Age and growth data were compiled on 114 bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque, taken from floodwater retarding structure #15 of the Big Creek Watershed project in Craighead and Greene counties of northeast Arkansas. This project was completed in the early 1960\u27s by USDA-SCS. The 73 surface acre lake has not been managed for fish production and has been subjected to unscheduled water level manipulations during dry weather periods. These manipulations have maintained the bluegill population in healthy condition. The oldest bluegill collected were age class IV+. Average condition coefficient K(TL)declined from oldest to youngest individuals (2.96 in age class IV+ - 2.20 in age class I+ ), while numbers in age class declined from the youngest to the oldest within the sample (age class IV+ = 1[0.8%]; age class I+ = 74 [64.9%]). The length-scale radius relationship was L = 9.51 + 46.92S, with a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.96. The length (60-178 mm)-weight (4.7-1 55. 9g) relationship (Log W = 1 .4 Log L- 1.37) indicates that weight has not increased as the cube of length. The utility of drawdown as a fishery management technique is discussed

Sewell, Stephen A.

English

ScholarWorks@UARK

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of ScienceVolume 39 Article 261985Age and Growth of the Bluegill Lepomismacrochrius Rafinesque From an UnmanagedWatershed Lake in Northeast Arkansas withObservations on Lake EcologyStephen A. SewellThe University of MississippiFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaasPart of the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons, and the Zoology CommonsThis article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able toread, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking priorpermission from the publisher or the author.This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academyof Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu, ccmiddle@uark.edu.Recommended CitationSewell, Stephen A. (1985) "Age and Growth of the Bluegill Lepomis macrochrius Rafinesque From an Unmanaged Watershed Lake inNortheast Arkansas with Observations on Lake Ecology," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 39 , Article 26.Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol39/iss1/26Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXXIX,1985 103AGE AND GROWTH OF THE BLUEGILLLEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS RAFINESQUEFROM AN UNMANAGED WATERSHED LAKEINNORTHEAST ARKANSAS WITHOBSERVATIONS ON LAKE ECOLOGYSTEPHEN A. SEWELL1Department of BiologyThe University of MississippiUniversity, MS 38677ABSTRACTAge and growth data were compiled on 1 1 4 bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque, taken fromfloodwater retarding structure #15 of the Big Creek Watershed project in Craighead and Greene coun-ties of northeast Arkansas. This project was completed in the early 1960's by USDA-SCS. The 73 sur-face acre lake has not been managed for fish production and has been subjected to unscheduled waterlevel manipulations during dry weather periods. These manipulations have maintained the bluegill popula-tion inhealthy condition. The oldest bluegill collected were age class IV+ . Average condition coefficientK(TL) declined from oldest to youngest individuals (2.96 in age class IV+ - 2.20 inage class I+ ), whilenumbers in age class declined from the youngest to the oldest within the sample (age class IV+ = 1[0.8%];age class l+ = 74 [64.9%]). The length-scale radius relationship was L = 9.51 + 46.92S, with acorrelation coefficient (r) of 0.96. The length (60-178 mm)-weight (4.7-1 55. 9g) relationship (Log W =1 .4 Log L- 1 .37) indicates that weight has not increased as the cube of length. The utilityof drawdownas a fishery management technique is discussed.INTRODUCTIONAge and growth studies have long been used to determine fish healthand condition, to compare the capabilities of water bodies for the fishproduction, and to assess fish management strategies (Lagler, 1956).The bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque, has been usedas the subject species in numerous age and growth studies throughoutthe United States and as being representative of similar sunfishes(Carlander, 1977; Lewis, 1983). This paper describes the age and growthof bluegill in floodwater retarding structure (FWRS) #15 of the BigCreekWatershed project in Craighead and Greene counties, Arkansas (Figure1). This project was completed in the 1960's by the USDA-Soil Con-servation Service (SCS) under the authority of the 1954 Watershed Pro-tection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 566, 83rd Congress)(USDA-SCS, 1961). These flood water retarding structures are impound-ments designed with flood control as their primary purpose. Some fishand wildlifebenefits typically result from the construction of these struc-tures, though often incidentally (Nord, 1963; Dillonand Marriage, 1973;Grizzel, 1960; Hatcher, 1973). FWRS #15 has a sediment pool whichcovers approximately 73 surface acres (29.2 hectares) with a designedflood pool of 256 surface acres (102.4 hectares) (USDA-SCS, 1961) andsupports an estimated 1500 recreational activity occasions (person-days)per year (USFWS, 1980).Isite #15 drains 2,855 acres (1142 hectares) of the upper Big Creekitershed on Crowleys Ridge. Soils within the area are dominated byllins, Calloway and Loring silt loams. These soils are considered tore fair to very poor suitability for supporting wetland plantsrguson, 1979) and comprise the bulk of the water-borne sediments'ering the bottom of the sediment pool of Site #15. Bottom depthshin the site range from 0.3 - 7.0m. Substrates are typically eithery mud (as a result of water-borne sediment load and parent materials)Jetritus from the upper watershed and decay offormer forests withinsite. Topography ofthe area is characterized byridges withnarrowiding tops, short side slopes and narrow valleys between ridges)bertson, 1969). The structure was partially drained (50%) duringsummer of 1979 and has not been managed for fisheries. Over 370h structures, averaging 13.64 hectares in size and incorporatingFigure 1. Location of Site #15 (shaded) in the Big Creek Watershed,Craighead and Greene counties, Arkansas.103Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 39 [1985], Art. 26Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1985104 Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXXIX,1985Age and Growth off the BluegillLepomis macrochirus Rafinesque From an Unmanaged Watershed LakeFigure 2. Average weights during each year since drawdown (1979) of bluegill sunfish from Site #15, Big Creek Watershed, Craighead and Greenecounties, Arkansas. Absolute weight gain (w2-wl, Ricker, 1975) shown in parentheses between years.various levels of management, have been built by SCS in Arkansas(Bates, 1985).The remainder of this report will deal only with Site #15 asdescribed above.METHODS ANDMATERIALSOne hundred and fourteen bluegill were collected from Site #15 dur-ing routine rotenone sampling by the author and Arkansas Game andFish Commission personnel at the request of one of the landowners(Dr. BillR. Cato, Jonesboro, AR).The sample area was a represen-tative acre along the southwestern bank of Site #15 and included a sec-tion of the borrow pit for dam construction. Several species offish werecollected from the site and will be discussed further in later publica-tions. Scales for study were selected by the "Key Scale" method sug-gested by Lagler (1956). Key scales were designated as those from anarea approximately 10 scales back from the head and 5 down from thelateral line along the right side of the fish. Approximately 20 scales werecollected from each fish, with the total length recorded in millimeters,and weight recorded in grams.Scale annuli counts were made by the use of an American Opticaldissecting microscope in conjunction withan American Optical lightsource. Measurements on each scale were made using Helios dial calipersfrom focus to each annulus and from focus to scale margin along theanterior median of each scale.Age determinations were made by direct annuli count. Since collec-tion was made in mid-summer, the age referred to herein representsthe number of the last complete annulus plus any growth after forma-tion (e.g. III+).Measurements ofindividual fish were manipulated according to thebasic mathematical formulae discussed and displayed inLagler (1956),Ricker (1975) and Carlander (1977). These are discussed and comparedwith other data summaries (Allenand Aggus, 1981; Noble and Stein-bach, 1981) as appropriate.A limited amount of physicochemical and biological(macroinvertebrate) water quality data was collected in conjunction withfish collections. A Hach DR/EL-2 portable water quality laboratorywas used todevelop physicochemical data. Standard nets were used tosample macroinvertebrates.Soils data discussed herein were taken directly from published soilsurveys for Craighead and Greene counties, Arkansas (Robertson, 1969;Ferguson, 1979).RESULTSThe length (60-178mm) - weight (4.7 - 155.9g) relationship ascalculated using Le Crens (1951) proposal was Log W = 1.4 Log L-1.37. The correlation coefficient 1.4 was significantly different from3.0 (a =.10) indicating that weight didnot increase as the cube oflength.Figure 2 illustrates the trend in absolute (weight) increases (w2-wl)observed within the site by indicated year classes.The coefficient of condition K(TL),was calculated for each bluegillfrom the expression K(TL) = W/L3 x 100. The K(TL) for individualfish varied from 1.96 to 3.34 withan average of 2.31 (Table 1). Thisaverage which exceeded the average reported by Trenary (1958) fromLake Fort Smith, Arkansas, would be rated "good" by Illinois stan-dard (Bennett, 1948) and approaches "excellent" by Minnesota stan-dards (Carlander, 1944). This average K(TL)(2.31) was similar to thatfound in other temperate waters reported by Carlander (1977), and wasnot significantly different from ponds in North Carolina, Tennesseeor New Mexico.104Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 39 [1985], Art. 26http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol39/iss1/26Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXXIX,1985 105Stephen A. SewellTable 1. Average coefficient condition K(TL) for bluegill sunfish fromSite #15, Big Creek Watershed, Craighead and Greene counties,Arkansas.Table 3. A comparison of total length (mm) at indicated annuli ofbluegill sunfish from Site #15, Big Creek Watershed, Craighead andGreene counties, Arkansas, with other Arkansas studies. (* =significantly different at a = .10).1—"K(TL)Annulus NumberII Fish 1 2 3 4Yr. Class mK(TL) If FishPresent-Site #15 114 68 119 152 173IV+ (1980) 2.96 2Bull Shoals 1 124 49* 84* 102* 122*III+ (1981) 2.79 8L. Catherine 2 42 64 114 152 18011+ (1982) 2.42 30 ,L. Hamilton 45 76 117 155 1751+ (1983) 7 42.20Table 2. Average calculated total length (mm) of bluegill sunfish at theindicated annuli from Site #15, Big Creek Watershed, Craighead andGreene counties, Arkansas.Annulus Number41 2 3YEAR CLASSIV+ (1980) 103 137 160 17374 115 143III+ (1981)11+ (1982)1+ (1983)68 119 152 173Average2Number of Fish 74 30 8The total length (L)- scale radius (S) relationship for Site #15 wasL= 9.51 + 46.92S with a correlation coefficient (r)of0.96. The averagecalculated lengths at the time ofannuli formation are displayed in Table2. Comparison oflengths of age groups I- IVreveals a steady declinein length at comparable annuli during the period 1980 through 1983.Comparison of the length data shown in Table 2 withequivalent datafrom other Arkansas impoundments (Table 3) indicates that Site #15bluegill grew in length like Lake Catherine and Lake Hamilton bluegill.Length gain at each annulus was significantly higher than BullShoalsLake and significantly lower than Lake Ouachita (a=.10).DISCUSSIONPeriodic major drawdown has been used effectively by fish andwildlife managers (Allen and Aggus, 1983) and usually depends on61 105it2L. Ouachita 84* 147* 188* 206*1Applegate, et al, 1967.?Hulsey and Stevenson, 1958.naturally or artifically increased hydrophyte growth for success in eitherwildlifeor fisheries management (Dillonand Marriage, 1973; Grizzell,1960; Hatcher, 1973).Within Site #15, soil fertility may be a limiting factor to effectivedrawdown for hydrophyte increases. The Callaway, Collins and Lor-ing silt loam soils are not well suited to hydrophyte establishment. Thesesoils are not only dominant in the upper watershed, but are also thechief constituents ofsubstrates within the site. Water-borne sedimentshave also increased turbidity levels slightly (39 NTU)and may have con-tributed to slightly high total dissolved solids (540 mg/1), but waterquality within the site is generally satisfactory for fish production (Stateof Arkansas, 1981). As a result, the average observed fish conditionK(TL) is surprisingly good in Site #15 considering the lack ofmanagement.Carlander (1977) noted that condition of bluegills increased afterdrawdown of Bear Camp Lake, Georgia, in a study by Pierce, et al.(1965). Cichra and Noble (1980) found that summer drawdown causedincreases in clarity, alkalinity, hardness, and improved fish condition.Roland (1970) found that increased hardness increased the average con-dition of bluegills.Following a partial drawdown (50%) of Site #15, average conditioncoefficient K(TL),improved initially but slowlydeclined as populationsize increased (Table 1). Schmittou (1968) noted that a higher popula-tion density resulted in a lower condition factor. Average condition im-proved for two years after 90 percent removal ofan Oklahoma popula-tion (Jenkins, 1959). In Site #15, drawdown acted to concentrate theichthyofauna along the dam where water remained. Under these con-ditions, natural mortality and predation were presumably greatly in-creased. Bluegill populations were reduced sufficiently toavoid the severestunting which could be expected in an impoundment of this age andsize without management.The similarity of the results of drawdown, whether good manage-ment or mismanagement, is noteworthy. Cichra and Noble (1980) notedseveral positive effects ofapproximately 50 percent summer drawdownin six flood prevention lakes in central Texas. While not appreciablyincreased, growth and condition of bluegill in Site #15 were main-tainedat a high level by a summer drawdown of greater than 50 percent. Inthe former case, drawdown was accompanied by hydrophyte establish-105Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 39 [1985], Art. 26Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1985Age and Growth of the Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque From an Unmanaged Watershed Lakement. In the latter case, hydrophyte establishment was very insignifi-cant or substrates unsuited to hydrophytes, but fishery benefits accruedregardless. Drawdowns may provide a lost-cost fishery managementtechnique for floodwater retarding structures not otherwise managedto support a fishery. Stable shallow reservoirs of the size (100 ac/40ha) most often constructed in flood control projects can benefit great-ly from extensive ( > 50%) drawdowns, ifproperly timed (Allen andAggus, 1983). Previous studies (Allenand Aggus, 1983) have pointedout that annual dewatering through summer months can lead to an un-productive littoral zone resulting in poor growth and survival of fish,particularly young-of-the-year. A five to six year drawdown frequencywas suggested. Based on the observations on Site #15 presented herein,a three to five year drawdown cycle can produce significant low costbenefits to an unmanaged recreational fishery in flood control water-shed lakes.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSMany thanks are due the following people for their ef-forts: Allen Carter, AGFC (for his assistance in collec-tion of the fishes); Dr. BillR. Cato, Jonesboro, AR (forhis permission and interest); Ray Linder, USDA-SCSArkansas (for his assistance in locating obscure SCSdocumentation); James Sims, USDA-SCS Tennessee (forhis cartographic expertise); Howard Dykes, USDA-SCSTennessee (for critical review of the manuscript); CindiMcGovern and Lynda LeMay, Nashville, Tennessee (fortheir typing and editing skills); and Mrs. Jane Ratliff,TheUniversity of Mississippi (for typing the final copy).LITERATURE CITEDALLEN, H. H., and L. R. AGGUS. 1983. Effects of fluctuatingreservoir water levels on fisheries, wildlife, and vegetation: sum-mary ofa workshop, 24-26 February, 1981. Misc. Paper E-83-2,USA-COE Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 55 pp.APPLEGATE, R. K., J. W. MULLAN,and D. I. MORA1S. 1967.Food and growth of six centrachids from shoreline areas of BullShoals Reservoir. Proc. SE Asso. Game Fish Comm. 20:469-482.BATES, G., G. VALENTINE, and F. SPRAGUE. 1985. Status reporton SCS-assisted flood detention structures in the Southern UnitedStates. Waterfowl in Winter Symposium and Workshop, January7-10, 1985, Galveston, TX. 19 pp.BENNETT, G. W. 1948. The bass-bluegill condition ina small artificiallake. 111. Nat. Hist. Surv. Bull. 24(3):377-412.CARLANDER, K. D. 1977. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology,Vol. II.Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. 431 pp.CARLANDER, K. D. 1944. Notes on the coefficient of condition Kof Minnesota fishes. Minn. Bureau Fish Res. Invest. Rep. 41.CICHRA, C. E., and R. L. NOBLE. 1980. Summer drawdown as afisheries management tool in floodwater retarding structures. Ann.Proc. Texas Chapter, AFS 3:1-21.DILLON,O. W., JR., and L.D. MARRIAGE. 1973. Fish and Wild-life habitat management in watershed projects. Proc. Soil Con-serv. Soc. Am. 28:166-171.FERGUSON, D. V. 1979. Soil survey ofCraighead County, Arkansas.USDA-SCS and Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station,cooperating, Little Rock, AR. 110+ pp.GRIZZELL, R. A., JR. 1960. Fish and wildlife management onwatershed projects. Trans. North American Wild. Nat. Res. Conf.25:186-192.HATCHER, R. M. 1973. Floodwater retarding structures as fish andwildlife habitat. Proc. Soil Conservation Society of America.28:158-160.HULSEY, A. H., and J. H. STEVENSON. 1958. Comparison ofgrowth rates ofgame fish in Lake Catherine, Lake Hamilton andLake Ouachita, Arkansas. Proc. Ark. Acad. Sci. 12:17-31.JENKINS, R. M. 1959. Some results of the partial fish populationremoval techniques in lake management. Proc. Okla. Acad. Sci.36:64-173.LAGLER, K. F. 1956. Freshwater fishery biology. William C. BrownCompany. Publ., Dubuque, Iowa. 421 pp.LECREN, E. D. 1951. The length-weight relationship and seasonalcycle in gonad weight and condition in the perce (Perca fluviatilis).J. An. Ecol. 20(2):201-219.LEWIS, G. W. 1983. Common freshwater sport fishes of the South-east. MP145, Cooperative Extension Service, University ofGeorgia,Athens, GA. p. 47-48.NOBLE, R. L., and D. W. STEINBACH. 1981. Fish populationcharacteristics of floodwater retarding structures. Agreement HAG-48-SCS-04922, Texas Agriculture Extension Service and TexasA&MUniversity, College Station, TX. 69 pp.NORD, W. A. 1963. Wildlife in the small watershed program. Trans.N. Am. Wild. Nat. Res. Conf. 28:118-124.PIERCE, D. C, J. E. FREY, and H. M. YAWN. 1965. An evaluationof fishery management techniques utilizing winter drawdowns.Proc. SE Assoc. Game Fish Comm. 17:347-363.RICKER, W. E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biologicalstatistics of fish populations. Bull. 191, Dept. of the Evn., Fishand Mar. Sci., Ottawa, Canada. 382 p.ROBERTSON, N. W. 1969. Soil survey ofGreene County, Arkansas.USDA-SCS and Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station,cooperating. 65+ pp.ROLAND, J. V. 1970. Some effects of introduction of hard waterinto Corrin Cove, Virginia. Unpubl. MS Thesis, VA-Polytech Inst.103 p.SCHMITTOU, H. R. 1968. Some effects ofsupplemental feeding andcontrolled fishing in largemouth bass-bluegill populations. Proc.SE Assoc. Game Fish Comm. 22:311-320.STATE OF ARKANSAS. 1981. Regulation establishing water qualitystandards for surface waters ofthe State of Arkansas. Reg. #2 asamended. AR Dept. Poll. Contr. Ecol. LittleRock, AR. 42 pp.TRENARY, J. D. 1958. Growth of three centrarchidae in Lake FortSmith, Arkansas. Unpubl. MS Thesis, Univ. Arkansas. 53 pp.USDA-SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE. 1983. Arkansas annualprogress report. USDA-SCS, LittleRock, AR 28 pp.USDA-SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE. 1961. Work plan - BigCreek Watershed, Craighead and Greene counties, Arkansas.USDA-SCS, Little Rock, AR. 46 p.USDI-FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1980. Human use andeconomic evaluation. Habitat Eval. Proc. 104 ESM, USFWS,Washington, DC. 69 p.106 106Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 39 [1985], Art. 26http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol39/iss1/26

Age and Growth of the Bluegill Lepomis macrochrius Rafinesque From an Unmanaged Watershed Lake in Northeast Arkansas with Observations on Lake Ecology

UARK (University of Arkansas )

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 39 Article 26 1985 Age and Growth of the Bluegill Lepomis macrochrius Rafinesque From an Unmanaged Watershed Lake in Northeast Arkansas with Observations on Lake Ecology Stephen A. Sewell The University of Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas  Part of the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons, and the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Sewell, Stephen A. (1985) "Age and Growth of the Bluegill Lepomis macrochrius Rafinesque From an Unmanaged Watershed Lake in Northeast Arkansas with Observations on Lake Ecology," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 39 , Article 26. Available at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol39/iss1/26 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu. Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXXIX,1985 103AGE AND GROWTH OF THE BLUEGILLLEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS RAFINESQUEFROM AN UNMANAGED WATERSHED LAKEINNORTHEAST ARKANSAS WITHOBSERVATIONS ON LAKE ECOLOGYSTEPHEN A. SEWELL1Department of BiologyThe University of MississippiUniversity, MS 38677ABSTRACTAge and growth data were compiled on 1 1 4 bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque, taken fromfloodwater retarding structure #15 of the Big Creek Watershed project in Craighead and Greene coun-ties of northeast Arkansas. This project was completed in the early 1960's by USDA-SCS. The 73 sur-face acre lake has not been managed for fish production and has been subjected to unscheduled waterlevel manipulations during dry weather periods. These manipulations have maintained the bluegill popula-tion inhealthy condition. The oldest bluegill collected were age class IV+ . Average condition coefficientK(TL) declined from oldest to youngest individuals (2.96 in age class IV+ - 2.20 inage class I+ ), whilenumbers in age class declined from the youngest to the oldest within the sample (age class IV+ = 1[0.8%];age class l+ = 74 [64.9%]). The length-scale radius relationship was L = 9.51 + 46.92S, with acorrelation coefficient (r) of 0.96. The length (60-178 mm)-weight (4.7-1 55. 9g) relationship (Log W =1 .4 Log L- 1 .37) indicates that weight has not increased as the cube of length. The utilityof drawdownas a fishery management technique is discussed.INTRODUCTIONAge and growth studies have long been used to determine fish healthand condition, to compare the capabilities of water bodies for the fishproduction, and to assess fish management strategies (Lagler, 1956).The bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque, has been usedas the subject species in numerous age and growth studies throughoutthe United States and as being representative of similar sunfishes(Carlander, 1977; Lewis, 1983). This paper describes the age and growthof bluegill in floodwater retarding structure (FWRS) #15 of the BigCreekWatershed project in Craighead and Greene counties, Arkansas (Figure1). This project was completed in the 1960's by the USDA-Soil Con-servation Service (SCS) under the authority of the 1954 Watershed Pro-tection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 566, 83rd Congress)(USDA-SCS, 1961). These flood water retarding structures are impound-ments designed with flood control as their primary purpose. Some fishand wildlifebenefits typically result from the construction of these struc-tures, though often incidentally (Nord, 1963; Dillonand Marriage, 1973;Grizzel, 1960; Hatcher, 1973). FWRS #15 has a sediment pool whichcovers approximately 73 surface acres (29.2 hectares) with a designedflood pool of 256 surface acres (102.4 hectares) (USDA-SCS, 1961) andsupports an estimated 1500 recreational activity occasions (person-days)per year (USFWS, 1980).Isite #15 drains 2,855 acres (1142 hectares) of the upper Big Creekitershed on Crowleys Ridge. Soils within the area are dominated byllins, Calloway and Loring silt loams. These soils are considered tore fair to very poor suitability for supporting wetland plantsrguson, 1979) and comprise the bulk of the water-borne sediments'ering the bottom of the sediment pool of Site #15. Bottom depthshin the site range from 0.3 - 7.0m. Substrates are typically eithery mud (as a result of water-borne sediment load and parent materials)Jetritus from the upper watershed and decay offormer forests withinsite. Topography ofthe area is characterized byridges withnarrowiding tops, short side slopes and narrow valleys between ridges)bertson, 1969). The structure was partially drained (50%) duringsummer of 1979 and has not been managed for fisheries. Over 370h structures, averaging 13.64 hectares in size and incorporatingFigure 1. Location of Site #15 (shaded) in the Big Creek Watershed,Craighead and Greene counties, Arkansas.103Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 39 [1985], Art. 26Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1985104 Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXXIX,1985Age and Growth off the BluegillLepomis macrochirus Rafinesque From an Unmanaged Watershed LakeFigure 2. Average weights during each year since drawdown (1979) of bluegill sunfish from Site #15, Big Creek Watershed, Craighead and Greenecounties, Arkansas. Absolute weight gain (w2-wl, Ricker, 1975) shown in parentheses between years.various levels of management, have been built by SCS in Arkansas(Bates, 1985).The remainder of this report will deal only with Site #15 asdescribed above.METHODS ANDMATERIALSOne hundred and fourteen bluegill were collected from Site #15 dur-ing routine rotenone sampling by the author and Arkansas Game andFish Commission personnel at the request of one of the landowners(Dr. BillR. Cato, Jonesboro, AR).The sample area was a represen-tative acre along the southwestern bank of Site #15 and included a sec-tion of the borrow pit for dam construction. Several species offish werecollected from the site and will be discussed further in later publica-tions. Scales for study were selected by the "Key Scale" method sug-gested by Lagler (1956). Key scales were designated as those from anarea approximately 10 scales back from the head and 5 down from thelateral line along the right side of the fish. Approximately 20 scales werecollected from each fish, with the total length recorded in millimeters,and weight recorded in grams.Scale annuli counts were made by the use of an American Opticaldissecting microscope in conjunction withan American Optical lightsource. Measurements on each scale were made using Helios dial calipersfrom focus to each annulus and from focus to scale margin along theanterior median of each scale.Age determinations were made by direct annuli count. Since collec-tion was made in mid-summer, the age referred to herein representsthe number of the last complete annulus plus any growth after forma-tion (e.g. III+).Measurements ofindividual fish were manipulated according to thebasic mathematical formulae discussed and displayed inLagler (1956),Ricker (1975) and Carlander (1977). These are discussed and comparedwith other data summaries (Allenand Aggus, 1981; Noble and Stein-bach, 1981) as appropriate.A limited amount of physicochemical and biological(macroinvertebrate) water quality data was collected in conjunction withfish collections. A Hach DR/EL-2 portable water quality laboratorywas used todevelop physicochemical data. Standard nets were used tosample macroinvertebrates.Soils data discussed herein were taken directly from published soilsurveys for Craighead and Greene counties, Arkansas (Robertson, 1969;Ferguson, 1979).RESULTSThe length (60-178mm)-weight (4.7- 155.9g) relationship ascalculated using Le Crens (1951) proposal was Log W = 1.4 Log L-1.37. The correlation coefficient 1.4 was significantly different from3.0 (a =.10) indicating that weight didnot increase as the cube oflength.Figure 2 illustrates the trend in absolute (weight) increases (w2-wl)observed within the site by indicated year classes.The coefficient of condition K(TL),was calculated for each bluegillfrom the expression K(TL) = W/L3 x 100. The K(TL) for individualfish varied from 1.96 to 3.34 withan average of 2.31 (Table 1). Thisaverage which exceeded the average reported by Trenary (1958) fromLake Fort Smith, Arkansas, would be rated "good" by Illinois stan-dard (Bennett, 1948) and approaches "excellent" by Minnesota stan-dards (Carlander, 1944). This average K(TL)(2.31) was similar to thatfound in other temperate waters reported by Carlander (1977), and wasnot significantly different from ponds in North Carolina, Tennesseeor New Mexico.104Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 39 [1985], Art. 26https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol39/iss1/26Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXXIX,1985 105Stephen A. SewellTable 1. Average coefficient condition K(TL) for bluegill sunfish fromSite #15, Big Creek Watershed, Craighead and Greene counties,Arkansas.Table 3. A comparison of total length (mm) at indicated annuli ofbluegill sunfish from Site #15, Big Creek Watershed, Craighead andGreene counties, Arkansas, with other Arkansas studies. (* =significantly different at a = .10).1—"K(TL)Annulus NumberII Fish 1 2 3 4Yr. Class mK(TL) If FishPresent-Site #15 114 68 119 152 173IV+ (1980) 2.96 2Bull Shoals 1 124 49* 84* 102* 122*III+ (1981) 2.79 8L. Catherine242 64 114 152 18011+ (1982) 2.42 30 ,L. Hamilton 45 76 117 155 1751+ (1983) 7 42.20Table 2. Average calculated total length (mm) of bluegill sunfish at theindicated annuli from Site #15, Big Creek Watershed, Craighead andGreene counties, Arkansas.Annulus Number41 2 3YEAR CLASSIV+ (1980) 103 137 160 17374 115 143III+ (1981)11+ (1982)1+ (1983)68 119 152 173Average2Number of Fish 74 30 8The total length (L)-scale radius (S) relationship for Site #15 wasL= 9.51 + 46.92S with a correlation coefficient (r)of0.96. The averagecalculated lengths at the time ofannuli formation are displayed in Table2. Comparison oflengths of age groups I- IVreveals a steady declinein length at comparable annuli during the period 1980 through 1983.Comparison of the length data shown in Table 2 withequivalent datafrom other Arkansas impoundments (Table 3) indicates that Site #15bluegill grew in length like Lake Catherine and Lake Hamilton bluegill.Length gain at each annulus was significantly higher than BullShoalsLake and significantly lower than Lake Ouachita (a=.10).DISCUSSIONPeriodic major drawdown has been used effectively by fish andwildlife managers (Allen and Aggus, 1983) and usually depends on61 105it2L. Ouachita 84* 147* 188* 206*1Applegate, et al, 1967.?Hulsey and Stevenson, 1958.naturally or artifically increased hydrophyte growth for success in eitherwildlifeor fisheries management (Dillonand Marriage, 1973; Grizzell,1960; Hatcher, 1973).Within Site #15, soil fertility may be a limiting factor to effectivedrawdown for hydrophyte increases. The Callaway, Collins and Lor-ing silt loam soils are not well suited to hydrophyte establishment. Thesesoils are not only dominant in the upper watershed, but are also thechief constituents ofsubstrates within the site. Water-borne sedimentshave also increased turbidity levels slightly (39 NTU)and may have con-tributed to slightly high total dissolved solids (540 mg/1), but waterquality within the site is generally satisfactory for fish production (Stateof Arkansas, 1981). As a result, the average observed fish conditionK(TL) is surprisingly good in Site #15 considering the lack ofmanagement.Carlander (1977) noted that condition of bluegills increased afterdrawdown of Bear Camp Lake, Georgia, in a study by Pierce, et al.(1965). Cichra and Noble (1980) found that summer drawdown causedincreases in clarity, alkalinity, hardness, and improved fish condition.Roland (1970) found that increased hardness increased the average con-dition of bluegills.Following a partial drawdown (50%) of Site #15, average conditioncoefficient K(TL),improved initially but slowlydeclined as populationsize increased (Table 1). Schmittou (1968) noted that a higher popula-tion density resulted in a lower condition factor. Average condition im-proved for two years after 90 percent removal ofan Oklahoma popula-tion (Jenkins, 1959). In Site #15, drawdown acted to concentrate theichthyofauna along the dam where water remained. Under these con-ditions, natural mortality and predation were presumably greatly in-creased. Bluegill populations were reduced sufficiently toavoid the severestunting which could be expected in an impoundment of this age andsize without management.The similarity of the results of drawdown, whether good manage-ment or mismanagement, is noteworthy. Cichra and Noble (1980) notedseveral positive effects ofapproximately 50 percent summer drawdownin six flood prevention lakes in central Texas. While not appreciablyincreased, growth and condition of bluegill in Site #15 were main-tainedat a high level by a summer drawdown of greater than 50 percent. Inthe former case, drawdown was accompanied by hydrophyte establish-105Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 39 [1985], Art. 26Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1985Age and Growth of the Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque From an Unmanaged Watershed Lakement. In the latter case, hydrophyte establishment was very insignifi-cant or substrates unsuited to hydrophytes, but fishery benefits accruedregardless. Drawdowns may provide a lost-cost fishery managementtechnique for floodwater retarding structures not otherwise managedto support a fishery. Stable shallow reservoirs of the size (100 ac/40ha) most often constructed in flood control projects can benefit great-ly from extensive ( > 50%) drawdowns, ifproperly timed (Allen andAggus, 1983). Previous studies (Allenand Aggus, 1983) have pointedout that annual dewatering through summer months can lead to an un-productive littoral zone resulting in poor growth and survival of fish,particularly young-of-the-year. A five to six year drawdown frequencywas suggested. Based on the observations on Site #15 presented herein,a three to five year drawdown cycle can produce significant low costbenefits to an unmanaged recreational fishery in flood control water-shed lakes.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSMany thanks are due the following people for their ef-forts: Allen Carter, AGFC (for his assistance in collec-tion of the fishes); Dr. BillR. Cato, Jonesboro, AR (forhis permission and interest); Ray Linder, USDA-SCSArkansas (for his assistance in locating obscure SCSdocumentation); James Sims, USDA-SCS Tennessee (forhis cartographic expertise); Howard Dykes, USDA-SCSTennessee (for critical review of the manuscript); CindiMcGovern and Lynda LeMay, Nashville, Tennessee (fortheir typing and editing skills); and Mrs. Jane Ratliff,TheUniversity of Mississippi (for typing the final copy).LITERATURE CITEDALLEN, H. H., and L. R. AGGUS. 1983. Effects of fluctuatingreservoir water levels on fisheries, wildlife, and vegetation: sum-mary ofa workshop, 24-26 February, 1981. Misc. Paper E-83-2,USA-COE Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 55 pp.APPLEGATE, R. K., J. W. MULLAN,and D. I. MORA1S. 1967.Food and growth of six centrachids from shoreline areas of BullShoals Reservoir. Proc. SE Asso. Game Fish Comm. 20:469-482.BATES, G., G. VALENTINE, and F. SPRAGUE. 1985. Status reporton SCS-assisted flood detention structures in the Southern UnitedStates. Waterfowl in Winter Symposium and Workshop, January7-10, 1985, Galveston, TX. 19 pp.BENNETT, G. W. 1948. The bass-bluegill condition ina small artificiallake. 111. Nat. Hist. Surv. Bull. 24(3):377-412.CARLANDER, K. D. 1977. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology,Vol. II.Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. 431 pp.CARLANDER, K. D. 1944. Notes on the coefficient of condition Kof Minnesota fishes. Minn. Bureau Fish Res. Invest. Rep. 41.CICHRA, C. E., and R. L. NOBLE. 1980. Summer drawdown as afisheries management tool in floodwater retarding structures. Ann.Proc. Texas Chapter, AFS 3:1-21.DILLON,O. W., JR., and L.D. MARRIAGE. 1973. Fish and Wild-life habitat management in watershed projects. Proc. Soil Con-serv. Soc. Am. 28:166-171.FERGUSON, D. V. 1979. Soil survey ofCraighead County, Arkansas.USDA-SCS and Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station,cooperating, Little Rock, AR. 110+ pp.GRIZZELL, R. A., JR. 1960. Fish and wildlife management onwatershed projects. Trans. North American Wild. Nat. Res. Conf.25:186-192.HATCHER, R. M. 1973. Floodwater retarding structures as fish andwildlife habitat. Proc. Soil Conservation Society of America.28:158-160.HULSEY, A. H., and J. H. STEVENSON. 1958. Comparison ofgrowth rates ofgame fish in Lake Catherine, Lake Hamilton andLake Ouachita, Arkansas. Proc. Ark. Acad. Sci. 12:17-31.JENKINS, R. M. 1959. Some results of the partial fish populationremoval techniques in lake management. Proc. Okla. Acad. Sci.36:64-173.LAGLER, K. F. 1956. Freshwater fishery biology. William C. BrownCompany. Publ., Dubuque, Iowa. 421 pp.LECREN, E. D. 1951. The length-weight relationship and seasonalcycle in gonad weight and condition in the perce (Perca fluviatilis).J. An. Ecol. 20(2):201-219.LEWIS, G. W. 1983. Common freshwater sport fishes of the South-east. MP145, Cooperative Extension Service, University ofGeorgia,Athens, GA. p. 47-48.NOBLE, R. L., and D. W. STEINBACH. 1981. Fish populationcharacteristics of floodwater retarding structures. Agreement HAG-48-SCS-04922, Texas Agriculture Extension Service and TexasA&MUniversity, College Station, TX. 69 pp.NORD, W. A. 1963. Wildlife in the small watershed program. Trans.N. Am. Wild. Nat. Res. Conf. 28:118-124.PIERCE, D. C, J. E. FREY, and H. M. YAWN. 1965. An evaluationof fishery management techniques utilizing winter drawdowns.Proc. SE Assoc. Game Fish Comm. 17:347-363.RICKER, W. E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biologicalstatistics of fish populations. Bull. 191, Dept. of the Evn., Fishand Mar. Sci., Ottawa, Canada. 382 p.ROBERTSON, N. W. 1969. Soil survey ofGreene County, Arkansas.USDA-SCS and Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station,cooperating. 65+ pp.ROLAND, J. V. 1970. Some effects of introduction of hard waterinto Corrin Cove, Virginia. Unpubl. MS Thesis, VA-Polytech Inst.103 p.SCHMITTOU, H. R. 1968. Some effects ofsupplemental feeding andcontrolled fishing in largemouth bass-bluegill populations. Proc.SE Assoc. Game Fish Comm. 22:311-320.STATE OF ARKANSAS. 1981. Regulation establishing water qualitystandards for surface waters ofthe State of Arkansas. Reg. #2 asamended. AR Dept. Poll. Contr. Ecol. LittleRock, AR. 42 pp.TRENARY, J. D. 1958. Growth of three centrarchidae in Lake FortSmith, Arkansas. Unpubl. MS Thesis, Univ. Arkansas. 53 pp.USDA-SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE. 1983. Arkansas annualprogress report. USDA-SCS, LittleRock, AR 28 pp.USDA-SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE. 1961. Work plan - BigCreek Watershed, Craighead and Greene counties, Arkansas.USDA-SCS, Little Rock, AR. 46 p.USDI-FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1980. Human use andeconomic evaluation. Habitat Eval. Proc. 104 ESM, USFWS,Washington, DC. 69 p.106 106Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 39 [1985], Art. 26https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol39/iss1/26

https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2457&amp;context=jaas

Age and Growth of the Bluegill Lepomis macrochrius Rafinesque From an Unmanaged Watershed Lake in Northeast Arkansas with Observations on Lake Ecology

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks@UARK

UARK (University of Arkansas )