. Biomass estimates of fishes (excluding bluegills and
largemouth bass) in pond 19.3

 

 

 

Species Biomass(kg)
snmnouth bass 2.0h (1)b
Carp 22.02
Black bullhead ll.hh
Rock bass 0-35 (2)
Green sunfish 6.30
Miscellaneous minnows 3.36
Yellow perch 10.10
Nbrthern pike 2.8h (1)
White sucker 0.10 (1)
Total 58.55

 

aInventoried by rotenone poisoning.

‘bfiumbers in parentheses are numbers of individuals.

79

TABLE 013. Biomass estimates of fishes (excluding bluegills and
largemouth.bass) in pond 22.a

‘

 

 

Species Biomass (kg)
Carp 265.68
White crappie 9.30
Blue catfish 11.12
Black bullhead 0.07
Green sunfish 0.12
Pumpkinseed sunfish 0.03
Gizzard shad 78.00
Total 3611.32

 

TABLE Clh. Bianass estimates of fishes (excluding bluegills and
largemouth bass) in pond 2h.

 

 

————-

Species Biomass (k8)

 

Channel catfish 6.60 (19)°

Smallmouth bass 5.13 (6)

White crappie 18.h6 (136)
Total 30.19

 

a‘Inventoried by rotenone poisoning.

1’Estimates by Petersen method.

cHummers in parentheses are numbers of individuals.

APPENDIX D:
Average total lengths and.ueights at capture and back-calculated

total lengths at annulus formation for largemouth.bass in sampled
ponds (Tables Dl—D19).

80

81

TABLE D1. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

pond 1.
Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 LE 5
I 79 ll 9 55
II 150 A9 3 53 lho
III 19k 110 1 51 119 171
v 372 751 2 73 167 237 281 3hl
Grand
Mean 1&0 12h 57 lh6 215 281 3&1

 

TABLE D2. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

pond 2.
Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulungormation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 h 5
II 169 60 10 70 150
III 210 107 h 72 138 191
Iv 2A3 17h 5 69 137 170 227
v 319 Ash 2 7% 132 200 255 299

Grand
Mean 209 13h 70 lh3 183 235 299

 

82

TABLE D3. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

pond 3.
Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formationv
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 h
I 9% 10 3 69
II 129 28 72 62 11h
III 185 83 7 63 105 157
Iv 33h 156 h 55 208 267 31h
Grand
Mean 11:2 52 62 118 197 31h

 

TABLE Dh. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

pond h.
Ave. Tbtal Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3
I 90 10 h 60
II 119 l9 16 51 102
III 203 96 1 ho 87 183

Grand
Mean 117 21 52 101 183

 

83

TABLE D5. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for largemouth bass in
pond 5 .

 

 

Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 h 5 6* 7 8 9

 

II 99 1h 7 A6 83
III 165 55 8 71 107 lhl
IV 173 69 5 S9 91 125 157
V 2AA 256 3 62 97 132 176 228
VI 329 558 1 73 117 153 212 251 291
VIII h02 810 l 56 88 137 208 262 302 337 375
II A56 2281 1 52 71 101 lhh 176 222 281 376 h2u
Grand
Mean 186 . 20A 60 95 13h 170 229 291 309 376 h2h

 

TABLE D6. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for largemouth bass in

 

 

 

pond 6.
Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation r
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 17 5 6

 

VI 207 100 16 61 86 139 158 175 191

 

8A

TABLE D7. Average total lengths and.weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

pond 7.
Av. Tbtal Av. Back—calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (5m) Fish 1 2 3 A
III 233 1A2 20 AA 107 176
IV 233 1A1 6 A2 105 166 206
Grand
Mean 233 1A2 AA 106 17A 206

 

TABLE D8. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for largemouth bass in

 

 

 

pond 8.
Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. no. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 A

 

IV 229 138 21 A5 101 160 206

 

 

1"] ))t‘l‘l'l (I ‘l |

85

TABLE D9. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

pond 9.
Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 7A
I 97 AA A 6A
II 195 83 17 70 156
III 290 28A 1 A7 163 255
Iv 303 3A3 2 7A 161 223 275
Grand
Mean 192 107 68 .156 233 275

 

TABLE D10. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for largemouth bass in
pond 10.

 

 

Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 h 5 6* 7

 

I 106 12 9 76
II 125 25 26 63 10A
III 1A8 Al 1A 57 9A 127
IV 307 362 3 A8 1A7 229 288
V 3A3 550 2 61 102 229 278 321
VII A77 1898 1 51 120 221 300 3A8 A08 AA7
Grand

Mean 152 98 63 10A 157 286 330 A08 AA7

 

86

TABLE D11. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

pond 11.
Av. Total Av. Back—calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. no. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (m) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 A 5 6
I 10A 13 30 75
II 156 A5 11 68 121
III 205 113 6 68 98 161
IV 353 585 1 86 1A2 196 312
V 378 781 6 69 137 222 288 3A0
VI A21 1187 5 6A 95 177 271 338 388

Grand
Mean 183 216 72 116 188 283 339 388

 

87

TABLE D12. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calcula‘ted total lengths at annulus formation for largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

 

pond 12.
Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 A 5 6
I 105 16 A 63
II 165 53 8 51 13A
III 217 1AA 9 52 99 180
IV 259 236 2 50 97 1A0 223
V 335 ‘ 583 7 56 1A1 208 269 308
VI 37A 810 3 55 138 205 2AA 300 3A0
Grand

Mean 233 266 5A 120 189 255 306 3A0

 

88

TABLE D13. Average total lengths and weights at capture and'back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

pond 13.
Av. Total Av. Back—calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. no. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (m) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 A
I 113 17 22 79
II 213 11A 3 65 162
IV 353 606 2 71 158 233 328
Grand

Mean 1&2 72 77 158 233 328

 

TABLE Dlh. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

pond 1A.
Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 A?
I 1A1 33 6 79
II 169 55 2A 52 115
III 250 181 6 60 179 221
Iv 255 206 1 A3 150 199 222

Grand
Mean 180 76 58 128 218 222

 

89

TABLE D15. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

pond 15.
Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2
II 220 171 10 A9 119

 

TABLE D16. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for largemouth bass in
pond 17.

 

 

Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (on) Fish 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8

 

I 112 16 l 62
II 201 116 6 55 1A0
III 255 220 7 6A 1A1 200
IV 2A7 2AA 1 53 70 1AA 209
V ‘ 362] 636 1 52 117 15A 210 295
VI 368 689 3 66 1A0 170 227 287 331
VII 373 7A0 A 60 99 1A2 187 2A2 309 350
VIII A09 996 A 5A 90 132 183 2A1 295 3A7 38A
Grand

Mean 29A A39 59 123 165 198 257 310 3A9 38A

 

90

TABLE D17. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

pond 18.
Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (8m) Fish 1 2 3
I 89 9 15 61
II 155 A8 9 68 121
III 182 66 1 A8 1A0 163
Grand
Mean 116 25 63 123 163

 

TABLE D18. Average total lengths and weights at capture and.back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

pond 20.
Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. no. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2
I 103 11 A 65
II 133 25 2A 70 116

Grand
Mean 129 23 69 116

 

91

TABLE D19. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for largemouth bass in

 

 

 

 

pond 23.
Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length.(mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3
I 98 10 9 71
II 123 19 2 72 103
III 1A2 32 2 73 101 118

Grand
Mean 108 1A 71 102 118

 

 

APPENDIX E:
Average total 18.369118 and weights at capture and back-calculated

total lengths at annulus fomation for bluegills in sampled
ponds (Tables El-E22) .

92

93

TABLE El. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for bluegills in pond l.

 

 

Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 A 5 6 7

 

II 82 9 1 Al 72

III 86 9 96 3A 6A 77

IV 93 10 2 32 6A 75 87

VII 156 A3 1 31 53 76 91 110 126 1A6
Grand

Mean 87 9 3A 6A 76 88 110 126 1A6

 

TABLE E2. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for bluegills in pond 2.

 

 

Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8

 

III 93 12 36 33 58 85
Iv 106 17 29 28 5A 78 97
V 110 18 11 28 53 71 87 102
VI 113 21 5 27 51 71 85 97 106
VII 136 3A 8 25 50 73 90 105 118 129
VIII 13A 32 1 23 A3 59 75 97 109 120 127
Grand

Mean 105 17 30 55 79 92 101 113 127 127

 

9A

TABLE E3. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for bluegills in pond 3.

 

 

Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (Sm) Fish 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8

 

II 81 10 50 33 65
III 113 25 A5 28 59 97
IV 159 72 10 27 58 106 1A7
V 161 70 9 29 56 10A 136 152
VII 18A 110 1 35 71 1A0 162 168 173 179
VIII 205 260 1 28 63 128 1A3 162 178 191 199
Grand

mean 108 29 30 62 101 1A3 155 175 185 199

 

95

TABLE EA. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for bluegills in pond A.

 

 

Av. Total Av. Back—calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 A 5 6 7

 

I 60 7 2 A7
II 88 10 6 36 72
III 105 1A 32 39 72 95
IV 11A 18 23 36 70 93 106
V 121 2A 7 37 71 92 105 115
VI 139 A6 A 39 65 86 100 116 130
VII 1A2 A9 1 26 A9 8A 100 120 131 138
Grand .

Mean 109 18 38 71 93 105 116 130 138

 

96

TABLE E5. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for bluegills in pond 5.

 

 

Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (an) (em) Fish 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8

 

II 73 9 7 29 60

III 99 18 A7 3A 61 86

IV 11A 25 11 31 58 81 101

V 11A 22 8 29 S3 72 88 103

v1 123 35 2 27' A8 66 8A 99 115

VII 138 A1 A 27 A9 71 87 103 111 127
VIII 160 79 2 28 5A 66 80 99 117 132 1A6
Grand

Mean 10A 22 32 59 82 92 102 11A 129 1A6

 

97

TABLE E6. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for bluegills in pond 6.

 

 

Av. Total AV. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 A 5 6

 

I 82 15 3 56

II 111 21 1 25 73

IV 165 7A 9 33 87 132 151

V 17A 92 21 31 83 118 1AA 161

VI 182 110 60 36 88 122 1A5 16A 178
Grand
Mean 175 99 39 87 122 1A5 163 178

 

TABLE E7. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for bluegills in pond 7.

 

 

Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (m) (an) Fish 1 2

 

II 155 75 A2 50 129

 

98

TABLE E8. Average total lengths and.weights at capture and back-
calculated.total lengths at annulus formation for bluegills in pond 8.

 

 

 

 

Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. Nb. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 A
I 61 6 10 37
IV 170 9A 28 31 85 131 15A
Grand
Mean 1A1 71 38 33 85 131 15A

 

TABLE E9. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for bluegills in pond 9.

 

 

Av. Tbtal Av. Backscalculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. Nb. of at Annulus Formatign
Age Capture (mm) (on) Fish 1 2 3 A 5 6 7

 

II 67 6 22 3A 59
III 100 15 37 30 57 88
IV 11A 22 22 33 61 87 103
V 131 31 6 31 60 95 110 122
VI 1A6 A9 6 29 55 85 107 125 136
VII 165 72 333 60 89 111 129 1A2 153
Grand

Mean 102 19 32 58 88 105 12A 138 153

 

99

TABLE E10. Average total lengths and weights at capture and.back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for bluegills in pond 10.

 

 

Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9

 

I 52 3 19 36
II 8A 10 30 36 71
’III 115 23 33 31 72 100
IV 138 A3 1 A0 82 103 129
VI 162 60 A 27 55 87 103 121 1A3
VII 172 79 7 26 53 82 107 12A 1AA 175
VIII 180 92 A 2A A9 76 108 135 1A8 163 172
Ix 187 108 2 23 A3 71 97 125 1A9 162 171 180
Grand

Mean 10A 25 33 68 93 106 126 1A7 169 171 180

 

 

100

TABLE E11. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back—
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for bluegills in pond ll.

 

 

 

 

Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (m) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 A '5
I 76 8 11 A6
II 95 1A 31 36 75
III 99 15 6 36 70 89
IV 110 20 2 33 76 88 100
V 122 25 1 25 A8 87 100 111

Grand
Mean 92 13 38 7A 88 100 111

 

101

TABLE E12. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for bluegills in pond l2.

 

 

Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 A 5 6 7

 

I 51 A 11 A0
II 65 5 10 38 58
III 88 9 10 39 61 78
IV 102 15 10 36 60 78 93
V 110 20 6 32 5A 70 86 100
VI 110 19 l 26 37 57 66 86 98
VII 137 38 2 26 A7 68 79 103 120 133
Grand

Mean 83 11 37 58 75 88 99 113 133

 

102

TABLE E13. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for bluegills in pond l3.

 

 

Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. no. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 A 5 6

 

I 52 2 12 36
II 72 6 27 28 56
III 92 12 ll 33 5A 75
IV 103 18 9 33 51 65 85
V 116 26 10 30 A9 67 82 100
VI 13A 37 6 30 A8 65 82 98 120
Grand
Mean 86 13 31 53 69 83 100 120

 

TABLE ElA. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for bluegills in pond 1A.

 

 

 

 

Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (m) (gm) Fish 1 2 3
I 56 6 A1 31
II 127 36 30 28 8A
III 1A7 56 29 30 96 131
Grand

Mean - 103 29 30 90 131

 

103

TABLE E15. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for bluegills in pond 15.

 

 

 

Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (on) Fish 1 2
I 87 1A 29 A0
II 87 15 21 A2 77
Grand
Mean 87 1A Al 77

 

TABLE E16. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back—
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for bluegills in pond 17.

 

 

 

Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. N0. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 A 5 6 7

 

II 82 9 1 A1 72
III 86 9 96 3A 6A 77
IV 93 10 2 32 6A 75 87
VII 156 A3 1 31 53 76 91 110 126 1A6
Grand

Mean 87 9 3A 6A 76 88 110 126 1A6

 

10A

TABLE E17. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for bluegills in pond l8.

 

 

 

 

Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length.at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (m) (an) Fish 1 2 3 A 5 6 7
I 87 9 8 A8
VI 113 19 3A 25 A5 62 79 9A 105
VII 111 18 7 26 A3 57 73 86 96 10A
Grand
Mean 108 17 29 A5 61 78 93 103 10A

 

TABLE E18. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for bluegills in pond 20.

 

 

 

 

 

Av. Total Av. Back-calculated total length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 A 5 6
II 72 8 31 31 5A
III 118 30 39 30 65 96
IV 167 76 3 29 68 116 1AA
V 190 105 1 2A 70 12A 1A9 173
VI 326 222 l 28 78 129 166 192 222

Grand
Mean 10A 26 30 61 99 1A9 182 222

 

105

TABLE E19. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for bluegills in pond 22.

 

 

 

 

Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (m) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 " A
II 129 A2 6 38 99
III 155 53 A 38 72 120
IV 169 80 3 38 77 110 1A1
Grand
Mean 1A6 5A 38 86 116 1A1

 

TABLE E20. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for bluegills in pond 23.

 

 

Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 A 5 T 7

 

I 79 8 19 A3
III 112 18 3 A1 70 99
IV 120 23 3 A1 69 92 109
V 125 25 6 35 59 80 99 116
VI 122 2A 13 29 A9 67 85 100 113
VII 127 30 5 25 A2 63 78 91 10A 117
Grand

Mean 105 18 36 5A 75 89 102 110 117

 

106

TABLE E21. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for bluegills in pond 2A.

 

 

Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 A 5 6 7

 

I 53 6 A 36
II 8A 9 3 37 66
III 105 17 10 38 73 9A
IV 126 3A 2 A2 71 97 116
V 159 78 2 39 72 106 133 150
VI 13A 39 2 30 61 87 10A 116 126
VII 205 13A 1 29 58 83 118 1A1 170 189
Grand

Mean 106 27 37 69 9A 118 13A 1A1 189

 

107

TABLE E22. Average total lengths and weights at capture and back-
calculated total lengths at annulus formation for bluegills in pond 25.

 

 

 

 

Av. Total Av. Back-calculated Total Length (mm)
Length at Av. Wt. No. of at Annulus Formation
Age Capture (mm) (gm) Fish 1 2 3 A 5 6
I 59 6 3 37
II 90 17 19 31 62
III 127 Al 8 32 65 100
Iv 158 99 1A 37 78 11A 133
V 167 125 1A 32 62 111 131 1A7
VI 162 112 1 27 55 75 101 128 1A5

Grand
Mean 129 66 59 33 66 108 131 1A6 1A5

 

APPENDIX F:

Owners and locations of the 25 ponds in which fish poPulations
were sampled.

108

109

TABLE Fl. Owners and locations of the 25 ponds in which fish popula-
tions were sampled.

 

 

Location of Pond

 

 

 

Pond Owner Township Range Section
1 Matt Borsenik lON 2E 21
2 Matt Borsenik 10N 2E 21
3 Jerry Fraser lON 3E 17
A Frank W. Martin llN 3E 31
5 Ernest Kendall lON 2E l
6 Donald Zorn llN 2E 12
7 Norman Guziak 10N 2E 2A
8 Dale Durham llN 2E 21
9 Norman Hahn llN 3E 17

10 Harold Asmus llN 3E 19
11 Larry Clark 12N 3E 36
12 Eugene Robinson 12N 3E 36
13 Alex Teselsky lON 2E 12
1A Fred Hare llN BE A
15 Roy Colpean llN 2E 31
16 Michael Steeves 12N AE 31
17 Wyman Day llN AE 6
18 Ervin Levan lON 2E 12
19 Jack Bullard llN 1E 16
20 Jack Riser llN 3E 5
21 Vincent Liebrock lON 2E 12
22 Vincent Liebrock ION 2E 12
23 Bennett Claspbell 12N 2E 13
2A Amos Snider llN AE 5

25 Robert Hall llN 2E 36

 

ilHllilx

ill