ML19317E170
| ML19317E170 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1969 |
| From: | May O SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912160037 | |
| Download: ML19317E170 (73) | |
Text
poPU k ATioN STvD1SS IN RESCR V6 irs ce .z 69 6..,w;-x ~ ,-
@ w/Lt* htad #'!5 ~
- FISHEIES INVESTIGATIONS
'l[ .
s
~
.3 LAKES AND STREAMS
- DISTRICT IV e
,[ OTHO D. MAY, JR. l
! 1 l
l t
i t
I ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT _ ;
FOR PERIOD OF JULY 1,1968 THROUGH JUN.E 80, 1969 I
South Carolina Wildlife Resources Department 1969 8j J
29121809@7
JOB PROGRESS REPORT
- iYIN, South Carolina W MATORS:
South Carolina Wildlife Resources 'kmartncnt and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service r "hWCT NO: F-9-ll Fisheries Investigations in PROJECT TITLE:
_ Lakes and Streams - District II
.!011 NO: I JOB TITLE: Population Studies in Reservoirs PERIOD COVERED:
July 1,1968 through June 30,,1%9 INTRODUCTION This job is chiefly basic research and its major objectives are to supply data which will allow for the early diagnosis of unfavoraole changes which-have or which night be occurring in the basic fish populations of the lakes being studied t nd to, hopefully, serve as guidelines for formulating corrective measures if, when, and where corrective measures are needed.
The data <.ontained in this report were obtained from three rotenone samples taken f rom Lake Greenwood, thme rotenone samples taken from Lake Ilartwell, two rotenone samples taken from Lake Clark Hill and two rotenone samples taken from Lake Secession.
PROCEDURES Prior to the rotenone samples, suitable areas wem selected on each lake and the surface area and the average depth of each area was determined.
The areas selected were all cove areas and in each instance, a block-off net was set across the mouth of the cove on the evening of the day before the study was scheduled. The piscicide used in the studies was emulsified l
rotenone,
. "Nox-Fish,"'at the rate of 0.75 to 1.25 ppm. The rotenone was 1 i
dispersed throughout the study area by means of a perforated hose attached to a pressurized tank. {
The littoral zone was treated with a surface spray.
L' i
4 l
l t
!i l- !
3
'ihen fish began surfccing, thry were callseted and carried to a esorting
- t'nle for processing The recovered fish wero separated to individual species rimi
'ach species was further separated to one-inch size groups--the h inch mark M5 ? the dividing line between the size groups. The number of individuals in nach size group was determined and the collective weight of each group was
%termined.
This routine was followed through the third day of each study except--following the first day only those size groups not represented the first day in sufficient numbers for good average weights were weighed.
The common and scientific na'me of each species mentioned in this report are tabulated in Table 1.
FINDINGS iAKi: GREENWOOD:
Three areas were sampled on Iake Greenwood during August,1968 The areas mmpled ranged in size from 1.25 surface acres to 1.50 surface acres and had average depths that ranged from h.5 feet to 8.5 feet, The areas sampled in 1968
~
were the same areas that have been sampled for the past several yeara and are located as follows: Area 1 (1.50 surface acres--average depth 5.5 feet)-
near the upner end of the lake, Area 2 (1.50 surface acres--average depth 8.5 feet)--in the middle port, ion of the lake and Area 3 (1.25 surface acres--
averago depth b.5 feet)-near the dam.
The 1968 studies (combined) yielded 19 species of fishes. The pre-dominant species, in descending order of abundance and based on total weight of fish recovered, werer gizzard shad (77.1 percent), bluegill (9.1 percent), l
, largemouth bass (5.0 percent), yellow perch (2.2 percent), golden redhoras (l.h percent), pumpkinseed (1.2 percent), and warmouth (1.1 percent)--Table 2 These seven species made up 97.1 percent of the total weight of all fish recovered.
Twelve other species made up the remaining 2.9 percent of the i
2 k"
i l
+~ >
F :. le 1.--A list of the conmon names and the scientific names of the various species of fishes mentioned in this report aon name Scientific name
. t <ge .......,,....
'~n ) I mr pe rch . . . . . , , , , , , ,, , StizostedionPerca vitreum vitreum (Mitchill) flavescens (Mitchill)
J"hnny darter , , , . , , , , . , , ,, ,. , , ,,,
, Etneostoma nigrum Rafinesque
'hek crappie , . , , , . . . .. . . , , , , Pomoxis nigromaculatus (IeSueur) _
Whit.e crappie , , . , , , , , Pomoxis annularis Rafinesque
!.m emouth bass , , , , , , , , ,, , ,,,,, , , , , Micropterus salmoides (Lacepede)
% !aye bass , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Nicropterus coosae Hubbs and Bailey l N tmr sun"ish. , , ,
' n11nr sunfish , , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , lepomis microlophus Lepomis marginatus(Gunther)
(Holbrook)
"becill ,,,,,,,,... , , , , , , , , , , , *Lepomis
. , , macrocnirus Rafinesque
('r'ncespotted sunfish , , , , ,, ,,. .. . , , , , , , , Lepomis humilis (Girard)
N pkinseed ,,,, Inpomis gibbosus (Linnaeus) ,
hen sunfish . . . . ., ., ,. ,. ., ., , ,..,. , ,. ., ,, ,Icpomis cyanellus Rafinesque ;
?m ib re as t sunfish . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . Iepomis auritus (Linnaeus) l:o mouth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chaencory*,tus gulosus (Cuvier) iller..................
Mo quitofish Centrarchus macrooterus (Iacepede)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gambusia affir.is (Baird and Girard)
- St.riped bass .................. Rocct.s saxatilis (Walbaum)
White bass .................. Roccus c Mvitoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .hrysops (Rafinesque)
. . . . Noturus spp Channel catfish . . . , , , . , , , , , . Ictalurus punctatus (Rafinesque)
Flat bullhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ictalurus platycephalus (Girard) 1 Prwn bullhead ,,.,,,,,
'#aite catfish , , , , , , , , , ,, , , .,,,.,,, , . , , , Ictalurus Ictalurus nebulosus (IeSueur) catus (Linnaeus) blden redhorse . , , , , , , . . . . , ,,Moxostoma erythrurum (Rafinesque)
Spotted sucker ..,,,.....
Minytrema melanops (Rafinesque)
- or thern hog sucker , , , . . . , ,, ., ., .. Hypentelium nigricans (IeSueur)
River carpsucker .....,, . . . . . , Carpiodes carpio (Rafinesque)
"pottail shiner... . . . . . . . .
..... Notropis hudsonius (Clinton) cman shiner. ...........,,,,, Notropis cornutus (Mitchill)
Carp
...........,,,,,,,,,.,, Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus Chrin pickerel ,,. ,,, Esox niger (IeSueur)
Threadfin shad, , . , , . , , ., , ,, ,, .,, ,, ,, ,. , , , , ,Dorosoma
, petenense (Ounther)
Gizzard shad . . . . , , , , , , , , . . . . . Dorosoma cepedianum (LeSuear)
. Longnose gar ,,,,..
Misc. Minnows , , , . , , ,. ,, .,Etheostoma, , , , , . , , , Lepisosteus Gambusia, Hybopis,osseusNotropis, (Linnaeus) etc.
~
l l
3 l
e
[
! ml weight of fish rscovered in the three studiss.
F. values (the percentage of weight of the entire population composed of
~
, -articular species) and the total weight contributed to the entire population the fingerlinf., intermediate, and adult size fish of each species taken in I
n:h study are tabulated in Tables 3 through 5. Iength-frequency distribution
. for the various species recovered in the 1%8 studies are tabulated in Table Population dynanics for the years 1961 through 1968 are tablulated in Table 7.
The 1968 population dynamics wero calculated and they indicate the fol-Lowing:
//0 - Forage species to carnivorous species ratiot The F/C ratios for the 1968 studies varied from a low of 14.8 (lower-lake ma) to a high of 22.2 (upper-lake ama) and was 15.2 for the combined !
ni mlies.
The individual studies indicate a well balanced population in one 4 area sampled and an overcrowded (unbalanced) population of forage fishes in tha other two areas sampled. This value for the combined, 1968, studies also imlicated an overcrowded forage fish population.
Y/C - Ratio of the weight of fish small enough to be utilized as food by the average sized carnivorous species to the total weight of the carnivorous population:
The Y/C values for the individual studies varied from 0.1 (lower-lake .
nrea) to 0.7 (upper-lake area) and was 0.2 for the combined studies. T/C values in this range indicates a population overcrowded with carnivorous wecies.
A 7 - Percentage of harvestable size fish in the population.
The percentage of harvestable size fish in the population varied from a bw of 77.7 (mid-lake area) to 82.2 (upper-lake area) and was 78.5 for the combined studies. The A7 values obtained from two of the study areas and for the combined studies fall within the most desirable range (Swingle,1950) for b I t
i L
)
'am popuhtions. The value for the upper-lake ama, 82.2, indicates a
.htion overcrowded with carnivorous species.
{. - Ici:entage of normally harvested species:
r The percentage of harvestable size fish of those species normally har-
. v,ad o the sport or comercial fishermen varied from 9.2 (mid-lake area) in N'.9 (upper-lake area) and was lh.9 for the combined studies. In respect
!o total potential productivity, this value is very unsatisfactory.
" - !'nreentage of normally unharvested species:
It appears that within this group of fishes lies the greatest potential r
ar inproving the sport fishery in the lake. The percentage of harvestable
.im fishes of those species normally unharvestable by either the sport or t w coxnr reial fisherman varied from a low of 52.h (lower-lake area) to a M.h of 68.5 (mid-lake area) and was 63.6 for the combined studies. Of the tatal weight of harvestable sized fish in the population (combined studies),
l
_ 11.0 percent are composed of those species ncrmally unharvested. ~
- - Percentage of the total forage fish population that are adults
The Ay values for the 1968 studies ranged from 77.1 (mid-lake area) to 0.0 (upper-lake area) and was 78.2 for the combined studies. As it was with
!1:e AT values so is it with the Ap values-the same areas having AT values falling within the optimun range also had Ap values falling within the optizain ranre. The area (lower-lake) having an AT indicating an overcrowded carnivorous remlaticn also had an Ap value indicating the same condition.
% - Percentage of the total forage fish population that are small fish.
This value ranged from 1.1 (mid-lake area) to 2.9 (upper-lake area) and m 1.7 for the combined studies. All of. these values indicate a population overcrowced with carnivorous species.
MKM HAR1WELL:
1 5
i Tchle 2.--Lake Greenwood: The total pounds and the E values contributed to the total weight of the fish population by the adult, intermediate, and fingerling sized fishes of each species taken in three population studies during August,1%8 Adults Intermediates Fingerlings Total Species Pounds E values Pounds E values Pounds E values Ponnds E values fellow psrch 15.9 1.22 6.6 0.50 6.6 9.50 29,1 2.22 Slack crappie 2.3 0.18 0.6 0.0h 0.1 0.01 3.0 0.23
'.lhite crappie 1.3 0.10 - - T ** 1.3 0.10 Iargemouth bass Sh.0 h.11 8.1 0.62 2.9 0.22' 65.0 h.95
- ollar sunfish - -
0.3 0.02 0.1 0.01 0.h 0.03 Bluegill 72.3 5.50 hl.3 3.15 5.9 0.h5 119.5 9.10 Nmpkinseed 5.7 0.h3 9.3 0.71 0.h
- 0.03 15.h 1.17 Cnen sunfish 0.2 0.02 0.7 0.05 0.7 0.05 1.6 0.12
- Jarmouth h.5 0 3h 9.8 0;75 0.1 0.01 1h.h 1.10 Striped bass - - 0;l 0.01 - - 0;l 0.01
- ihite bass 0.8 0.06 1.1 0.08 'T '** 1.9 0.1h
- nat bullhead 6.1 0.h6 5.9 0.55 1;0 0;08 13.0 0.99 9.6
hite catfish 0;73 0.1 0.01 9.7 0.7h Golden redhorse 17.h 1.32 1.2 0.07 - - 18.6 1.h1 Opottail shiner -
0.3 0.0h 0.3 0.0h Conrnon shiner - - - - T ** T **
3:p 6.0 0.h6 - - - - 6.0 0.h6 Tincard shad 8h3.7 63.59 172;7 13.16 5.0 0.38 1,012.h 77.13
-enenose gar --
0.8 0.05 0.8
!c:Els
-- - -- 0.06 1,030.6 70.52 255.5 19.69 23.2 1.79 1,212.5 100.00 7 - Trace
= Less than 0.0051 percent L ,
) ,
k
O Table 3.--Lake Greenwood: The total pounds and the E values contributed to the total fish population by the adult, intermediate, and fingerling sized fishes of each species taken in a population sample during August,1968 (Upper-lake Area)
Adults Intermediates Fingerlings Total Soecies Pounds E value Pounds E value Pounds E value Pounds E value Yellow perch 3.9 1.hO 1.2 0.h3 2.9 1.Oh 8.0 2.87 Black crappie - -- 0.1 0.Oh T T O.1 0.Oh Laraemouth bass 6.3 2.26 2.3 0.82 1.1 0.39 9.7 3.h7
-Dollar sunfish -- --
O.2 0.07 T ** O.2 0.07 Bluegill 33.0 11.85 11.2 h.02 3.3 1.18 h7.5 17.05 Pumpkinseed 0.h O.lh 0.7 0.25 0.3 0.11 1.h 0.50 Green sunfish -- -- O.1 0.Oh 0.2 0.07 0.3 0.11 Warwouth 2.5 0.90 1.8 0.65 0.1 0.Oh h.h 1.59 White bass - - 0.7 0.25 T T O.7 0.25 Flat bullhead 2.h 0.86 3.0 1.08 0.6 "
0.22 6.0 2.16 White catfish 1.h O.50 - - T ** 1.h 0.50 Golden redhorse 16.2 5.81 0.7 0.25 -- -
16.9 6.06 Spottail shiner -- - - - T ** T **
carp 6.0 2.15 - - - - 6.0 2.15 Gizzard stad 156.8 56.29 18.5 6.6h O.5 0.18 175.8 63.11 Longnosa gar - - 0.2 0.07 - ~ O.2 0.07 Totals 228.9 82.16 h0.7 lb.61 9.0 3.23 278.6 100.00 T = Tracs
- c- = Less than 0.0051 percent 1
r Table h.--Lake Greenwood: The total pounds and the E values contributed to the total weight of the fish population by the adult, intermediate and fingerling sized fishes of each species taken in a population sample during August,1968 (Mid-lake Arva)
Adults Intermediates Finger 11ngs Total
[q's g Pounds E value Pounds E value Pounds E value Pounds E value Yellow perch 7.4 0.57 4.3 0.51 2.7 0 32 14.4 1.70 Black crappie 2.3 0.27 0.5 0.06 0.1 0.01 2.9 0.3h White crappie 1.3 0.15 -
T ** 1.3 Largemouth bass 20.8 0.15 2.h6 2.0 0.2h 1.3 0.15 2h.1 2.85 Dollar sunfish 0.1 0.01 0.1 0.01 T ** O.2 0.02 Bluegill 27.3 3.?2 2h.3 2.87 0.6 0.07 52.2 6.16 Pumpkinseed 3.h 0.h0 7.2 0.85 T ** 10.6 1.25 Green sunfish 0.1 0.01 0.2 0.02 0.1 0.01 0.h 0.0h Warmouth 1.2 0.1h 0.9 0.11 T ** 2.1 0.25 Striped bass - - 0.1 0.01 -- --
0.1 0.01 White bass .
0.h 0.05 - -
0.h 0.05 Flat bullhead h.h 0.52 1.0 0.12 0.3 0.0h 5.7 0.68 White catfish 8.2 0.97 - - 0.1 0.01 8.3 0.98 Golden redhorse 1.2 0.11: 0.5 0.06 - -
1.7 0.20 Spottail shiner -
0.1 0.01 0.1 0.01 Common shiner - - - - T ** T **
Gizzard shad 580.0 68.h8 137.7 16.26 h.5 0.53 722.2 85.27 Longnose gar - --
0.3 0.0h 0.3 0.0L Totals 657.7 77.64 179.5 21.21 9.6 1.15 Sh7.0 100.00 T = Trace
- = Less than 0.0051 percent l
I l
l Table 5.-Iake Greenwood: The total pounds and the E values contributed to the total fish population by the adult, intermediate, and fingerling sized fishes of each species taken in a population sample during August,1968 (Iower-lake Area)
Adults Intermediates Fingerlings Total q Species Pounds E values Pounds E values Pounds E values Pounds E values Yellow perch 4.6 2.46 1.1 0.59 1.0 0.53 6.7 3.55 Black crappie -- -- - -- T H T w Iargemouth bass 26.9 1h.h0 3.8 2.03 0.5 0.27 31.2 16.70 Bluegill 12.0 6.h2 5.8 3.10 2.0 1.07 19.8 10.59 Pumpkinseed 1.9 1.02 1.h 0.75 0.1 0.05 3.h 1.82 Green sunfish 0.1 0.05 0.h 0.21 0.h 0.21 0.9 0.h7 Warmouth 0.8 0.h3 7.1 3.80 T n 7.9 h.23
- White bass 0.8 0.h3 - -- - - 0.8 0.h3 Flat bullhead 0.8 0.h3 0.h 0.21 0.1 0.05 1.3 0.69 White catfish - -- - - T w T w Spottail shiner - - - - 0.2 0.11 0.2 0.11 Gizzard shad 97 9 52 39 16.5 8.83 -- - 11h.h 61.22 Longnose gar - - 0.3 0.16 -- -
0.3 0.16 Totals lh5.5 76.03 36.8 19.65 h.3 2.29 186.9 100.00
~T = Trace w = Iass than 0.0051 percent.
, . i . . l s ,
9
Table 6.--Lake Greenwood: Length-frequency distribution of the various species taken in three population samples during August,1%8 Yellow Black White Iargemouth Dollar Pumpkin- Green Inch Class perch crappie crappie bass sunfish Bluegill seed sunfish Warmouth 1 2 576 5 6 2 1 h 75 22 1,26h 55 106 21 3 710 13 1 93 9 h60 28 13 152 h 32 2 900 189 17 loh 5 lu 1 18 388 h7 3 51 6 170 h 3 215 1h 8 7 30 6 h h6 8 2 22 10 S 9 2 2 29 10 1 1 17 11 5 12 n 13 13 Ik 6 15 1 Totals 1,027 31 h 329 35 h,159 333 1h7 3h2 i
i Table 6.-Lake Greenwood Continued Striped White Flat White Golden Spottail Concnon Gizzard Inch class bass bass bullhead catfish redhorse shiner shiner Carp shad 1 1 6 2 h5 10 70 1h 13 3 72 10 2h 3 h66 h 1 9 2 2 lu 5 1 5 23 2' 6 5 16 87 7 12 1,375 8 16 2 3 3,923 9 7 1 50h 4
10 1 219 11 1 1h3 12 1- 3 1 19 13 2 2 10 1h h 12 15 h d 16 2 20 1 23 1 Totals 1 12 201 40 19 96 17 1 6,555 Table 6.-Lake Greenwood: Continued Longnose Inch class gar lh 1 15 1 16 1 Totals 3 I
Table 7.-Lake Gzwenwood: A comparison of the population dynamics, as indicated by rotenone samples, for the years 1961 through 1968 Parameter and Species 1961 1962 1963 196h 1965 1966 1967 1966 E values for:
Yellow perch -- 0.2h 0.35 0.55 0.25 2.76 2.0h 2.22 Black crappie 0.0h 13 .7 6 1.13 0.6h 1.39 0.77 0.75 0.23 White crappie 0.01 7.10 -- 0.29 0.31 0.15 0.20 0.10 Largemouth bass 0.37 8.82 h.10 2.79 0.7h 3.52' 2'.51 h.95 Redeye bass -- -- --
0.01 0.01 -- -- --
Dollar sunfish -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.01 0.03 Bluegill h.88 17.h6 17.h9 8.5h 8.h0 9.5h 8.51 9.10 g Orangespotted sunfish 0.01 0.20 0.06 0.03 0.13 0.17 ** --
Pumpkinseed 0.9h 10.21 11.92 h.91 2.h2 h.59 1.69 1.17 Green sunfish -- -- -- -- -- 0.10 0.05 0.12 Redbreast sunfish -- 0.22 -- -- -- 0.21 0.07 --
Warmouth 0.36 1.78 1.61 1.05 0.23 0.18 0.7h 1.10 Striped bass -- --
-. -- ** -- -- 0.01 White bass 0.13 3.26 1.57 0.93 0.31 0.03 0.50 0.1h .
Plat bullhead 0.05 0.73 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.30 0.62 0.99 Brown bullhead -- -- 1.07 0.0h ** --
0.50 --
White catfish 0.07 1.78 i.85 0.h5 0.86 1.25 0.58 0.7h l
, , s .
e
I Table 7.-Lake Greenwood: Continued Parameter and Species 1961 1962 1963 196h 1965 1966 1967 1968 E values for:
Golden redhorse 0.1h 1.22: -- 0.25 0.10 0.37 0.h3 1.h1 Spottail shinerl -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.0h Common shiner ** 0.1h 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.01 **
River carpsucker --
5.39 -- 0.20 0.61 -- -- --
Carp 0.11 11.91 --
5.5h 0.82 2.0h 1.71 0.h6 Miscellaneous minnows -- -- -- ** 0.02 0.28 ** --
Gizzard shad 92.86 17.75 57.72 73.57 83.22 73.67 79.51 77.13 Longnose gar 0.01 -- ** 0.03 0.0h -- 0.02 0.06 F/C 159,9 2.3 9.6 22.4 54.6 17.5 21.1 15.2 E?
Y/C 21.6 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.h 0.9 0.3 0.2 At 6.9 69.3 82.3 77.2 85.6 78.3 66.h 78.5 AH 3.7 57.7 25.0 18.7 9.8 13.8 15.3 1h.9
- AN 3.2 11.6 57.3 58.5 75.8 6h 5 51.1 63.6 Ap 6.7 61.3 86.8 7h.5 85.7 78.5 65.h 78.2 IF 70.8 33.2 11.1 19.1 13.6 16.6 33.5 20.1
- Sp 13.5 5.5 ?.1 2.2 0.7 h.9 1.1 1.7 Pounds per Acre 1,087.6 102.3 219.h 327.2 679.2 171.2 375.h 308.8 A
Prior to 1965, this species was included with mics. minnows.
- Less than 0.0051 percent.
l t
. . , . . I
v Three studies acro conductcd on Lako Hartwell during August,1%8-one
.17 (1.00 surface acres) on the Tugaloo River am of the lake, one study
. ' surface acres) on the Seneca River arm of the lake and one study (1.00
~
. ace acres) in the lower portion of the lake. All of the st,udies ucro j
nducted in coves which had ==v4== depths of 18-25 feet and average depths l 1
- an ;ing from 7.0 to 10.2 feet.
The 1968 studies yielded 22 species of fishes. The predominant species, in descent ing order of abundance b2 sed on total weight of fish recovered v rc: bleegill (2h.8 percent), gizzard shad (17.5 percent), carp (16.9 percent),
Ilow pe) ch (13.1 percent), threadfin shad (6.3 percent), largemouth bass
'6.1 perce nt), black crappie (3.2 percent), flat bullhead (2.9 percent), ' war-
-~:th (2.h percent), green sunfish (2.0 percent), white crappie (1.5 percent),
ed redbrr:ast (1.1 percent)--Table 8 These 12 species made up 97.8 of the tal wei::ht of all the fish recovered. Ten other species made up the remaining J.? percent of the total weight of fishes recovered.
E values and the total weight contributed to the population by the Nr.ccrlin;, intermediate, and adult sized fishes of each species taken in Uc individual and the combined studies are tabulated in Tables 8 through
'1.
Iengi.h-frequency distribution of the various species taken in the com-
.ned stunies are tabulated in Table 12. A comparison of the population dy-nics for the years 1961 through 1968 ane tabulated in Table 13.
The 1968 population dynamics fror.; Lake Hartwell indicate the following:
. f. .
This ratio ranged from 3.6 (Tugaloo River) to 26.7 (Lower-lake area)
~
"! was 9.3 for the combined studies. The F/C values from only the Tugaloo er and for the combined studies fell within the range for balanced pop-10 tons. The values from the Seneca River and lower-lake area indicate a
- nlation overcrowded with forage fishes, lh l
l
___ l
3:
Y/C values ranged from 0.9 (Tugaloo River) to 3.1 (lower-lake area) and
.ns 1.5 for the combined studies. The Y/C values from all areas fell within
- nc range for balanced populations and all either fell within the most desir-able rance or just missed by 0.1 percent. The 1968 Y/C values appear to be
. ccry satisfactory.
Iq:
The percentage of harvestable sized fish in the populatic . (as indicated
- iy the rotenone samples) varied from a low of 31.1 (Seneca River) to a high of 69.1 (lower-lake area) and averaged h5.8 for the combined studies. All of the AT values fell within the range for balanced populations, but only one value (lower-lake area) fell within the most desirable range. The AT value Trnt the Seneca River indicates an inefficient population.
I The percentage of harvestable size fish in the population composed of hose species for which the sport or ths commerical fishermen will expend time and money to catch ranged from 20.5 (Seneca River) to 50.3 (lower-lake area) and averaged 29.8 for the combined studies. When the productiveness of '.he Irke is considered, these values are very satisfactory.
y;:
The percentage of harvestable size fish in the population not sought
, " cither the sport or the commerical fisherman varied from 10.3 (Seneca J l
kiver) to 25.h (Tugaloo River) and was 16.0 for the combined studies. The vcarage AN value for 1968 is 5.0 percent greater than in 1%7; however, the W8AN values for the lake are considered satisfactory.
The percentage of the entire forage fish population composed of adult 15 l l
l l
)
- ;" 1 fish varind from 26.h (Seneca River) to 69.5 (lower-lake aren) and was i
./.3 for the combined studies. The Apvalues exhibited about the same {
mricteristics as did the A.y values--all were in the range for balanced pop-litions. The value obtained from the Sensca River indicates an inefficient v:lation.
Se values for the 1968 studies varied from 11.7 (lower-lake area) to
.. ' (Turaloo River) and was 15.8 for the combined studies. 'lhese values
' 11 within the range for balanced populations; however, the Sp values
.t.ained from the Seneca River and the lower-lake area indicate a tendency l erd overcrowding of carnivorous species.
.- 2C':SSION:
Thia was the second consecutive year of rotenone sampling in Lake c.: scion. Lake Secession is a small reservoir (3,h6C surface acres) and added to the project in 1%7 for one primary purpose-to evaluate the
. frect of heavily stocking striped bass fingerlings (h-lO inches) into an
< :1blished fish population.
During August,1968, two areas were sampled on the lake--the same two sr ,r. that were sampled in 1%7. Area 1 (upper-end of lake) had a surface ar n of 1.00 acres, a maximum depth of 13.0 feet, and average depth of 6.0
'~ t nnd contained 6.0 acre feet of water. Area 2 (lower-end of lake) had i :rface area of 1,25 acres, a maximum depth of 7.0 feet, an average depth
' ':,0 feet and contained 6.25 acre feet of water.
, The 1968 studies yielded 20 species of fishes. The predominant species,
- i. scending order of abundance were bluegill (30.2 percent), gizzard shad
.6 percent), largemouth bass (10.3 percent), carp (9.2 percent), yellow
- -h (7 3 percent), thmadfin shad (3.2 percent), warmouth (3.2 percent),
16 i
. l Table 8.--take Hartwell: The total pounds and the E values contributed to the totalmight of the fish populat. ion by the adult, intermediate, and fingerling sized fishes of each I species taken in three population samples during August,1968 Intermediates Fingerlings Total Adults Founds r value Founds b value Founds E value Founds E value Species 1.1 0.31 - - - - 1.1 0.31 Walleye 3.0 0.86 37.0 10.58 5.9 1.69 h5.9 13 13 Yellow perch 3.20 Black crappie 6.8 1.9h 3.6 1.03 0.8 0.23 11.2' 2.9 0.83 1.6 0.h6 0.6 0.17 5.1 1.b6 White crappie 6.09 Largemmth bass lh.6 h.17 3.6 1.03 3.1 0.89 21.3 Redeyr. bass -- -- -- -- 0.1 0.03 0.1 0.03 Bluegill 13.3 3.80 59.1 16.90 1h.5 h.15 86.9 2h.S5 Pumpkinseed -- --
0.1 0.03 0.2 0.06 0.3 0.09 0.7 0.20 h.6 1.31 1.7 0.b9 7.0 2.00 Green sunfish Redbreast sunfish 2.0 0,56 1.7 0.h9 0.3 0.09 h.O 1.lh Warmouth 0.9 0.26 6.5 1.86 1.0 0. 2'l 8.h 2A0
- -- T n 7 a Gambusia -- --
White bass 1.2 0.3h 0.1 0.03 0.2 0.06 1.5 OA3 4 Channel catfish 0.2 0,06 - -- -- -- 0.2 0.06 Flat bullhead h.6 1.32 h.7 1.3h 1.0 0.28 10.3 2.9h Brown bullhead 0.3 0.09 - - - -- 0.3 0,q9 White catfish - -- 1.h 0.h0 0.1 0.03 1.5 0.h3 River carpsucker 1.3 0.37 s
-- - - - 1.3 0 37 Spottail shiner -- - - -- 0.8 0.23 0.8 0.23 carp 51.2 lb.6h 8.0 2.29 - -
59.2 16.93 Threadfin shad -- - ~ ~ 22.0 6.29 22.0 6.29 Gizzard shad 56.2 16.07 3.9 1.12 1.2 0.3h 61.3 17.53 Totals h5.62 135.9 36.87 53.5 15.31 3h9.7 100.00 16C.? _
T = Trace n = Iess than 0.0051 parcant I
g
d v
Table 9.--Lake Hartwell: The total pounds and the E values contributed to the total weight of the fish populat' ion by the adult, intermediate, and fingerling s'ized fishes of each species taken in a population sample during August,1968 (Lower-lake Area)
Adults Intermediates Fingerlings Total Species Founds E value Pounds E value Pounds E value Pounds E value WaT1 eye 1.1 1.20 -- -- -- --
1.1 1.20 Ye. low perch 0.1 0.11 0.9 0.98 0.6 0.66 1.6 1.75 Elack crappie -- --
0.1 0.11 0.2 0.22 0.3 0.33 Wid:e crappie 0.6 0.66 -- --
0.1 0.11 0.7 0.77 Lcr;e.nouth bass -- --
0.6 0.66 0.6 0.66 1.2 1.32 Redeye bass -- -- -- -- 0.1 0.11 0.1 0.11 Bluegill 1.7 1.86 6.6 7.23 1.8 1.97 10.1 11.06 Furgkinseed - - T ** - -
T **
Green sunfish 03 0.33 0.6 0.66 0.5 0.55 1.h 1.5h P.edbreast sunfish 0.2 0.22 0.5 0.55 0.2 0.22. 0.9 0.99 Xarmouth 0.2 0.22 1.3 1.h2 0.2 0.22 1.7 1.86 4:hite bass -- -- -- -- 0.1 0.11 0.1 0.11 ag Channel catfish -- --
0.2 0.22 -- --
0.2 0.22 Flat bullhead 2.2 2.h1 3.0 3.28 0.9 0.99 6.1 6.68 White catfish O.2 0.22 0.2 0.22 T ** 0.h 0.hh River carpsucker 1.3 1.h2 -- -- -- --
1.3 1.h2 Spottail shiner 0.2 0.22 0.2 0.22 Carp 38.0 bl.62 2.0 2.19 -- --
h0.0 h3.81 Threadfin shad -- -- -- --
5.5 6.02 5.5 6.02 11:zari s:rd 17.2 18.8h --
1.1 1.20 0.1 0.11 18.h 20.15
'otsls 63.1 69.'11 17.1 16.72 11.1 12.17 91.3 100.00
? = Tr.es
=
less than 0.0051 percent.
, , i . .
e
- a
Table 10.--Lake Hartwell: The total pounds and the E values concributed to the total weight of the fish population by the adult, intermediate, and fingerling sized fishes of each species taken in a population sample during August,1968 (Tugaloo River Area)
Adults Intermediates Fingerlings Total Species Pounds E values Pounds E values Pounds E values Pounds E values Yellow perch -- -- 1.0 1.2d 0.3 0.39 1.3 1.67 Black crappie 1.1 1.hl 0.7 0.90 0.2 0.26 2.0 2.57 White crappie 0.h 0.51 0.h 0.51 0.3 0.39 1.1 1.hl Largemouth bass 10.h 13.37 2.0 2.57 1.5 1.39 13 9 17.87 Redeye bass -- -- - -- T
- T a Bluegill 3.h h.37 5.6 7.20 3.6 h.63 12.6 16.20 Oreen sunfish 0.2 0.26 1.0 1.28 0.2 0.26 1h 1.80 Redbreast sunfish 0.3 1.Q3 0.5 0.6h 0.1 0.13 1.h 1.30 os warmouth 0.1 0.13 2.1 2.70 0.h 0.51 2.6 3.3h White bass 1.2 1.5h 0.1 0.13 0.1 0.13 1.h 1.80 Flat bullhead 1.6 2.06 0.3 0.38 0.1 0.13 2.0 2.57 White catfish -- - 0.2 0.26 T w 0.2 0.26 Spottail shiner -- -- -- -- 0.1 0.13 0.1 0.13 Carp 3.5 h.50 h.5 5.78 -- -- 8.0 10.23 Threadfin shad -- -- -- -- 9.7 12.h7 9.7 12.h?
Gizzard shad 19.8 25.hh 0.2 0.26 0.1 0.13 20.1 25.83 Totals h2.5 Sh.62 16.6 23 69 16.7 21.h9 77.6 100.00 T = Trace w = Less than 0.0051 percent.
t Table 11.--lake Hartwell: The total pounds and the E values contributed to the total fish population by the adult, intermediate, and fingerling sized fishes of each species taken in a population sample during August,1968 (Seneca River Area)
Adult " Intermediates Fingerlings Total Species Pounds E value Pounds E value Pounds E value Pounds E value Yellow perch 2.9 1.60 35.1 19 38 5.0 2.76 h3.0 23.7h Black crappie 5.7 3.15 2.8 1.55 0.h 0.22 8.9 h.92 White crappie 1.9 1.05 1.2' O.66 0.2 0.11 3.3 1.82 Largemouth bass h.2 2.32 1.0 0.55 1.0 0.55 6.2 3.h2 Bluegill 8.2 h.53 h6.9 25.90 9.1 5.02 6h.2 35.h5 Pumpkinseed - - 0,1 0.06 0.2 0.11 0.3 0.17 Green sunfish 0.2 0.11 3.0 1.66 Ic O.55 h.Z 2'.32 Redbreast sunfish 1.0 0.55 0.7 0.39 T ** 1.7 0.9h Warmouth 0.6 0.33 3.1 1.71 0.h 0.22 h.1 2.26 g Gambusia - - - - -
T ** T **
White bass -- -- 0.5 0.28 -- --
0.5 0.28 Flat bullhead 1.8 0.99 0.h 0.22 T ** 2.7 1.21 Brown bullhead 0.3 0.17 -- -- -- --
0.3 0.17 White catfish 0.7 0.39 0.1 0.05 0.1 0.06 0.9 0.50 Spottail shiner -- -- -- --
0.5 0.28 0.5 0.28 Carp 9.7 5.35 1.5 0.83 -- --
11.2 6.28 Threadfin shad -- -- -- -- 6.8 3.75 6.8 3.75 c-izzard shad 19.2 10.60 2.6 1.hh 1.0 0.55 22.8 12.59 Totals 56.h 31.3h 99.0 Th.68 25.7 1h.18 181.1 100.00 T Trace
- = Iess than 0.0051 percent.
l t
W 6
Table 12.-Lake Hartell: Iangth-frequency distribution of the various species taken in three popu-lation samples during August,1968 Yellow BMck White Largemouth Redeye
'. Inch class Walleye perch crue;,ie crappie bass bass Bluegill 1 1 1,096 2 112 59 h9 72 2 2,178 3 h87 - 8 7 86 h 2,769 h 1,h77 11 h 65 717 5 355 11 15 7 135 6 37 2h 6 h 26 7 3 28 3 8 h 8 10 3 6 9 3 3 d 10 h 11 1 12 1 13 2 lh - 2 15 1 1 16 1 20 1 Totals ,
1 2,h51 151 91 26h 6 6,925 i
e f
4 W e I
e a
Table 12.--Lake Hartwell: Continued Pumpkin- Green Redbreast White Channel Inch class seed sunfish sunfish Warmouth Gambusia bass catfisE 1 13b 11 11 h 2 13 202 50 167 1 2 6 160 hk 207 2 ,
3 L5 23 82 2 ,
h '
7 n 7 1 N 5 -
6 1 5 1 7 2 8
1 2
11 531 1h? h75 5 9 1 Totals 19 '
+
i l
i I
. , . . I I
e
(
- Table 12.- Lake Hartwell
- Contirmed Flat Brown Wliite River Spottail T1.'readfin Gizzard Inch class bullhead bullhead catfish carpsucker shiner Carp shad shad 1 10 7 5 51 2 25 1h 39 2,911 6 3 2 5 21 1,159 135 h 27 h 15 10 30 5 11 3 11 15 6 18 3 1 1 7 6 1 1h 8 10 1 2 kB 9 5 1 26 m "8
10 2 21 11 1 35 12 3 16 13 1 5 6 1h 16 1 15 10 17 3' 18 1 27 1 Totals 116 1 h0 1 60 LO h,173 35h i
1
. . l j
Tab 1c 23.- Lake Hartwell: A comparison of the population dynamics, as indicated by rotenone samples, for the years 1961 through 1968 Parameter and Species 1961 1962 1963 196h 1965 1966 1967 1960 E values for walleye - 0.08 - 0.16 0.17 - 0 36 0.31 Yellow perch 1.70 10.'5 h.ch 2.77 2.75 9.36 2.23 13.13 Black crappie 37.87 6.h7 8.72 2.50 12.95 0.13 h.81 3.20 White crappie - 0.h7 0.16 2.20 1.31 - h.19 1.h6 Largemouth bass 10.07 9.86 5.19 3.77 2.28 8.37 10.30 6.09 Redeye bass - - - - 0.01 - 0.02 0.03 Redeye sunfish - - - 1.68 - - - -
Dollar sunfish - - - - - -
0.02 -
Bluegill 1.00 10.88 26.ho 26.65 22.23 h0.53 26.32 2h.85 Orangespotted sunfish - - ** - - - - -
Pumpkinseed 0.63 2.k1 3.39 0.h1 0.3? 0.61 0.31 0.09 g Green sunfish 0.60 1.8h 2.03 3.22 2.12 9.8h 3.27 2.00 ,
Redbreast sunfish 2.18 5.28 6.92 7.50 2.h2 h.% 2.01 1.1h Warmouth 3.53 h.70 2.ao 5.5h 5.20 h.85 h.09 2.ho Flier O.76 0,06 0.05 0.50 0.06 -- - --
Gambusial - - - - - - - n White bass -
0.38 0.88 0.10 0.02 -- 0.01 0.h3 Channel cat. fish - 0.05 - 0.22 2.h0 0.72 - 0.06 Flat bullhead 3.03 0.91 0.21 1.08 0.83 1.20 2.76 2.9h Brown bullhead 9.9h 2.57 0.h9 0.52 0.22 0.86- 0.19 0.09 White catfish - - -- 0.28 0.18 0.06 1.29 0.h3 Golden redhorse - 0.52 - 1.03 0.18 -- - --
s I
I
. . u .
l Table 13.--Lake Hartwell: Continued Parameters and Species 1961 1962 1953 196h 1965 1966 1967 1965 E values for:
Spotted sucker - 0.25 -- 0.12 0.12 - - -
Northernhogsugker - 0.08 - - 0.01 - - -
Spottail shiner - - - - - - -- 0.23 Comon shiner 12.58 1.h0 0.?2 0.31 0.07 - - -
River carpsucker - - -
0.9h - - -
0.37 Carp 10.1h 27.56 6.83 5.h9 10.90 1.66 21.66 M.91 Miscellaneous minnows - ** 0.09 0.19 0.M 0.70 0.19 -
Chain pickerel 0.63 h.95 3.09 0.67 0.1h - -- -
Threadfin shad - 0.01 2.28 7.88 2.03 7.39 h.79 6.29 Gizzard shad 5.3h 9.22 25.32 2h.77 30.61 9.12 11.97 17.53 F/C 5.3 h,6 7.6 14.0 7.1 9.3 5.5 9.3 10 Y/C 2.h 0.2 1.3 2.9 0.8 2.2 7.8 1.5 Ky 15.1 37.8 hh.3 36.7 36.1 3h.3 h8.7 h5.8 AH 1h.6 33.0 22.2 17.2 19.h 25.2 37.7 29.8 0.5 h.8 22.1 19.5 16.7 9.1 11.0 16.0 t AN i Ap h5.3 62.0 39.5 kl.0 60.1 h8.1~ bl.f h2.3 Ip 9.0 33.8 h3.0 39.8 28.2 29.h hh.S hl.9 Sp h5.7 h.2 17.5 19.2 11.7 22.5 13.h 15.8 Pounds per Acre 10h.1 66.1 6h 0 129.3 169.h 55.1 10h.5 99.9 1&2 Prior to 1968, these species were grouped with Misc. Minnows.
- = Less than 0.0051 percent.
l
. . I
wnite entfish (1.8 percInt), brown bullhead (1.8 percent), redbreast sunfish (1.2 percent), and flat bullhead (1.0 percent). These 11 species made up 97.8 percent of the total weight of all fishes recovered. Nine other species made up the remaining 2.2 percent of all fishas recovered-Table lh. E values and the total weight contributed to the population by the fingerling, inter- ,
mediate, and adult sized fish of each species taken in each study area am tabulated in Tables 15 and 16 Iength-fmquency distribution for the com-bined studies are tabulated in Table 17. Population dynamics for the years 1967 and 1968, showing net change, are tabulated in 18.
The 1968 population dynamics indicate the following in respect to the Lake Secession fish population:
F/C ratios from the two areas sampled in 1%8 were 6.8 (upper-lake) and 7.9 (lower-lake). The F/C ratio .for the combined studies was 7.3--up O.3 from that of 1967. These values indicate a balanced population.
l$8 The Y/C ratio for the 1968 studies were 1.3 (upper-lake), 0.9 (lower-lake) and was 1.1 for the combined studies. The 1968 Y/C value increased 0.7 over that of 1968-bringing it within the optimm range for balanced populations.
A
_T_
The percentages of harvestable sized fish in the population were 69.1 (upper-lake) and 6h.h (lower-lake). The At value for the combined studies was 66.8--a decrease of 6.9 from that of 1%7 but still falling in the optimum range for balanced populations.
A8H
. AH values were 29.0 (upper-lake), h8.0 (lower-lake) and 38.5 for the I
combined studios. This parameter exhibited the most significient net change of the parameters measured. The 1968 value decreased 13.3 from that of 1967.
. 26 i
A8 N
AN values for the 1968 studies were h0.1 (upper-lake) and 16.h (lower-lake).
This value for the combined studies was 28.3--a gain of 6.h over that of 1%7.
Ar p
The percentage of forage fish population (combined studies) composed of adult fish decreased from 72.8 in 1%7 to 65.5 in 1968-- a decline of 7.3.
This value in the individual studies was 67.3 (upper-lake) and 63.6 (lower-lake).
Even with the 1968 decrease, these yklues all fall within the optimum range for balanced populations.
b Sp values for the 1%8 studies were 18.9 (lower-lake) and 11.1 (upper-lake). The Sp value for the combined studies was lh.9--an increase of 7.9 over that of 1967 and failing by 0.1 of falling within the optimum range (15.0-ho.0) for balanced populations.
IAKE CLARK HILL:
Population studies were conducted on Lake Clark Hill during 1968 by South Carolina. These studies were the first conducted here by this State, in some 8-10 years. The Clark Hill studies were conducted, chiefly, in hopes of learning something of the survival of the hybrid (wM te bacs X striped bass) fry stocked during the past two years. .In this respect, the studies were negative--no hybrids were observed.
Two areas of Lake Clark Hill were sampled during July,1%8. Area 1 was located near the headwaters on Cane Creek, The area contained 1.00 surface acres, had a maximum depth of 15.0 feet nnd contained 6.5 aere-feet of water. Ana 2. was located in the lower portion of the lake near Fishing Village. A na 2 contained 1.50 surface acres, had a maximum depth of 25.0 feet, an average depth of 8.8 feet and contained 13.2 acre-feet of water.
27
7 Table lh.-Lake Secession: The total pounds and the E values contributed to the total weight of the fish population by the adult, intermediate, and fingerling sized fishes of each species taken in two population samples during August,1968 Adults Intemediates Fingerlings Total Species Pounds E value Pounds E value Pounds E value Pounds E value Tellow pen:h 12 . 5 3.2h 1.0 0,25 15.1 3.51 20.9 7.30 Johnny darter -- -- - - T e T n Black crappie 1.2 0.30 - - 0.6 0.15 1.8 0.h5 White crappie - - - - 0.1 0.02 0.1 0.02 Iargemouth bass 29.3 7.h1 6.h 1.62 h.9 1.2h. ho.6 10.26 Bluegill ,51.7 13.06 56.5 Ih.27 11.2 2.83 119.h 30.16 PumpH neeed 0.6 0.15 1.3 0.33 0.1 0.02 2.0 0.51 Gmen surtfish 0.1 0.02 0.2 0.05 ? e 0.3 0.07 Redbreast 2.7 0.68 1.7 0.k3 0.5 0.13 h.9 1.2h Warmouth 8.3 2.10 h.2 1.06 0.2- 0.05 12.7 3.21 ,
Gambusia - - - - T w T w cv +
Striped bass 1.0 0.25 - - - - 1.0 0.25 Flat bullhead 2.6 0.66 0.8 0.20 0.6 0.15 h.0 1.01 Brown bullhead 1.3 0.33 0.2 0.05 5.6 1.h1 7.1 1.79 White catfish h.9 1.2h 0.6 0.15 1.7 0.h3- 7.2 1.82 Spottail shiner - - - - 1.6 0.h0 1.6 0.h0 Common shiner - - 0.6 0.15 1.6 0.h0 2.z o.55 carp 36.1 9.12 - - 0.2 0.05 36.3 9.17 Threadfin shad -- - - - 12.8 3.23 12.8 3.23 Gizzard shad 111.8 28.23 1.3 0.33 - - 113.1 28.56 j Total 26h.L 66.79 7h.6 16.89 56.6 11. 32 396,0 100.00 T = Trace I M = Iess than 0.0051 percent.
. , . . I
. I i
j I' l
l Table 15.- Lake Secession: The total pounds and the E values contributed to the total weight of the fish population by the adult, intermediate, and fingerling sized fishes of each species taken in a population sample during August,1968 (Upper-lake area)
Adults Intermediates Fingerlings Total Species Pounds E value Pounds E value '
Pounds E value Pounds E value Te n ow perch 6.5 3 .45 0.2 0.10 u.h h.26 15.h 7.6I-Johnny darter - - - - T ** T **
Black crappie 1.2 0.61 - - 0.h 0.20 1.6 0.81 White crappie - - - - T ** T **
Largemouth bass 13.5 6.85 3.2" J.62 1.6 0.81 18.3 9.28 Bluegill 19.h 9.8h 16.9 8.57 7.3 3.70 h3.6 22.11 Pumpkinseod 0.1 0.05 0.8 0.h1 0.1 0.05 1.0 0.51 Green sunfish - -
0.1 0.05 T ** 0.1 0.05 Redbreast sunfish 0.7 0.35 0.5 0.25 0.1 0.05 1.3 0.65 Gambusia ~ - - - T ** T ** g Warmouth 2.6 1.32 3.1 1.57 0.2 0.10 5.9 2.99 Striped bass 1.0 0.51 - - - - 1.0 0.51 Flat bullhead 1.7 0.87 0.7 0.35 0.6 0.30 3.0 1.52 Brown bullhead - - 0.1 0.05 0.7 0.35 0.8 0.h0 '
White catfis'- k.9 2.h9 - - 0.3 0.15 5. 2' 2.6h Spottail shiner - - - -
1.0 0.51 1.0 0.51 Common shiner - -- - - 0.h 0.20 0.h 0.20 Carp 5.3 2.69 - - 0.2 0.10 5.5 2.79 Threadfin shad -- - - -
12.7 6.hh 12.7 6.hh l Gizzard shad 79.1 LO.12 '3. 0.66 -- -- 80.h LO.78 i Totals 136.3 69.15 26.9 13.63 3h.0 17.22 197.2 100.00 T = Trace a-: - Less than 0,0C51 percent.
l I
l l
l
e Table 16.. Iake Secession: The total pounds and the E values contributed to the total weight of the population by the adult, intermediate, and fingerling sized fishes of each species taken in a population sample during August,1968 (Lower-laka area)
Adults Intermediates Fingerlings Total Species Pounds E value Pounds E value Pounds E value Pounds E value Yellow perch 6.0 3.02 0.6 0.h0 6.7 3.37 13.5 6.79 Johnny darter - - - - T ** T **
Black crappie - - - - 0.2 0.10 0.2 0.10 White crappie - - - - 0.1 0.05 0.1 0.05 Largemouth bass 15.8 7.95 3.2 1.61 3.3 1.66 22.3 11.22 Bluegill 32 3 16.25 39.6
- 19.93 39 1.% 75.8 38.1h Pugkinseed 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 - - 1.0 0.50 Green sunfish 0.1 0.05 0.1 0.05 T ** 0.2 0.10 o 0.h 0.20 3.6 m Redbreast sunfish 2.0 1.01 1.2 0.60 1.RJ.
Warmouth 5.7 2.87 1.1 0.55 - - 6.8 3.h2 T ** T **
Gambusia - - - -
Flat bullhead 0.9 0.h5 0.1 0.05 - - 1.0 0.50 Brown bullhead 1.3 0.65 0.1 0.05 !. 9 2.'.o 6.3 3.16 ;
White catfish - - 0.6 0.30 1.h 0.71 2.0 1.01 i Spottail shiner -- - - - 0.6 0.30 0.6 0.30 l Common shiner -- - 0.6 0.30 1.2 0.60 1.8 0.90 Carp 30.8 15.h9 - - - -
30.8 15.h9 ,
Threadfin shad -- -- - -- 0.1 0.05 0.1 0.05 Girzard shad 32.7 16.h6 - - -- - 32.7 16.h6 Totals 126.1 6h.h5 h7.9 2h.08 22.6 11.h6 196.6 100.00 T = Trace
- = Less than 0,0051 percent. ,
t t
I t
r Table 17.--I4ke Secession: Length-frequenc3 distribution of the various species taken in two population samples during August,1%8 Yellow Johnny Black White Largemouth Pumkin-Inch class perch darter crappie crappie bass Bluegill seed 1 3 1,266
- 2. 155 1 % h2 125 2,8h5 12 3 2,305 h6 1 308 1,633 10 h 10 1 h7 792 38 5 20 13 3% 6 6 132 9 112 7 36 1 11 37 8 1 3 u 3 g 9 1 9 m
..10. 9 11 1g 12 1 33 3 i Ik 2 16 1 17 2' 18 1 Totals 2,659 h Ih5 h3 563 7,052 66 l
- 4 . s s e 4
l r l
l l
l l
Table 17. - Lake Secession: Continued Striped Flat 3rown Green Redbreast bullhead Warmouth Gambusia bass bullhead Inch chss sunfish sunfish 13 1 3 21 63 33 18 10 ho R21' 2- 1h 89 57 25 318 3 29 69 8 h3 k 2 30 1 62 10 5 1 17 2 1 M M
6 3 5 2 9 7 5 6 1 8 1 9 1 i 1h 1 llh 790 Totals 20 19h 257 h3 l
l 1
4
. e
- F t
Table 17.--Lake Secession: Continued White Spottail Comunen Threadfin Gi::zarci shiner Carp shad shad Inch class catfish shiner 2 66 22 215 56 3 80 175 lu 1,302 h 20 6 26 7 5 5 9 1 2 21 6 2 1 7 2 8 5 9 2 55 10 3 n3 .
11 1 7h R l 12 3h U 2 5 ,
4 1 ;
M 1 -
23 1 25 1 27 1 29 1 l Totals 165 203 356 5 1,397 316 I l
. . g . .
t .
Table 18.--Lake Secession: A net comparison of the population dynanics, show-ing net change, for the years 1%7 and 1968.
Parameter and Species 1967 1968 net change E values for:
Yellow perch 5.21 7.30 +d.09 Johnny darter 0.00 * +M Bleck crappie 0.21 0.h5 40.2h White crappie 0.00 0.02 +0.02 Largemouth basa lb.71 10.26 -h.h5 Rec' ear sunfish 0.18 0.00 -0.18 Blt.egill 26.51 30.16 +3.65 Punpkinseed 1.h1 0.51 -0.90 Green sunfish 0.2h 0.07 -0.17 Redbreast sunfish 1.97 1.2h -0.73 Wamouth 1.26 3.21 +1.95 Ganbusia 0.00 M +M Striped bass l*32 0;25 -1.07 Chrnnel catfish 0.95 0.00 -0.95 Fint bullhead 0.66 1.01 +0.35 Brown bullhead 0.21 1.79 +1.58 h te catfish 0.61 1,82 +1.21 Spittail ehiner 0.00 0.h0 +0.h0 Common shiner 0.17 0.55 +0.38 Carp 16 61 9.17 -7.hh Hisc. Minnows 0.55 0.00 -0.55 Chain pickerel 0.h1 0.hl -0.h1 Threadfin shad 3.69 3.32 -0.37 Gizzard shad 23,.12 _,
28.56 +5.hh F/C 7.0 7.3 + 0.3
!/C 0;h 1.1 + 0.7 A
7 73,7 66.8 - 6.9 Aa 51.8 38.5 -13.3 Au 21.9 28.3 + 6.h Ar 72.8 65.5 - 7.3 S'y 7.0 1h.9 + 7.9 Pounds per acre 15h,3 176.0 +21.7 3h
These studica during 1968, yielded 23 specise cf fishes. The predominant .
species, in descending order of abundance werer bluegill (3h.1 percent),
gizzard shad (19,1 percent), carp (13.9 percent), white catfish (7.7 percent),
largemouth bass (6.0 percent), yellow perch (h.2 percent), threadfin shad (h,2 percent), warmouth 2.3 percent), flat bullhead (2.1 percent), channel cat-fish (2.0 percent),and green sunfish (1.6 percent). These 11 species made up 77.2 percent of the total weight of all fishes recovered during the combined studies. Twelve other species made up the remaining 2.8 percent of the total weight of fishes recovend-Table 19.
E values and the total weight contributed to the total population by the fingerling, intermediate, and adt.lt sized fish of each species taken in sach study area are tabulated in Tables 20 and 21. Iangth-fm quency distribution of the various species taken in the combined studies is tabulated in Table 22 The various population parameters for the Imke Clark Hill fish popstlation were calculated and they indicate the following.
F/C ratios for the individual study areas were Cane Creek - 5.h, Fishing Village - h.7. The F/C ratio for the combined studies was 5.2 These values all lie within the optimum range for balanced populations and are considered very satisfactory.
b8 The Y/C values were 0.7 (Cane Creek) and 0.5 (Fishing Village) and was 0.7 for the combincd studies. These values, while in the range for balanced populations, indicate a population overcrowded with carnivorous fishes.
A8 T The percentage of harvestable size fish in the population varied from 7h.h (Cane Creek) to $6.h (Fishing Village) and was 69.8 forthe combined 35
V Table 19.--Lake Clark Hill: The total pounds and the E values contributed to the total weight of the fish population by the adult, intermediate, and fingerling sized fishes of each species taken in two population samples during August,1%8 Intermediates Fingerlinpi Total Adults Species Pounds E value Pounds E value Pounds EvM Pounds E value Yellow perch 1.2 0.56 5.7 2.6h 2.1 0.97 9.0 h.17 Johnny darter - - - - 0.1 0.05 0.1 0.05 Black crappie - -- 0.h 0.18 0.3 0.1h 0.7 0 32 White crappie 0.6 0.28 0.h 0.18 T ** 1.0 0.h6 h.91 1.0 0.h6 1.h 0.65 13.0 6.02 1hrgemouth bass 10.6 0.8 0.37 0.2 0.09 T ** 1.0 0.h6 Redear sunfish 73.6 3h.11 Bluegill 143.h 20.11 26.6 12.33 3.6 1.67 0.5 0.23 - - 0.5 0.23 Pumpkinseed - -
0.2 0.09 2.6 1.21 0.6 0.28 3 . 14 1.58 Green sunfish T ** 0.1 0.05 0.05 T **
Redbreast sunfish 0.1 h.9 2.27 ."
Wannonth 2.1 0.97 2.3 1.07 0.5 0.23
- - - T ** T ** l Gambusia -
- T ** '
- - - T Madtoms --
- 2.0L
- T ls.14 Channel catfish 14 . 14 2.014 -
0.32 h.5 2'.08 Flat bullhead 2.7 1.25 1.1 0.51 0.7 7.69 T ** 16.6 7.69 White catfish 16.6 - -
- - 1.2 0.56 River carpsucker 1.2 0.56 - -
Spottail shiner - - - - 1.1 0.51 1.1 0.51 0.05 0.2 0.09 .0,1 0.05 0.h 0.19 .
Common shiner 0.1 I 13.90 - -- 30.0 13.90 Carp 30.0 -- -
9.0 h.17 Threadfin shad -- - -- -- 9.0 h.17 Gizzard shad 35.7 16.5h 0.1 0.05 5.lt 2.50 bl.2 19.09 Longnose gar -- -- 0.1 0.05 - - 0.1 0.05 lh9.7 69.37 hl.2 19.90 2h.9 ll,5h 215.5 100.00 Totals T = Trace
~~. = Iess than 0.0051 percent.
I t
r Table 20.-Lake Clark Hill: The total pounds and the E values contributed to the total weight of the fish population by the adult, intermediate, and fingerling sized fishes of each species taken in a population sample during August,1968 (Cane Creek Area)
Adults Intermediates Fingerlings Total Species Pounds E value Pounds E value Pounds E value Pounds E value Yellow perch 1.2 0.75 3.3 2.05 0.5 0.31 5.0 3.u Johnny darter - -- - - 0.1 0.06 0.1 0.06 Black crappie -- - 0.3 0.19 0.3 0.19 0.6 0.38 White crappie 0.6 0.38 0.h 0.25 T ** 1.0 0.63 Iargemouth bass 8.h 5.23 0.2 0.12 0.7 0.hh 9.3 5.79 Bluegill 3h.9 21.72 1h.0 8.71 2.0 1.2h 50.9 31.67 Pumpkinseed - -- 0.h 0.25 - -
0.h 0.25 Green sunfish 0.2 0.12 1.9 1.19 T ** 261 1.31 Redbreast sunfish 0.1 0.06 T ** T ** 0.1 0.06 S Warmouth 1.5 0.93 1.5 0.93 0.1 0.06 31 1.92 Gambusia - - - - T ** T ** '
Madtoms ' -- - - - T ** T **
Flat bullhead ' 1.3 0.81 0.8 0.50 0.3 0.18 2.h 1.h9 White catfish 15.2 9.h6 - - T ** 15.2 9.h6 River ca msucker 1.2 0.75 - - -- - 1.2 0.75 Spottail shiner - -- - - 0.5 0.31 0.5 0.31 !
Common shiner 0.1 0.06 0.2- 0.12' O.1 0.06 0.lu O.2h Carp 30.0 18.67 - - - -
30.0 18.67 Threadfin shad -- -- - - 9.0 5.60 9.0 5.60 Gizzard shad 23.9 1h.87 0.1 0.06 5.h 3.37 29.h 18.30 Totals 110.6 73.0 23.1 lb.37 19.0 11.67 160.7 100.00 T = Trace
- = Less than 0.0051 percent.
l 3
r s
Table 21.-Lake Clark Hill: The total pounds and the E values contributed to the total weight of the fish population by the adult, intermediate, and fingerling sized fishes of asch species taken in a population sample during August,1968 (Fishing Village Area)
Adults Intermediates Fingerlings Total Species Pounds E vaine Pounds E value Pounds E value Pounds E value Yellow perch - - 2.4 h.36 1.6 2.90 h.0 7.26 Johnny darter - - - - T ** T **
Black crappie - - 0.1 0.18 T ** 0.1 0.18 White crappie - - - - T ** T **
Iargemouth bass 2.2 3.99 0.8 1.h5 0.7 1.27 3.7 6.71 Redear sunfish 0.8 1.h5 0.2 0.36 7 ** 1.0 1.81 Bluegill 8.5 15.h3 12.6 22.87 1.6 2.90 22.7 hl.20 Pumpkinseed -- - 0.1 0.18 - --
0.1 0.18 Green sunfish - -- 0.7 1.27 0.6 1.09 1.3 2.36 Warmouth 0.6 1.09 0.8 1.h5 0.h 0.73 1.8 3.27 E Gambusia - -- - - T ** T **
Madtoms - - -- - T ** T **
Channel catfish h.h 7.99 - - T ** h.h 7.99 '
Flat bullhead 1.h 2.% 0.3 0.5h 0.h 0.73 2.1 3.81 White catfish 1.4 2.5h - - T ** 1.h 2.5h i Spottail shiner - - - - 0.6 1.09 0.6 1.09 !
Threadfin shad - -- - - T ** T **
Gizzard shad 11.8 21.h2 - - - -
11.8 21.h2 Longnose gar - - 0.1 0.18 - -
0.1 0.18 Totals 31.1 56.h5 18.1 32.8h 5.9 10.71 55.1 100.00 i T = Trace
- = Iess than 0.0051 percent.
I I
Table 22.--14ke Clark Hill: Length-frequency , distribution of the various species taken in two population samples during August,1%8 Black White Largemouth Redear Pumpin Yellow Johnny Bluegill seed Inch class perch darter crappie crappia bass sunfish 6 1 1 3 1,589 1
2 187 h6 36 12 18h 267
% 6 2 hk 751 3
6 3 h73 7 h 209 3 1 236 .
5 3h M S 6 & 1 h 3 50 7 1 2- h ,
8 1 7 9 1 5 1 12 h 2
13
& 3 5 7 Totals Sh1 52 h7 21 257 3.h67 l 1
i
- l
) )
g
Table 22.-Lake Clark Hill: Continued Green Redbreast Channel Flat White.,
Inch class sunfish sunfish Warmouth Gambusia Madtoms catfish bullhead catfish 1 % 1 55 41 25 3 20 IL 7h 7 29 17 2 51 1 h3 2- 26 1 3 70 h 16 1 31 16 5 3 20 15 6 1 3 h 1 2 7
8 5 o 4
9 h
10 1 1 11 1 3 12 h '
1 13 15 3 16 3 23 1 Totals 206 h 227 h5 27 h 122 h5 I
i
. I
r Table 22.--Iake Clark Hill: Continued River Spottail Common Threadfin Gizzard Lonennaa Inch class carpsucker shiner shiner Carp shad shad gar 1 h5 2 106 h 2,7h5 3 25 3h 2 7h?
h 3 2 2 5 3 6 1 8 3 1 9 9 ,
10 21 :
n M $
12 13 13 1 9 1h 3' 18 1 19 1 20 h 21 1 22 1 Totals 1 179 hh 5 2,7h7 600 1
, 5 s a .
I
studies. These values fall within the range fcr balanc:d population and cre considered satisfactory.
Agt A H values were 59.h (Cane Creek), 35.0 (Fishing Village) and 53.2 for the combined studies. These values are considered very satisfactory. ,
A The An v,)unn wre 1%O (Cone Creek), 21.h (Fishing Village) and 16.6 for thr: combined studim , Theso values like the AH values, are considered very satisfactory.
Ay:
The A y values all fell within the range for balanced population - 69.6 at Cane C2eek, 50.8 at Fishing Village and was 6h.9 for the combined areas.
The Ap values for 1968 are considered satisfactory.
Sys The percentage of small fish in the forage fish population was 13.5 (Cans Creek), ll.h (Fishing Village) and 13.0 for the combined areas. These values lie within the range for balanced populatior s;however, they indicate a tendency toward overcrowding of carnivorous species.
Conclusions, Discussion, and Recomunendations CONCUISIONS:
Lake Greenwood The population studies conducted on Lake Greenwood during 1968, as well as other project lakes, continues to project essentially the same picture we have been getting for years. Using Swingle's work on the dynamics of fish populations as a guide, we amist conclude that Lake Greenwood supports a highly unbalanced fish population - due, chief 3y, to the large gizzard shad population.-
i h2 l
1 This imaga of unbilcnce, howevar-Os pointed out in the past annual ProjIct l Report (F-9-R-9)-- appears to be a false image.
If we use Swingle's definition of a balanced > population and disregard his parameters for measuring the state of balance, we can conclude that the lake is s1pporting a bahneed population in that it is producing a satisfactory crop of harvestable sized fishes year after year. The lake is also in biological ~
balance-despite its largs gizzard shad population.
Lake Hartwellr The population parameters of the Lake Hartwell population did not indi- -
cate any significant changes in the basic fish population. The population
~
appears to have become stabilized and the population parameters indicate a well balanced population of fishes--both biologically and from the stand-point of sustained yield.
Lake Secession:
The Lake Secession fish population pzwsents the classic picture of a balanced fish population as measured by Swingle's parameter. The numerical value for all the population parameters fall within the range for balanced populations. From this fact and the fact that the lake affords excellent fishing success year after year, it mast be concluded that the lake supports a balanced fish population.
Lake Clark Hill:
, This lake, like Lake Sucession, is a classic example of a balanced fish 1
population when measured.by Swingle's population parameters. Two of the population parimeters indicate a population with a tendency toward overcrowding of carnivorous fishes; however, the population, as a whole, looks good and met be concluled to be in balance.
1 Discussion:
When the various parameters for measuring the balance of the fish pop-14 3
=s
,.,.-,-y
ulcticns in tha projtet lak:s were ecleulated from the 1968 data, the para. " 'l ,
l noters, as in the past years, indicated various degrees of balance in each ;'
lake and indicated that many of these various degrees of balance were existing simitaneously. Since it defics logic that a biological population can exist
, simitaneously in various conditions of bahnee, it would, perhaps, serve a
, useful purpose to pause and define just what we mean when we speak of a f
- " balanced" population.
Population balance, as the term implies, denotes some specific relation- ,
l
' ship between two or more characteristics of the population. Population I i balance can be defined on the basis of the relationship existing between the i
- I1 fishes of the population and the amount of suitable, available food produced '
I by the environment. It can also be expressed in terms of satisfactory yield in relation to the basic fertility.of the water containing the population.
In fact, when we use the tem " balanced fish population" we can be referring I
to a fish population having any number of characteristics-depending solely 6
on the attributes we assign to a balanced population. (,
If we apply Swingle's principles, principles formulated primarily to k 1 -
measure and descr$be a particular condition of balanca of the "artifical" i
population of a small pond, to the fish populations of our large reservoirs, l
it is inevitable that these' discrepancies will occur. Discrepancies due not to faulty principle but due rather to our inability to obtain adequate repre-sentative samp3ss from the larger environment. p :
1
[
Since the majority of our management recommendations are formulated on .
the basis of information obtained from these quasi-scientific and somewhat i spasmodic samples, how far do we dare employ the information thus obtained? l hI i
l How m ch confidence should we place in these, sometimes, contradictory para- [
meters, It is my opinion that the data we obtain from population samples in J j l n a
1
- i
\
s 1 2
yga rassrvoirs cra too inconclusiva to cllcw us to fcrmulate Ecund manage-sent recommendations.
This is also tnie of most of the data we obtain from other sampling e
. :hniques. Not in the sense that the sampling techniques are ill-conceived, wt in the sense that they do not give us true representation of the total nsh population It is also my opinion that, at this point in time, we can-3g, in the strict sense, manage the fish populations in our large reservoirs-- p 1
at least not from the standpoint of feasibility.
To " manage" implies that we can, at will, manipulate the fish population in such a manner that the population will yield those results we desire. I e i
know of ne r..;ident of this being accomplished with a natural population in (
f i a large bod / of water. There is no doubt that we can " manage" the "artifical"' [
}
populations that we create in small" ponds--populations created where environ- s
! mental factors and species composition can be more or less controlled or built , p i
into the microcosm. The environment of the "artifical"~ population is such g that should not the desired results occur, corrective meaures can be app?.ied to create the " balance" we desire. These are populations we can manage phys- ;
g ically. ;
' t i This is not true of the natural fish populations in our large reservoirs. j i r The streams we impound to create these large reservoirs contain natural fish l I [
populations--populations composed of many specins c.nd e ach species occupying
' a niche in the total population that is deternlu si certain 11.11 ting fac- lt i
tors which prevents the population of any given species from emanding beyond i s r a given point. The large reservoir with its natural fish population presents [
a multitude of physical, chsmical, and physiological factors over which, at f present, we have no control, and not being able to exert a measure of control ,
- f. ,
(l over these factores, we cannot, in the true sense, umanage"' these large, natural fish populations. ;j i
a r 7) r h
9 y
-- W 4 e--- _
w
. --,w w- yw- ~v , . _
wr zw o
1 h
The tendency, over the years, has been to look more and more at these t v large, natural fish populations as "artifical"' populations and to assume that the same management techniques are applicable for each environment. ,
- The similarity of the fish population of the small, controlled pond and the !
1
- - fish population of the large, uncontrolled reservoir ends with the construction cf their respective dams. It appears that natural fish populations and ft "crtifical" fish populations, from the standpoint of management, have little l in common. }L I
If natural and "artifical"' fish populations differ so greatly, how do y they differ? As previously pointed out, "artifical fish populations" are populations created by man-stocked with predetermined numbers of specific E species and designed to yield specific results. The fish populations of our C
large man-made reservoirs are, except for possibly a few rare instances, nat- f ural fish populations, and although they are suddenly thrust into a completely teu and different habitzt b;r the construction of a dam, they continue to behave
{
as typical natural fish populations. ,.
And how does a typical natural fish population behave? To explain the behavior of a natural fish population, let us look at the basic essentials .
of a fish population--for that matter, any biological population. Ist us .
look at Liebig's Law of the Minimum. Simply stated, this basic law supports v l the theory that each organism requires a certain number of food materials and ,
t I cartain specific environmental features if the organism is to survive, Tf 3 l i l one of these essentials is absent, the organism dies; if not absent but pre- y s:nt in minimal quantity, the growth of the organism will be minimal. These g results hold even though ample amounts of all other essentials are present. 4 The yield of a plant or animal, acconting to this law, is determined by the !
quantity of that particular, necessary substance which is present in minimal s l amounts as determined by the demands of the organism. , j 14 6 ,
a sm ,-. _ _ __ _ _
_ ,-r-
(
The robustness or density level that a species exhibits in a given pop- P ulation is determined solely by that necessary substance which is present in minimal quantities as required by the particular species. If the quantity [
of the minimal substance that is limiting the expansion of the population V
of a particular species is increased, the population of that particular species will exoand until this substance or some other substance becomes a minimal substance and retards further expansion of the population. If physical, chemical, and environmental conditions remain unchanged in the reservir, the established fish population will remain unchanged--varying only to the extent that the ;
minimal factors controlling the expansion of each species varies.
It appears that the niche occupied by cach species in the total fish pop-ulation is so occupied because that species, over all other species in the r,.
b population, is best adapted to fill that particular niche. Should some nat- t.
1 ural or man-made phenomenon occur that suddenly reduces the size of this 4
I l t
particular population, even though another species mighttemporarily move in E and fill the niche just vacated, the affected species, all things remaining '
i.
equal, will rebuild to its orginal niche-pushing aside that or those species ;
i '
which occupied its niche during its absence. E
, T.
, Robustness or population density of a species appears to be not a function i
of who got there "first with the mostest" but a matter of adaptibility of the )
various species in the population to the particular physical, chemical and .
physiological conditions of the envircnment. It is my opinion that it is impos- rp sible for a natural fish population to exist, for any extended period of time, p in any condition other than that of a balanced population. g The fish population, regardless of existing conditions in the environment, l F
is constantly moving toward a " perfect" biological balance with its particular E environment. )
To deny this fact would be to deny the basic concepts of nature. We can '
t-I
, - - , v- ,--
l l
l k '
3 casily see and understand the predator-prey relationship existing in our game U
populations, we can see and understand what happens when a deer herd outgrows -
a its food supply, we can see the effects on the human population when it expands I . i beyond the ability of its environment to produce a sufficient quantity of suit- [
able food, but we, apparent'y, have great difficulty in dLatinguishing bet-a i ween the, in a manner of speaking, hand-fed "artifical" fish population of the !
} r small pond and the natural fish population that, out of necessity, must " live l
( '
t off the land."' V 1 -
When we disrupt the natural biological balance of the stream fish pop-I' ulation with the construction of a large dam, the pre-existing minimal sub- ;
g stances and conditions controlling the abundance of the individual species i
i making up the populations are altered. With the alteration of the habitat, and .
l
- consequently the preexisting minimal substances and conditions, the population ,
I begins undergoing a change in its physical makeup. The population of each spe- ,
i cies expands or decreases in size until its size is congruent with the new l -
, minimal factors imposed by the habitat-constantly moving toward the " perfect" 6
biological balance.
I During this period of transition,. it matters not if predetermined or un- p determined numbers of those species we desire, if those species are already
{ l present in the population, are added to the new habitat, Such additions would F surely reduce the time required for the particular species to reach its max- )
h F imum potential in the new habitat, but these additions would not constitute ~
I L an advantage for these species over other existing species. Each species [
present in the population, regardless of its robustness or size in the original population, will ultimately attain a population size in the new environment 3 1
1
, that is congruent with the quantity of that minimal, necessary substance, as [
1
- determined by the demands of each species, that is present in the new environ- y
- nent. i o
o m
i l
h9 lt '
I j ka
. r I
It is only during this period of transition from one population level o
i p anothar and different population levels that we can truly have that which 8
I ga be defined as an " unbalanced" fish population. Once thme species j
~
naking up the total population reaches the level where they am congruent I
~
dth their natural limiting factor in the habitat, the population becomes a esalanced" population and will remain in this state unless this " balance" is i aset by some natural, man-made or other phencmenon. ,
i j
g If such a phenomenon should occur and a large portion of the population ;
! :f an individual species or a number cf species is lost, not completely elim-4 inated, from the total population, recovery of the affected species or species l
is rapid--the population of each of the affected species expanding until it i
l again reaches that point where it is congruent with its own individual limiting i
l factor. It is only when the quantity of that minimal, necessary substance or i 8
i I.
l environmental condition is altered that lasting changes occur in the basic popu- l
! lation. l a
It is apparent that the ultimate success of our large reservoir " manage-ment" techniques will depend chiefly on our ability to recognize and to deter-f 5
mine the exact role the many factors effecting the physiology of the fishes l
and related organisms exert on the overall population. Until we are able to determine and measum the effect of, say, the introduction of a new species
, into an existing population, we will be unable, in the true sense, to manage I
j these natural populations, We can add this, remove or decrease that in the
! environment,but without prior knowledge of the ultimate effect these changes i
g have on pre-existing minimal factors, we do this with a certain, inherent
- I amount of risk. Only at that time when we are able to determine the partic-ular minimal factors controlling the abundance of the various species in a :
particular population and are able to, more or less, control the quantity of those factors in the environment will we be able to truly manage the pop-c 50 s
4
'~ Y ,
ultticn.
It is my opinion that in our zeal to manage that which appears to be unnanageable, we have, somehow, lost sight of our immediate goal--not the goal of complete management,. this will come sometime in the future, but the immediate goal of improved sport fishing in our reservoirs. If the fish pop-E ulations of our large reservoirs are existing as balanced populations and are i
too unwieldy to manage as we manage a small pond, how then can we influence the natural forces in the reservoir to achieve better sport fishing?
As previously stated, the fish populations of our large reservoirs are made up of many species of fishes--some that are valuable as sport fishes, some valuable as commerical species, some valuable as forage for the carniv-orous species and some which have little or no value in any of these categories.
i It follows that the greatest improvement in the sport fishing in the reservoir would or should result from converting, first, the less desirable species into a desirable species--leaving more desirable species, more or less, undisturbed for the present.
The large man-made reservoirs of South Carolina and--for that matter--
of the Southeastern and Southwestern part of the United States,. contain many species of fishes which have little economic or known biological worth--chief among these species being the gizzard shad. The gizzard shad populations in most of these reservoirs contributes 50 percent or more to the total product-ivity of the lakes. Productivity whian, for most part,. represents but little in respect to economic worth and contributes only a fraction of its total potential to the sport fishery of its particular lake.
t It is true that the young of the gizzard shad consitutes a portion of the diet of the carnivorous species in the lake; however, the carnivorous ,
populations of most of our large, southern reservoirs are chiefly lotic i species. Gizzard shad, being chiefly plankton feeders, are found in open
- i l i 1 51 i I
L i
j watsrs in about the stme proportion cs th2y cra found in lotic saters, and kl if the particular reservoir happens to have a greater proportion of open b water than of lotic water then a great portion of the potential of the gizzara ,
shad being converted into a more desirable species is lost.
l Further, since the gizzard shad are often Cound in open waters and E since the majority of the carnivorous species are lotic in habit, the de- r '
i i
creased suojection to predat. ion allows a great segment of the zhad population i to attain a size where they can no longer be utilized as food by the native ; ,
i species. The shad, however, continues to be present in the population, con- p l -
tinues to utilize a food source that is unsuitable for the other species in the population, continues to represent a great potential for the production b h
of desirable species and continues to " cloud" the issue in respect to the ;
. y
" balance"'of the population.
{n It is y opinion that by continuing our present striped bass and hybrid
stocking orograms, we can utilize a large segment of the gizzard shad pop- l
~ ulations by converting them into these more desirable species, and that we l k
can do this at little or no expense to the existing population. This stock-ing program, in the broad sense, might be considered a " management tool"' or ?
i-practice, but at best, it would have to be termed an unpredictable " manage- t u
' ment" practice. i E
We can postulate the theory, physically carry out the stocking, but our _
l" i. -
" management" ceases at this point. True, the additional species in the lake ?l l t ;
will alter the pre-existing minimal factors of some or all of the species in l
~
the population, but with our present knowledge, we cannot predict the nature
, of these alterations. We can only stock, k ep our fingers crossed and hope j b for the best--hope for, at least, fcr no harm tc 2" present population. N s
If we cannot, to any predictable degree, "ha tate' these natural fish [
r 1 d,
1 l populations, why then the infernal rush? To be ouite candid, we manage, to a :
- t. i 52 : ,
! t l '
\
1 r ,-v , - , - - ,- .. , , -
,.,.e , . - - - - -- . , , . . _ - -. m
o c2rt .in degree, out cf n:c 2sity--the nec:ssity of demonstrating that we are aware of and share the "public8s concern for the " poor" fishing in our reservoirs and to demonstrate that we are " earning our keep"' by our efforts
- s to improve the " poor" fishing. This is, perhaps, overstating the case, but in my opinion it carries a certain degree of merit.
Candidly, let us look at some of the primary reasons for managing a i large reservcir. In most cases, our number one reason is due to complaints we receive of the " poor
- fishing in the reservoir. In most cases, when a 4
new reservoir is formed, ws make preliminary studies on the reservoir, but after this, if we do not receive numerous complaints as to the " poor" quality I of the fishing, we tend to assume that the lake is producing satisfactorily and concentrate our efforts in those areas from which we receive the greatest number of complaints, If complaints become numerous from a given area, we set up and put into
- action the necessiry trachinery to determine the cause for these complaints, and the most prevalent
" piece" of machinery we employ is the rotenone sample. I t
Analyzing the data and interpreting them in the light of what we know about the management of a small pond, we usally reach the conclusion that the lake is our of " balance"~because of this or that. That this species or that group i'
of species are " overcrowded" and are probably the cause of he " poor"' fishing.
We try to formulate management recommendations, recommendations that would 9
work were we working with a small pond, on the basis of the information gainedl from these rotenone samples. Recommendations which we hope will relieve these real or the imagined causes of " poor" fishing in the lake It has not been der.7nstrated, at least to my satisfaction, that " poor"' l fishing exists in the project lakes. This I thought at one time but after
- nalyzing the various data collected from these lakes year after year, I have L
i concluded that the " poor" fishing complained of is more attributable to the '
' 53 y )
F y .- -,
,.m , , _ , . . _ -
o caliber of the complaining fi-herman than to the quality of the fish population.
c It is indicated that we could, oerhaps, be more successful with the " management"' u
('
i of these large reservoir fish oopulations if we se; up and operate the necessary i
- . machinery to manage fishermen as well as fish--both being eoually unpredictable, e
l Before we can formulate or design any technique to improve the sport )
+
fishing, we must first know the degree of fishing success we wish to improve. !
t We cannot learn this from listening to reports from, perhapu, poor fisherman 5 or from the information we obtain from gill nets, rotenone or other types of f
sampling. We can gain this information only by prysically contacting numbers of fishermen and determining, ourselves, the average fishing success that we ,
e are to improve. We must put into operation the best possible creel ce :ns we can design. Such a creel census will give us, not only, a basis for comparing -
, the fishing success in one body of water with that in another body of water, r
- ' . t l
it will,. also, give us a basis for evaluating the complaining fisherman and 'I s
determining the validity of his report. Further, without knowledge of present I or prior fishing success, how are we to determine the success or failure of our attempts to manage the population for improved fishing?
l.
The first step in our endeavor to imorove sport fishing in our reservoirs
'. should be to set some standard for the degree that we will accept as a min-1 }
imam for satisfactory fishing success and give the various bodies of water I!
" management" priorities based on where their individual fishing success index h I I
number falls in relation to this standard. Since our man-power and resources *
[ are somewhat limited, it appears that greater gains could be made in areas of '
lew yield by concentrating our effort here rather than by diverting part of our b effort to areas of average or above yield.
{
l The second logical step would be to determine the problem or problems f I r which exist in the population. There is more than sufficient evidence to '
indicate that erroneous conclusions in the past have led us to treat " problems" j % ,'
t
- I
l 1
l which, cetually, were not probl;ms in the first placa. It is spparent that 1
our present sampling technicuos are not yielding the necessary data to allow '
us to " pinpoint" our problem areas,
.' To cite an example of erroneous conclusions, look at the plight of that I I'
which now appears to be one of our most valuable species--the gizzard shad.
t -
Operating under the assumption that high F/C ratios indicated " overcrowded" forage populations and that " overcrowded" populations were " bad" populations,- i i !
I costly and, for most part, meaningless programs were initiated throughout (
l i their range to eradicate or drastically reduce their population--erroneously 1[ l, I
exploited because they happened to make up a major portion of the " forage"' f'l group. We might look upon our efforts to eradicate the gizzard shad as a i
I i ;
favorable result of erroneous conclusions--they failed and caused no per-I f
manent damage to the existing population. Erroneous conclusions could, how- f1 l t
ever, result in serious damage to the existing population. ,
~
To help us avoid the possibility of " treating" problems which, in fact, !
might not even be problems and to give us more reliable information on which i i ,
to base our conclusions, I suggest that we divorce our thinking of large, L I i natural fish populations as "ttrtifical" populations and admit that, quite I 1
possibly, the techniques employed for managing the small "artifical" pop-ulations and the parameters used for determining the " balance"' of the " art-ifical" population are not applicable to the large, natural fish population.
It appears that the use of a "K" factor would give us more reliable t
information and a better insight into the functioning of the natural fish l population. Uniform use of a conditon factor will allow us to determine population differences of a particular species in different bodies of water--
a criterion which would suggest, not necessarily " pinpoint," possible areas of trouble for that species. A uniform, state-wide conditon factor would also tend to " pinpoint"' trouble spots within the populations of individual species I
i 55 -
I
- i n
' ~
- . ,. _ . -- . . _ _ - 7,.c.~ _ ,~'
r' ~ "
l
by bringing inta focus argments er age groups of the population with low i condition factors--factors which might suggest " overcrowding
- or some other unfavorable population condition.
Recommendations:
Since our primary function is to improve sport fishing-to lay the basic i
f " ground-work"'so that future generations can experience, at least, a degree of the fishing success we enjoy today, I recommend the initiation of the fol-lowing as basic steps toward attaining this goal.
Recommendation No. 1:
Design and put into operation at the earliest possible date a state-wide, uniform creel census.
i Since our primary reason for being
, is to improve sport fishing, it is absoulutely necessary that we have the best possible knowledge obtainab_e of that which we are to improve. Without such knowledge, we have g way of measuring the success or failure of whatever .
techniques we employ and, consquently, have no way of justifying the expendi -
. ture of huge sums of the sportsman's money.
Recommendation No. 2:
Continue the present striped bass and hybrid stocking program.
Although, in my estimation, this program cannot at present be termed a true management technique, it does offer the best apparent possibilities of better utilizing the resource already present in the lakes.
Until we have more knowledge of the factors which control the robustness of the populations of the various species making up the total fish populations in the lakes and until we gain the necessary knowlege to allow us to-more or less--control these fac-tors, our efforts should be directed to more fully utilizing that which is present.
More sophisticated means of management will come with our increase in knowledge.
- i Recommendation No. 3:
Initiate the use of state-wide " condition factors"' as a primary means of locating possible " trouble" areas in the fish populations
(
, 56 O
..m. . , - - . - . , _
of the State. Condition factors, simultaneously obtained, will give us a t
stable factor with which to work and will focus our attention to those areas where more intensive research is needed. The uniform use of condition factors should eliminate much cf our work with " problems" which, in truth, may not be
" problems."'
It is my opinion that if the fisheries program in the State is to pro-vide the highest degree of fishing success possible to the anglers of the State, the program must be built around or at least include the above recom-mendations. Without the best possibir knowledge of present fishing success, we have nothing with which to compare the failure or success of our " manage-
~
ment
- techniques. Without a better and more reliable means of "pinpiinting*
areas of possible trouble in the fish populations, we are, in a manner of ,
speaking, " stumbling around in the dark."' " Stumbling"' in a manner that after ten or twenty years we could end up at approximately the sam point we are now. If we are to move forward with our " management"* program, I urgently recommend the initiation of these recommendations.
O l
57 .
w .
~
i JOB PROGRESS REPORT STATE South Carolina l
COOPERATORS:
South Carolina Wildlife Resources Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service PROJECT TITLE: Fisheries Investications in Lakes and Streams --
District 11 PROJECT NO. F-9-10 STUDY TITLE: Determining the Survival of Striped Bass & Striped Bass X White Bass Hybrids JOB NO. IV JOB TITLE: Evaluation of Striped Bass &
Hybrid Fry Survival with Seines and Electric Shocker PERIOD COVERED: July 1, 1968 through June 30, 1969 INTRODUCTION The objective of this job is to obtain information which might indicate the extent of survival of striped bass and hybrid fry and fingerlings stocked in Lakes Greenwood, Hartwell, and Clark Hill. Survival checks were to be made with a h0 feet by h feet,. inch square mesh, seine and an electric shocker; however, due to the project shocker becoming unservicable, checks with the shocker were not performed.
PROCEDURES Beginning in September,1968, the project lakes were checked periodically with a h0 feet by h feet seine to observe striped bass and/or hybrid survival.
Since young-of-the-year striped bass and, presumably, hybrids are found more frequently in shallow water at night, all checks were nocturnal. i l
Lake Greenwood was checked twelve different nights with a forty-foot I i seine between September 1 and November h,1968 The average length of each seine haul was 20 yards and the number of hauls made per night during the Period of the checks was 21 -- 13.8 acres were seined with the forty-foot seine. !
'ake Hartwell was checked four different nights with the forty-foot seine htween the dates of September 23 and October 10,,1968 The average number 58 ,
s _. d
t
~
of seine hauls made per night was lh and the length of each haul averaged 20 1
! yards--3.1 acres were seined during the checks.
i g Lake Clark Hill was checked 1h different nights with the forty-foot seine between the dates of September 10 and November lh,1968 The average number I
of seine hauls made per night on Lake Clark Hill was 19 and the average length of each haul was 23 yards--17.7 acres were seined.
In addition to the checks with the forty-foot coinc, Lake Clark Hill was checked during the spring of 1969 with gill nets for. hybrid survival. The gill nets were set on two occassions for a period of 2h hours. The nets employed were 120 feet in length, had a mesh size of 2h inches, square mesh, a depth of i
8 feet and the top-line was set six feet beneath the surface.
FINDINGS The Iake Greenwood survival checks with the forty-foot seine yielded 168 fingerling striped bass--an average of 0.67 striped bass per seine haul or 12.2 striped bass per acre of water seined. 'Ihe survival checks in Lake Hartwell ir.dicated no survival.
Likewise, the survival checks on Lake Clark Hill, with the forty-foot seine, were negative except for one occassion. On October 16, two days after a release of hybrid fingerlings in the lake, two seine hauls in the release area yeilded 21 hybrid fingerlings. It appears that the fingerlings were still concentrated in the area following the release.
Gill nets set in Lake Clark Hill during the spring of 1969 indicated ucellent survival of hybrids stocked as fry in 1967. Two 2h hour sets Tielded 27 hybrids that ranged in weight from 2.5 to h.0 pounds.
CONCLUSIONS Survival checks with a forty-foot seine and with gill nets indicate that
- have survival of striped bass and hybrids in two of the three project lakes;
% ver, it is impossible to determine the exact extent of this survival.
i 59 i
e
Further, dtw to the size of the hke in relation to the number of fry stocked and in light of the limited areas that could be satisfactorily seined, the failure to find survival in Lake Hartwell does not preclude the possibility of
~
survival.
RECOMMENDATIONS Since our survival checks cannot give us an accurate measure of the sur-vival rate of stocked fingerlings and fry and since we have already determined that successful survival can and does occur from these stocking, I recommend that these checks be discontinued and that the funds and effort devoted to these i checks be diverted to an extensive creel census of the lakes. A good creel 9
census should give us essentially the same, if not more reliable, information in regards to survival of striped bass and hybrids in the lakes as do these ,
survival checks. In addition, a good creel census will give us a more accurate neasure of the degree that stocking these fish in the lakes improves the sport fishing.
e t
6 t
O O
h
!. i
\
JOB PROGRESS REPORT STAIE South Carolina COOPERATORS: South Carolina Wildlife Resources Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service PROJECT TITLE: Fisheries Investications in IAkes and Streamc -- District II 50 JECT NO. F-9-lO STUDY TITLE: Lake Secession Creel Census JOB NO. XVII JOB TITLE: Fishing Success on Striped Bass and Other species PERIOD COVERED: July 1, 1968 through June 30, 1969 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this census was to determine the fishing success of the various species m*ing up the creel on Lake Secession, to detemine the extent of the striped bass fishery created by a heavy stocking of fingerlings in 1967 and to determine the effect, if any, of the striped bass on the -fishing success of the other species in the lake. This census cannot be termed an intensive l census inasmuch as no censusing schedule was established prior to the study.
Ibe census was conducted by project personnel as and when time was available from their other duties.
PROCEDURES Begirning in October,1968, fisherman's creels were checked a mini =nn of
- e days a month.
The census was conducted by project personnel, and although as alloted number of days were set aside for performing this census, the census for most part, was conducted as time. was available from other duties.
The census was, chiefly, boat-to-boat; however, shore and dock fishermen wre checked when they were observed. Data collected included; date, age, and Ht of the fisheman, total hours of fishing, species primarily sought and the
. %h (number and weight) of species primarily sought as well as the number and 61 i
i
. e s=' 'W
- . . . . - . - - - yn
l t
weight of other species caught. These data wem recorded on a standard form -!
and were analyzed at the end of the project segment.
l FINDINGS l
l When the 1968-69 creel data are compared with the creel data-the only
~
, prior data available-of the first six months of 1%8, it appears that the I average fishing success in Lake Secession declined rather sharply during the
- 1968-69 period. The 1968-69 average weight of cach species making up the creels, except for striped bass, exhibited a decline. Likewise, the estch per hour &
I the individual species and the total catch declined rather sharply-the total i
catch declining approximately hl percent in number and 38.6 percent in weight.
The following are indicated in respect to the individual species in the cmels:
Largemouth h ns:
The average weight of largemouth bass declined from 2.0 pounds during the first six months of 1968 to 1.6 pounds during 1%8-69 period. Fishing success, catch per hour,. declined from 0.h0 to 0.26 (numbers) and 0.80 to 0.h2 (pounda) from the first six months of 1968 to the 1%8-69 period.
Crappie:
Fishing success, catch per hour, declined in numbers from 3.2 during the first six months of 1968 to 0.81 in 1968-69 and in weight from 1.00 to 0.3h.
During this period, the average weight declined from 0.50 to 0.h2 pounds.
Bluegillr Fishing success for this species, catch per hour, declined in numbers from 3.20 during the first six months of 1968 to 1.hl during the 1968-69 period and l
i , declined in weight from 1.20 to 0.33 pounds. The average weight of bluegills declined from 0.37 pounds to 0,23 pounds during the e.ame period.
Striped bass:
Striped bass fishing success declined from 3.8 fish weighing 3.7 pounds per #
. 62-i
- ,. ~ . - _ _ _ .. _ _ .. _. ._ ..
Table 23.--Lake Secession: Composition of creels checked during project segment--depicting the total hours of fishing each month, the number and weight of each species taken, the catch per hour of each species (number and weight) and the percentage (number and weight) that each species contributed to the total catch each
. month and for the census period Crappie Largemouth bass Total Porcent of Percent of hours of Ca'tch catch /hr. total catch Catch Catch /nr. total catch Month fishing No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt. jio. Wt. No. Wt.
Oct.,'66 64:00 loh 3h.3 1.2h 0.h1 69.6 93.5 6 1.2 9.07 0.01 5.2 3.3 Nov.,'68 56:30 63 35.8 1,12 0.63 8h.0 76.6 3 3.3 0.05 0.06 h.0 7.1 Dec.,'68 16:00 3 1.9 0.19 0.12> h2.8 20.6 2 3.8 0.12- 0.2h 28.6 kl.3 1 Jan.,869 5:15 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
i Feb.,'69 21:15 2 1.3 0.09 0.06 13.3 23.2 -- -- -- -- -- --
Mar.,'69 36:30 h 1.7 0.1.1 0.05 30.8 21.8 2' h.6 0.05 0.13 15.h $9.0 A pr . , '69 163:30 69 3h.0 0.h2 0.21 71.1 57.7 7 5.7 0.0h 0.03 7.2 9.7 May, '69 150:00 78 30,7 0.52 0.?O h6.h 37.5 21 37.5 0.1h 0.25 12.5 h5.8 June,'69 125:15 3 1.6 0.02 0.01 3.0 3.6 11 1h.1 0.09 0.11 11.1 32.0 ,,
'otals 656:15 326 1h1.3 0.50 0.21 55.2 h6.4 52 70.2 0.06 0.11 6.5 2h.1 wo Bluegill Striped bass oct.,'od 8hiOO -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Nov.,'68 56:30 3 0.9 0.05 0.01 h.0 1.9 2s 3.9 0.0h 0.07 2.7 8.h Dec.,868 16:00 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 2.0 0.06 0.12 1h.3 21.7 Jan.,'69 5:15 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Feb.,'69 21:00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mar.,'69 36:30 6 1.2 0,1.6 0.03 h6.2 15.h -- -- -- -- -- --
Apr.,869 163:30 2 0.5 0.01 ** 2.1 0.8 h 7.h 0.02 0.0h h.1 12 .0
,, May.,'69 150:00 6h 12.9 0.43 0.09 38.1 7.7 -- -- -- -- -- --
June,'69 125:15 73 19.9 0.62 0.16 78.8 h5.2 2 6.1 0.02 0.05 2.0 13.9 Totals 658:15 153 35.h 0.23 0.05 25.9 12.1 9 19.h 0.01 0.03 1.5 6.6 4
s
__ _ _ _ __.___________________o
- - L _ _ - - _- __
t.
3 t
Table 23.--Lake Secession: Continued I
rahite bass Catfishes Total Percent of Percent of hours of Catch Catch /hr. total catch Catch Catch /hr. total catch Month fishing No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt. No, Wt. No. Wt.
Oct.,'66 66:00 1 0.2 0.01 ** 0.9 6.5 -- -- -- -- -- --
Nov.,868 56:30 h 2.8 0.07 0.05 5.3 6.0 -- -- -- -- -- --
Dec.,868 16:00 1 1.5 0.06 0.09 1h.3 i16.3 -- -- -- -- -- --
Jan.,869 5:15 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 0.8 0.19 0.15 100.0100.0 Feb.,869 21:15 -- -- -- -- -- --
13 h.3 0.61 0.20 86.7 76.8 Mar., f 59 36:30 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 0.3 0.03 0.01 1h.3 3.3 Apr.,869 163:10 5 2.6 0.03 0.02 5.2 h.h 2 1.9 0.01 0.01 2.1 3.2 May.,869 150:00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
June,869 125:15 -- -- -- -- -- --
h 1.5 0.03 0.01 h.0 20.0 Totals 656:15 11 7.1 0.02 0.01 ' - 1.9 jf.lk 21 6.6 0.03 0.01 3.6 3.0 !
Yellow perch Redbreast Oc t., 866 8h:00 5 1.0 0.06 0.01 . h.3 0.9 -- -- -- . - - -- --
Nov.,868 56:30 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Dec.,868 16:00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Jan.,'69 5:15 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Feb., 869 21:15 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- t Mar., 869 36:30 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Apr. ,869 163:30 7 1.8 0.0h 0.01 7.2 3.0 -- -- -- -- -- --
May,869 150:00 1 0.1 0.01 0.01 0.6 0.1 k 0.7 0.03 ** 2.h 0.8 June,e69 125:15 1 0.8 0.01 0.01 1.0 1.8 -- -- -- -- -- --
Totals 658:15 1h 3.7 0.02 0.01 2.h 1.3 h 0.7 0.03 ** 0.7 0.2 t
s l
i 9 e e D
. . . . - . _ . _ . . . _ _ ~ . . a ~ ~ n. . ,
i r
Table 23. Lake Secession: Continued j Hybrid All species 1
Total Percent of hours of' Catch Catch /hr. total catch Catch Catch /hr.
Month fishing No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt. i Oct.,866 6 14 :00 - - - - - - 116 36.7 1.3d 0.%
Nov.,868 56:30 - - - -- - -
75 h6.7 1.3h 0.83 '
Dec.,868 16:00 - - - -- - -
7 9.2 0.hh 0.58 Jan.,869 5:15 - - -- -- - - 1 0.8 0.19 0.15 % f Feb.,869 21:15 - - - - - -
15 5.6 0.70 0.26 Mar.,869 36:30 - - - -- - -
13 7.8 0.36 0.21 Apr.,869 163:30 1 5.0 0.01 0.03 1.0 8.5 . 97 58.9 0.59 0.36 May.,569 150:00 - - - -- - - 168 81.9 1.12 0.55 June,f69 325:15 - 4- - - -- -
99 hh.0 0.79 0.35 Totals 65d:15 1 5.0
- 0.01 0.17 1.71 591 291.6 0.90 0.2
(
e
< . . . I F
Table 2h.--Lake Secession: Creel data in relation to number of hours each species were sought; the num-ber, weight, catch per hour (number and weight), aid percent (number and weight) of the primary species of the total catch; the number and weight other species taken while primary species was sought and the percent (num-ber and weight) that the other species contributed to the total catch species Total hours Primary species Other species Catch Catch /hr. Percent Weight Percent primarily fishing for Wt.
primary species No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt. No.
sought 312 132.6 0.01 0 . 3 14 dd.9 67.1 39 19.6 11.1 12.9 8 Crappie 365:h5 hh,8 Largemouth bass lhh:30 37 60.7 0.26 0.h2 $$.2 70.8 30 25.0 29.2 Bluegill 101:30 lh3 33.2 1.h1 0.33 92.3 91.5 12 3.1 7.7 8.5 Striped bass 6:00 2 6.1 0.33 1.02 66.7 83.6 1 1.2 33.3 16.h White bass 2:00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1 5.0 100.0 100.0 Catfishes 18:30 lh 5.1 'O.76 0.28 100.0 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Totals 65d:15 503 237.7 0.77 0 59 66.0 81.5 83 53.9 1h.0 16.5 l
r i
-m _ 3 c q.
1 i
Tabla 25.-lake Secession: The total catch of each species -depicting the total hours each species was ,
sought, the catch (total number and total weight) of each species, the aver-age weight of each species, the catch per hour (number and weight), the percentage of the total fishing time expended for each species and the' rank of each species in fisherman preference.
Total Pertent Rank in hours Total catch Average Catch per hour of total fisherman Species sought No. Wt. weight No. Wt. fishing effort preference Largemouth bass 1414:30 37 60.7 1.6h 0.06 0.h2' 22.0 2 $
Crappie 385th5 312 132.6 0.h2 0.81 0.3h 58.6 i Bluegill 101:30 1h3 33.2 0.23 1.h1 0.33 15.h 3 Striped bass 6r30 2 6.1 3.05 0.33 1.02 0.9 5 White bass 2:00 0 0.0 - -- -- 0.3 6 Catfishes 18:30 1h 5.1 0.36 0.76 0.28 2.8 h j Totals 655:15 505 237.7 0 . 14 7 0.77 0.59 100.0 I
J
'4
}
hour during the first six months of 1963 to 0.33 fish weighing 1.02 pounds during the 1968 69 neriod. During the two census periods, the average weipt of striped bass increased from 0.98 pounds to 3.05 pounds.
Catfishes:
The catch per hour for catfishes during the first six months of 1968 was 1.58 fish weighing 1.30 pounds. This catch per hour declined to 0.76 fish weighing 0.28 pounds during the 1968-69 census period. The average weight of catfishes, also, declined during the two census periods--from 0.98 pounds during the first six months of 1968 to 0.36 pounds during the 1968-69 census period.
CONCIUSIONS It cannot be stated categorically that this apparent decline in fishing success is a valid measurement. It is quite possibLe that this decline in
( fishing success is moren roflection of the wide difference, in the degree of
(
intensity of the censuses during the two census periods involved than a valid comparison of actual fishing success.
It is also just as possible that the decline in fishing success ~is a valid f
measurement and that the introduction of striped bass fingerlings--approximately 50 per acre--into the established population has upset the biological balance l
to the extent that spo'rt fishing, as a whole,. has been seriously damaged. l It is rgr opinion, based on the inconclusive nature of the 1968-69 data, that the former conclusions has more merit than the latter.
RECOMMENDATIONS
, During the summer and fall of 1967, approximately 150,000 striped bass fingerlings were stocked in Lake Secession. An intensive creel census during '
the first six months of 1968 indicated that a striped bass fishery was evolving from this effort and was apparently doing so at no expense to the previously !
existing species-average fishing success and average weights of all species were good. On July 1,1968, this intensive creel census was drastically curtailed 4 68
,4s% %
F and with this curtailment, average fishing success and average weight of the t
fish caught exhibited a sharp decline.
f i It appears that the apparent decline in fishing success can be directly [
related to the lessening in the intensity of the census with more conviction b f
than to adverse effects of striped bass on the overall fishery; however, t'h is j may not be the case. Regardless of the cause of this apparent decline in xish-I-
ing success, we should be in a position to reach some logically sound conclusion i-for the decline. We cannot, at present, do this. The dsta are too inconclusive.
i' To enable us to be in a position for evaluating the success of our stocking j program and our other management programs as well, I recommend the following:
- 1. Initiate an intenaive creel census on Iake Secession and on all of our t
sajor bodies of water--especially on those bodies of water receiving heavy stockings of sttiped bass and hybrids.
2 Employ qualified personnel to conduct this census-personnel whose !
I only duties will be that of collecting creel data. j r .
i i
i N
e 69 I
h
- ' W -
1 1
JOB PROGRESS P2 PORT STATE South Carolina 000iSRATORS: _ South Carolina Wildlife _ Resources Department and U.S. Fish and dildlife Service PROJECT TITLE:
__ Fisheries Investirations in Lakes and o Strea1.ts--District II '
??.0 JECT NO: F-9-10 STUDI TITLE: Compiling, Analyzing i and Reporting Findings J03 NO. X JOB TITLE: Reporting Job Findings with Rerommendations to Imorove Sport Fishing 9.IOD COVERED: July 1, 1968 to June 30, 1969 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this job is to allow sufficient uninterrupted periods of i i Pae for compiling data, analyzing data and reporting the results of the !l nricus project jobs. No report is necessary under this job. *i i'
i t
e I
4 L
-n <
F I
i.
4 1 .
e
- t
{'
t f
70 b bv.
4
.- t
( l
i I
JOB PROGRESS REPORT I
STATM So'ithfgrolin" C001%tA'iut.i: .;mit,h t'aro t irs i .i? ' 1 8*.
~
itosoarcos Decartmnt ,
I sind 'J .ti, r'irih irri '.li1dliib Service
~
Fit 0 JECT TITLE: Fisheries Investisdtions in Lakes and Streams--District Il j PROJECT NO. F-9-10 STUDY TITE: Age-growth Study of the Major Species of Lake Hartwell i f
and Lake Secession JOB NO. XVI JOB TITLE: Growth Rates of Major Species as a Result of a Striped Bass Fingerling Stocking Program PERIOD COVERED: July 1, 1968 to June 30, 1969 ,
INTRODUCTION The objective of this job was to obtain information which might indicate changes in the growth-rate of the various species making up the present fish ,
I populations of Lake Secession that might be attributed to the heavy stocking of striped bass fingerlings in 1967, and to obtain basic growth-rate information of the major species making up the Lake Hartwell fish population.
PROCEDURES The scale samples needed in this study were, collected from fish taken during the course of rotenone samples conducted during August,1968 Where i
Possible, scale samples were taken from 15 individuals in each one-inch size l Croup. Samples were collected from all individuals in those size groups which were represented by 15 individuals or less, f 4t j Scales were collected and placed in enyclopes on which the location, date -
t?
if capturo, species, total length and total weit,ht were recorded. Scales have ';
d' 9
Mn and will be " read" by means of an Eberbach Projector and growth-rate will 4 calculated by the Direct Proportion Method.
STATUS OF THE STUDY I'I, b
l r 71 (
i 9
( pen-**
j t':
Scale samoles were collected from approximately 2Z inli'riduals from each 1,ke. Due to other duties, but chiefly due to a crisis of a personal nat c2, h
only approx ~.mately 150 of the samples have been " read" to date. The romainder {f of the samples will be " rend" in the imandiato future 'nd the completion report
' should be submitted on or before '.pril 1,19/O.
l' Approved by:
Submitted by: South Carolina Wildlife Resources Department
)
. r \)f. M, p
'Dtho D. May,Jr., poject Leader Director Reviewed by:
N . nu~J Oni%)of Fipneries
.,1.h_. _,
g7,o,D_
g i
1 t
l I
72 k
i i
._ _ . , , , .