Meisch, Max V.

Newton, Scott H.

Robison, Walter R.

English

UARK (University of Arkansas )

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 37 Article 43 1983 Mosquitofish Production in Monoculture and Polyculture Ponds Walter R. Robison University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff Scott H. Newton University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff Max V. Meisch University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas  Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Robison, Walter R.; Newton, Scott H.; and Meisch, Max V. (1983) "Mosquitofish Production in Monoculture and Polyculture Ponds," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 37 , Article 43. Available at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol37/iss1/43 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 General Note 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. XXXVII,1983 101General NotesNomenclature for the taxa reported below follow Crum and Anderson (1981). Collectors' initials are in parentheses following the countyor counties the specimens were collected from.Amblystegium hparium (Hedw.) BSG. Garland (JEM).Anotnodon minor (Hedw.) Furnr. Arkansas (EBW).Aulacomnium heterostichum (Hedw.) BSG. Poinsett and St. Francis (EBW).Bartramia pomiformis Hedw. Crittenden (EBW).Bruchia flexuosa (Sw. ex Schwaegr.) C. M. Miller (EBW).Bryum argenteum Hedw. Pulaski (EBW).Bryumpseudotriquetrum (Hedw.) Gaertn., Meyer & Scherb. Hempstead (EBW).Centodon purpureus (Hedw.) Brid. Stone and Washington (SLT).Diphyscium foliosum (Hedw.) Mohr. Sharp (SLT).Ditrichum pallidum (Hedw.) Hampe. Chicot, Clark, Crittenden, Howard, Marion, and Sevier (EBW).Fissidens bushii (Card. &Ther.) Card &Ther. Garland (JEM).Funaria hygrometrica Hedw. Chicot, Crittenden, Hempstead, Lincoln, Polk, and Sebastian (EBW)Funaria flavicans Mx.Howard and Lincoln (EBW).Leptobryum pyriforme (Hedw.) Wils. Garland (JEM).Orthotrichum strangulatum P.-Beauv. Garland (JEM)Pilonotis longiseta (Mx.) Britt. Pulaski (EBW).Physcomitrium pyriforme (Hedw.) Hampe. Columbia, Howard, Lincoln, Logan, Mississippi, and Polk (EBW).Plagiothecium cavifolium (Brid.) Iwats. Garland (JEM).Two new state records are also represented. Sphagnum macrophyllum Bernh. ex Bird, was collected by Dr. P. L.Redfearn et al. inHempstead County. InNorth America this species is found in aquatic habitats in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New York to Florida and westto Texas, including Tennessee. Venturiella sinensis (Vent, ex Rabh.) C. M. var. angustaannulata Griff.&Sharp was collected in Stone Countyby the senior author. The location represents the taxon's most eastern distribution inNorth America. The species has been recorded from only three otherlocations inNorth America, Texas (Bartram, 1934) and Oklahoma (Inkenberry, 1960; Redfearn, 1970).LITERATURE CITEDt:TRAM,E. B. 1934. Venturiella sinensis (Vent.) C. M.in Texas.The Bryologist 34:46. REDFEARN, P. L. JR. 1968. Bryophytes of the Interior HighlandsXIII.Additions to the flora. The Bryologist 71:356-357.t(M,H.A.and L.E. ANDERSON. 1981. Mosses ofeastern NorthAmerica. Columbia Univ. Press, New York, NY. 1328 pp.REDFEARN, P. L. JR. 1970. Bryophytes of the Interior HighlandsXV. Additions to the flora. The Bryologist 73:716-717.rENBERRY, G. J., C.D.BIRD,and W. F.MAHLER. 1960. Themosses of Payne County, Oklahoma. The Bryologist 63:112-1 13. REDFEARN, P. L. JR. 1972. Mosses of the Interior Highlands ofNorth America. Ann. Missouri Bot. Garden 59:1-103.LOWE, R. L. 1919. Collecting in Arkansas. The Bryologist 22:14-15. REDFEARN, P. L. JR. 1979. Bryophytes of the Interior Highlandsof North America XVIII.Species of the Ozark National Forest,Stone County, Arkansas. The Bryologist 82:483-486.t)RE, J. E. 1965. A study of the vegetation ofPetit Jean Mountainin central Arkansas. Castanea 30:1-37.SCULLY,F. J. 1941. The mosses ofHot Springs National Park andvicinity. The Bryologist 44:125-128.tFEARN, P. L. JR. 1964. Bryophytes of Arkansas I.Species of"Lost" Valley and adjacent regions. The Bryologist 67:196-201.WITTLAKE,E. B. 195O(a). Preliminary report onArkansas bryophytes.Proc. Arkansas Acad. Sci. 3:35-37.t'FEARN, P. L.JR. 1966. Bryophytes of the Interior Highlandsof North America XI. Additions to the flora. The Bryologist69:504-508. WITTLAKE,E. B. 1950(b). Bryophytes of Spy Rock Hollow. Proc.Arkansas Acad. Sci. 3:39-40.S. LEE TIMME,Department ofBotany and Microbiology, University ofArkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, and JEWEL E. MOORE, BiologyDepartment, University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 72032.MOSQUITOFISH PRODUCTION INMONOCULTURE AND POLYCULTURE PONDS*tMosquitofish(Gambusia affinis, Baird and Girard) are playing an increasingly important role in mosquito-control programs across the>n, due to increasing costs of insecticides, public pressure over environmental damage by insecticides, and the need for continuous mosquitorolnear populated areas. Among reports on the use of mosquitofish as predators ofricefield mosquitoes are those of Horsfall, 1942; Fowler,;Craven and Steelman, 1968; and Meisch and Coombes, 1974. Large numbers ofmosquitofish will be necessary to achieve adequate controlwide areas (Hoy and Reed, 1970; Hoy et al., 1971, 1972; Davey et al., 1974). The intensive culture of mosquitofish in California has beenrted by Challet and Rohe, 1974; Challet et al., 1974; and Reynolds, 1975.101Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 37 [1983], Art. 43Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1983IArkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXXVII,1983102Arkansas Academy of ScienceSince 1972, mosquitofish have been tested as biological control agents against the dark ricefield mosquito (Psorophora columbiae, Dyar andKnab) in Arkansas (Meisch and Coombes, 1974). Mosquitofish readily adjust to the temperature extremes and reduced dissolved oxygen levelsof ricefield water. It has been proved that mosquitofish are the most desirable fish for ricefields and also that they are effective predators offloodwater mosquitoes (Davey et al., 1976). However the major problem confronting use of mosquitofish as biological control agents has beenobtaining adequate supplies for seeding ricefields, ditches, pools, and ponds.Because few commercial fish farms produce mosquitofish, most mosquito-control agencies must produce their own. Commercially producedmosquitofish are extremely expensive, costing as much as $88 per kg. By contrast, considerable mosquitofish production occurs in commercialbaitminnow ponds where they are considered a pest fishbecause they compete directly withminnows for food and space. These mosquitofish arepresently being wasted. Additionally, they are difficult to separate from minnows during harvest and also present problems in holding tanksMosquitofish may be reared and harvested from catfish-production ponds with fewer problems than when reared withminnows (Newton et al.1977). Thus, they could be a desirable secondary income fish for catfish producers.In1976, a cooperative program was initiated by fisheries biologists at the University ofArkansas at Pine Bluffand byentomologists at theUniversity of Arkansas at Fayetteville. This project was aimed at developing and evaluating management techniques for producing mosquitofish.From 1976 through 1978, mosquitofish were reared in polyculture systems under pond conditions with channel catfish (Ictaluruspunctatus,Rafinesque). Channel catfish fingerlings were stocked into three 0.1-ha ponds at 2470 fish/ha and fed at the rate of22.45 kg/haand fed a floatingminnow meal. Allponds were completely harvested at the end of each year.During 1979 and 1980, mosquitofish were produced in polyculture withcatfish, bigmouth buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus, Valenciennes) andgrass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella, Valenciennes). Buffalo and grass carp were stocked at the rate of247 and 30 fish/ha, respectively. Catfishfingerlings were again stocked at the rate of2470 fish/ha and feda sinking pelleted feed daily. However, in1979-80 as wellas insubsequent years,mosquitofish were not fed separately. At the end of the 1979 growing season the mosquitofish were harvested, while the catfish were sampledbut remained in the ponds. At this time, catfish averaged 0.45 kg in weight.Mosquitofish were restocked the following spring (1980) at the rateof 22.45 kg/ha. During 1980, catfish were fed a sinking pelleted feed only three days a week.During the 1981 growing season, mosquitofish were reared inboth polyculture and monoculture ponds. Catfish fingerlings were stocked at4940 fish/ha and fed a floating pelleted ration five days a week. Mosquitofish were not fed separately.Mosquitofish reared under monoculture conditions were fed a floating minnow meal fivedays a week, an amount approximately equal tothree percent of their weight. Monoculture ponds were fertilized (12-24-12) at the rate of48 kg/ha twice early inthe season to initiate and maintainalgal blooms.In1982, mosquitofish were cultured with catfish fingerlings stocked at both 7410 and 14,820 fish/ha. Mosquitofish were also produced inmonoculture ponds stocked at the rate of 22.45 kg/ha. Allother conditions were similar to those of the 1981 experiment.Mosquitofish were harvested according to a standardized schedule during all culture years. Each year mosquitofish were stocked at the rateof22.45 kg/ha. The firstharvest was 60 days after initial stocking, using a 6.2-mm mesh seine. Subsequent harvests continued every 30 days thereafteruntil the final harvest. Total periodic harvests averaged four per season prior to a final fallharvest.Production ofmosquitofish during the 1976-78 culture seasons averaged 225 kg/ha withsupplemental feeding (Table). In1979, mosquitofish(reared without separate feeding) production decreased significantly to 147 kg/ha. Production ofcatfish is reported in the Table. Catfish stockingrates were the same (2470 fish/ha) during both these periods. However, in 1980 when catfish (average weight of0.45 kg) were fed a significantlygreater amount of feed than inprevious years, mosquitofish yields were 350 kg/ha as compared to 1979. Harvested buffalo and grass carp yieldsare also reported inthe Table.Table. Net production (Yields) by fish species during 1976-82 at UAPB.Feed fed Feed fedYear Culture condition Mosquitofish mosquitofish Catfish catfish Buffalo Grass carp(kg/ha) (kg) (kg/ha) (kg) (kg/ha) (kg/ha)1976-78 Polyculture-/225 b 87 465 744(2470fish/ha)1979 Polyculture 147 a 1757* 747 385* 90*(2470 (247 (30f1sh/ha) f1sh/ha) f1sh/ha)1980 Polyculture 350 c— ---16141981 Polyculture 112 a—968 969 164 9(4940 (247 (30fish/ha) fish/ha) fish/ha)1981 Monoculture 427 d 5201982** Polyculture 222 b---1557 2298—57(7410 (30fish/ha) fish/ha)Polyculture 255 b—2042 3879—54(14.820 (30fish/ha) fish/ha)1982 Monoculture 473 d 496]/ Means followed by different letters are significantly different at the 95% level.Total production for two years (1979-80).** In 1982, there were 2 catfish stocking rates for polyculture production.102Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 37 [1983], Art. 43https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol37/iss1/43Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXXVII,1983 103General NotesIn 1981 mosquitofish production in polyculture ponds decreased to an average of 112 kg/ha (Table), although catfish fingerling stockingrates had doubled (from 2470 fish/ha in 1976-78 and 1979 to 4940 fish/ha). Monoculture yields under intensive management averaged 427 kg/ha.During 1982, mosquitofish production inpolyculture ponds was 222 and 255 kg/ha at catfish stocking rates of 7410 and 14,820 fingerlingsper ha, respectively (Table). Intensive management of monoculture gambusia ponds in 1982 yielded 473 kg/ha.Duncan's multiple range analyses revealed no significant differences inproduction ofnonfed mosquitofish at catfish fingerling stocking ratesof either 2470 or 4940 fish/ha (Table). However, there was a significant difference in production rates between fed and nonfed mosquitofish atcatfish stocking rate of 2470/ha. There were no significant differences among fed mosquitofish withchannel catfish stocked at a rate of2470 fish/haand nonfed mosquitofish at catfish stocking rates of 7410 and 14,820 fish/ha (Table). There were no significant differences in mosquitofishproduction among monoculture ponds forall years, and monoculture yields ofmosquitofish are significantly greater than polyculture yields (Table).Mosquitofish production in catfish ponds (without feeding) appeared to be related to catfish feed input. Acomparison of correlationcoefficients indicates that when catfish fingerlings are stocked at low rates (2470 or 4940 fish/ha) withcorrespondingly low feed inputs, mosquitofishproduction willbe low. Higher feed inputs, resulting from increased stocking rates of catfish and correspondingly greater poundages, increasemosquitofish yields. However, this trend holds true only withcatfish fingerling stocking rates up to 7410 fish per ha. Doubling the catfish stockingrate to 14,820 fingerlings/ha increases mosquitofish production, but not proportionally. Generally, mosquitofish production may be increased bysupplemental feeding when catfish stocking rates are low. Mosquitofish production through monoculture resulted inthe highest yields per hectare.For the present, polyculture production ofmosquitofish as a secondary crop associated withcatfish appears to be the best approach. Marketdemands are isolated and varied, although the demand is present in states with organized mosquito-abatement programs. Fish are generallyrequested duringearly tomidsummer when mosquito-control efforts are initiated. Development ofmosquito-abatement district stocking programsis needed as part of the overall effort to optimize mosquitofish usage.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis publication is based upon work partiallysupported by the U.S. Department ofAgriculture under Agreement No.82-CRSR-2-1010 and PL95-113, AR.X959. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thispublication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U. S. Department of Agriculture.LITERATURE CITEDCHALLET,G. L.,and D.L. ROHE. 1974. Apilotprogram for theintensive culture ofGambusia afflnis (Bairdand Girard) and Tilapiazillii(Gervais), Part I-Description of facilities. Bull. Soc. Vec.Ecol. 1:38-40.HORSFALL, W. R. 1942. Biology and control ofmosquitoes in the ricearea. Ark. Agric.Exp. Stn. Bull. 427.HOY, J. B., A. G. O'BERG, and E. E. KAUFMAN. 1971. Themosquitofish as abiological control agent against Culex tarsalisand Anopheles freeborni in Sacramento Valley rice fields.Mosquito News 31:146-152.rvLLET, G.L.,G. T.REYNOLDS, and D.L.ROHE. 1974. Apilotprogram for the intensive culture of Gambusia affinis (Baird andGirard) and Tilapiazillii(Gervais), Part II-InitialOperation andproduction efficiencies. Proc. Calif. Mosq. Control Assoc.42:55-58.HOY, J. B.,E. E. KAUFMAN,and A.G. O'BERG. 1972. Alarge-scalefield test of Gambusia affinis and chlorpyrifos for mosquitocontrol. Mosquito News 32:161-171.r.VEN, B. R.,and C. D.STEELMAN. 1968. Studies on a biologicaland a chemical method ofcontrolling the dark rice fieldmosquitoin Louisiana. J. Econ. Entomol. 61:133-136.HOY, J. B., and D. E. REED. 1970. Biological control of Culextarsalis in a California rice field. Mosquito News 30:222-230.rVEY, R.B., M. V.MEISCH, D.L. GRAY,J. M.MARTIN,K.E. SNEED, and F. J. WILLIAMS.1974. Various fish species asbiological control agents for the dark rice field mosquito inArkansas rice fields. Environ. Entomol. 3:823-826.MEISCH, M. V., and L. E. COOMBES. 1974. Mosquitofish aspredators of ricefield mosquito larvae: Preliminary observationsunder applied field conditions. Ark. Farm Res. J. 23(4):3.NEWTON, S. H., A.J. MERKOWSKY, A. J. HANDCOCK, andM.V. MEISCH. 1977. Mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis (BairdandGirard), production inextensive polyculture systems. Proc. Ark.Acad. Sci. 31:77-78.rVEY, R. B., M.V. MEISCH, and F.L.CARTER. 1976. Toxicityoffive rice field pesticides to mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis, andgreen sunfish, Lepomis cyanellus, under laboratory and fieldconditions in Arkansas. Environ. Entomol. 5:1053-1056.REYNOLDS, G. T. 1975. Pilot program for the intensive cultureofGambusia affinis (Baird and Girard) and Tilapia zillii(Gervais).Part III- Second year operation and production efficiencies. Proc.New Jersey Mosq. Control Assoc. 62:129-137.IWLER, J. 1964. The use ofGambusia fish in the control of ricefield mosquitoes. Proc. Calif. Mosq. Control Assoc. 32:54-55.WALTER R.ROBISON, SCOTTH. NEWTON, Department ofAgriculture, University ofArkansas at Pine Bluff, Pine Bluff,AR 71601, andMAX V. MEISCH, Department ofEntomology, University ofArkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701.•Published with the approval of the Director of the Arkansas AgriculturalExperiment Station.103Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 37 [1983], Art. 43Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1983

Mosquitofish Production in Monoculture and Polyculture Ponds

ScholarWorks@UARK

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of ScienceVolume 37 Article 431983Mosquitofish Production in Monoculture andPolyculture PondsWalter R. RobisonUniversity of Arkansas at Pine BluffScott H. NewtonUniversity of Arkansas at Pine BluffMax V. MeischUniversity of Arkansas, FayettevilleFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaasPart of the Aquaculture and Fisheries 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 General Note is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the ArkansasAcademy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu, ccmiddle@uark.edu.Recommended CitationRobison, Walter R.; Newton, Scott H.; and Meisch, Max V. (1983) "Mosquitofish Production in Monoculture and Polyculture Ponds,"Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 37 , Article 43.Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol37/iss1/43Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXXVII,1983 101General NotesNomenclature for the taxa reported below follow Crum and Anderson (1981). Collectors' initials are in parentheses following the countyor counties the specimens were collected from.Amblystegium hparium (Hedw.) BSG. Garland (JEM).Anotnodon minor (Hedw.) Furnr. Arkansas (EBW).Aulacomnium heterostichum (Hedw.) BSG. Poinsett and St. Francis (EBW).Bartramia pomiformis Hedw. Crittenden (EBW).Bruchia flexuosa (Sw. ex Schwaegr.) C. M. Miller (EBW).Bryum argenteum Hedw. Pulaski (EBW).Bryumpseudotriquetrum (Hedw.) Gaertn., Meyer & Scherb. Hempstead (EBW).Centodon purpureus (Hedw.) Brid. Stone and Washington (SLT).Diphyscium foliosum (Hedw.) Mohr. Sharp (SLT).Ditrichum pallidum (Hedw.) Hampe. Chicot, Clark, Crittenden, Howard, Marion, and Sevier (EBW).Fissidens bushii (Card. &Ther.) Card &Ther. Garland (JEM).Funaria hygrometrica Hedw. Chicot, Crittenden, Hempstead, Lincoln, Polk, and Sebastian (EBW)Funaria flavicans Mx.Howard and Lincoln (EBW).Leptobryum pyriforme (Hedw.) Wils. Garland (JEM).Orthotrichum strangulatum P.-Beauv. Garland (JEM)Pilonotis longiseta (Mx.) Britt. Pulaski (EBW).Physcomitrium pyriforme (Hedw.) Hampe. Columbia, Howard, Lincoln, Logan, Mississippi, and Polk (EBW).Plagiothecium cavifolium (Brid.) Iwats. Garland (JEM).Two new state records are also represented. Sphagnum macrophyllum Bernh. ex Bird, was collected by Dr. P. L.Redfearn et al. inHempstead County. InNorth America this species is found in aquatic habitats in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New York to Florida and westto Texas, including Tennessee. Venturiella sinensis (Vent, ex Rabh.) C. M. var. angustaannulata Griff.&Sharp was collected in Stone Countyby the senior author. The location represents the taxon's most eastern distribution inNorth America. The species has been recorded from only three otherlocations inNorth America, Texas (Bartram, 1934) and Oklahoma (Inkenberry, 1960; Redfearn, 1970).LITERATURE CITEDt:TRAM,E. B. 1934. Venturiella sinensis (Vent.) C. M.in Texas.The Bryologist 34:46. REDFEARN, P. L. JR. 1968. Bryophytes of the Interior HighlandsXIII.Additions to the flora. The Bryologist 71:356-357.t(M,H.A.and L.E. ANDERSON. 1981. Mosses ofeastern NorthAmerica. Columbia Univ. Press, New York, NY. 1328 pp. REDFEARN, P. L. JR. 1970. Bryophytes of the Interior HighlandsXV. Additions to the flora. The Bryologist 73:716-717.rENBERRY, G. J., C.D.BIRD,and W. F.MAHLER. 1960. Themosses of Payne County, Oklahoma. The Bryologist 63:112-1 13. REDFEARN, P. L. JR. 1972. Mosses of the Interior Highlands ofNorth America. Ann. Missouri Bot. Garden 59:1-103.LOWE, R. L. 1919. Collecting in Arkansas. The Bryologist 22:14-15. REDFEARN, P. L. JR. 1979. Bryophytes of the Interior Highlandsof North America XVIII.Species of the Ozark National Forest,Stone County, Arkansas. The Bryologist 82:483-486.t)RE, J. E. 1965. A study of the vegetation ofPetit Jean Mountainin central Arkansas. Castanea 30:1-37.SCULLY,F. J. 1941. The mosses ofHot Springs National Park andvicinity. The Bryologist 44:125-128.tFEARN, P. L. JR. 1964. Bryophytes of Arkansas I.Species of"Lost" Valley and adjacent regions. The Bryologist 67:196-201.WITTLAKE,E. B. 195O(a). Preliminary report onArkansas bryophytes.Proc. Arkansas Acad. Sci. 3:35-37.t'FEARN, P. L.JR. 1966. Bryophytes of the Interior Highlandsof North America XI. Additions to the flora. The Bryologist69:504-508. WITTLAKE,E. B. 1950(b). Bryophytes of Spy Rock Hollow. Proc.Arkansas Acad. Sci. 3:39-40.S. LEE TIMME,Department ofBotany and Microbiology, University ofArkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, and JEWEL E. MOORE, BiologyDepartment, University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 72032.MOSQUITOFISH PRODUCTION INMONOCULTURE AND POLYCULTURE PONDS*tMosquitofish (Gambusia affinis, Baird and Girard) are playing an increasingly important role in mosquito-control programs across the>n, due to increasing costs of insecticides, public pressure over environmental damage by insecticides, and the need for continuous mosquitorolnear populated areas. Among reports on the use of mosquitofish as predators ofricefield mosquitoes are those of Horsfall, 1942; Fowler,;Craven and Steelman, 1968; and Meisch and Coombes, 1974. Large numbers ofmosquitofish will be necessary to achieve adequate controlwide areas (Hoy and Reed, 1970; Hoy et al., 1971, 1972; Davey et al., 1974). The intensive culture of mosquitofish in California has beenrted by Challet and Rohe, 1974; Challet et al., 1974; and Reynolds, 1975.101Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 37 [1983], Art. 43Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1983IArkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXXVII,1983102Arkansas Academy of ScienceSince 1972, mosquitofish have been tested as biological control agents against the dark ricefield mosquito (Psorophora columbiae, Dyar andKnab) in Arkansas (Meisch and Coombes, 1974). Mosquitofish readily adjust to the temperature extremes and reduced dissolved oxygen levelsof ricefield water. It has been proved that mosquitofish are the most desirable fish for ricefields and also that they are effective predators offloodwater mosquitoes (Davey et al., 1976). However the major problem confronting use of mosquitofish as biological control agents has beenobtaining adequate supplies for seeding ricefields, ditches, pools, and ponds.Because few commercial fish farms produce mosquitofish, most mosquito-control agencies must produce their own. Commercially producedmosquitofish are extremely expensive, costing as much as $88 per kg. By contrast, considerable mosquitofish production occurs in commercialbaitminnow ponds where they are considered a pest fishbecause they compete directly withminnows for food and space. These mosquitofish arepresently being wasted. Additionally, they are difficult to separate from minnows during harvest and also present problems in holding tanksMosquitofish may be reared and harvested from catfish-production ponds with fewer problems than when reared withminnows (Newton et al.1977). Thus, they could be a desirable secondary income fish for catfish producers.In1976, a cooperative program was initiated by fisheries biologists at the University ofArkansas at Pine Bluffand byentomologists at theUniversity of Arkansas at Fayetteville. This project was aimed at developing and evaluating management techniques for producing mosquitofish.From 1976 through 1978, mosquitofish were reared in polyculture systems under pond conditions with channel catfish (Ictaluruspunctatus,Rafinesque). Channel catfish fingerlings were stocked into three 0.1-ha ponds at 2470 fish/ha and fed at the rate of22.45 kg/haand fed a floatingminnow meal. Allponds were completely harvested at the end of each year.During 1979 and 1980, mosquitofish were produced in polyculture withcatfish, bigmouth buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus, Valenciennes) andgrass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella, Valenciennes). Buffalo and grass carp were stocked at the rate of247 and 30 fish/ha, respectively. Catfishfingerlings were again stocked at the rate of2470 fish/ha and feda sinking pelleted feed daily. However, in1979-80 as wellas insubsequent years,mosquitofish were not fed separately. At the end of the 1979 growing season the mosquitofish were harvested, while the catfish were sampledbut remained in the ponds. At this time, catfish averaged 0.45 kg in weight.Mosquitofish were restocked the following spring (1980) at the rateof 22.45 kg/ha. During 1980, catfish were fed a sinking pelleted feed only three days a week.During the 1981 growing season, mosquitofish were reared inboth polyculture and monoculture ponds. Catfish fingerlings were stocked at4940 fish/ha and fed a floating pelleted ration five days a week. Mosquitofish were not fed separately.Mosquitofish reared under monoculture conditions were fed a floating minnow meal fivedays a week, an amount approximately equal tothree percent of their weight. Monoculture ponds were fertilized (12-24-12) at the rate of48 kg/ha twice early inthe season to initiate and maintainalgal blooms.In1982, mosquitofish were cultured with catfish fingerlings stocked at both 7410 and 14,820 fish/ha. Mosquitofish were also produced inmonoculture ponds stocked at the rate of 22.45 kg/ha. Allother conditions were similar to those of the 1981 experiment.Mosquitofish were harvested according to a standardized schedule during all culture years. Each year mosquitofish were stocked at the rateof22.45 kg/ha. The firstharvest was 60 days after initial stocking, using a 6.2-mm mesh seine. Subsequent harvests continued every 30 days thereafteruntil the final harvest. Total periodic harvests averaged four per season prior to a final fallharvest.Production ofmosquitofish during the 1976-78 culture seasons averaged 225 kg/ha withsupplemental feeding (Table). In1979, mosquitofish(reared without separate feeding) production decreased significantly to 147 kg/ha. Production ofcatfish is reported in the Table. Catfish stockingrates were the same (2470 fish/ha) during both these periods. However, in 1980 when catfish (average weight of0.45 kg) were fed a significantlygreater amount of feed than inprevious years, mosquitofish yields were 350 kg/ha as compared to 1979. Harvested buffalo and grass carp yieldsare also reported inthe Table.Table. Net production (Yields) by fish species during 1976-82 at UAPB.Feed fed Feed fedYear Culture condition Mosquitofish mosquitofish Catfish catfish Buffalo Grass carp(kg/ha) (kg) (kg/ha) (kg) (kg/ha) (kg/ha)1976-78 Polyculture -/225 b 87 465 744(2470fish/ha)1979 Polyculture 147 a 1757* 747 385* 90*(2470 (247 (30f1sh/ha) f1sh/ha) f1sh/ha)1980 Polyculture 350 c— ---16141981 Polyculture 112 a—968 969 164 9(4940 (247 (30fish/ha) fish/ha) fish/ha)1981 Monoculture 427 d 5201982** Polyculture 222 b --- 1557 2298—57(7410 (30fish/ha) fish/ha)Polyculture 255 b—2042 3879—54(14.820 (30fish/ha) fish/ha)1982 Monoculture 473 d 496]/ Means followed by different letters are significantly different at the 95% level.Total production for two years (1979-80).** In 1982, there were 2 catfish stocking rates for polyculture production.102Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 37 [1983], Art. 43http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol37/iss1/43Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXXVII,1983 103General NotesIn 1981 mosquitofish production in polyculture ponds decreased to an average of 112 kg/ha (Table), although catfish fingerling stockingrates had doubled (from 2470 fish/ha in 1976-78 and 1979 to 4940 fish/ha). Monoculture yields under intensive management averaged 427 kg/ha.During 1982, mosquitofish production inpolyculture ponds was 222 and 255 kg/ha at catfish stocking rates of 7410 and 14,820 fingerlingsper ha, respectively (Table). Intensive management of monoculture gambusia ponds in 1982 yielded 473 kg/ha.Duncan's multiple range analyses revealed no significant differences inproduction ofnonfed mosquitofish at catfish fingerling stocking ratesof either 2470 or 4940 fish/ha (Table). However, there was a significant difference in production rates between fed and nonfed mosquitofish atcatfish stocking rate of 2470/ha. There were no significant differences among fed mosquitofish withchannel catfish stocked at a rate of2470 fish/haand nonfed mosquitofish at catfish stocking rates of 7410 and 14,820 fish/ha (Table). There were no significant differences in mosquitofishproduction among monoculture ponds forall years, and monoculture yields ofmosquitofish are significantly greater than polyculture yields (Table).Mosquitofish production in catfish ponds (without feeding) appeared to be related to catfish feed input. Acomparison of correlationcoefficients indicates that when catfish fingerlings are stocked at low rates (2470 or 4940 fish/ha) withcorrespondingly low feed inputs, mosquitofishproduction willbe low. Higher feed inputs, resulting from increased stocking rates of catfish and correspondingly greater poundages, increasemosquitofish yields. However, this trend holds true only withcatfish fingerling stocking rates up to 7410 fish per ha. Doubling the catfish stockingrate to 14,820 fingerlings/ha increases mosquitofish production, but not proportionally. Generally, mosquitofish production may be increased bysupplemental feeding when catfish stocking rates are low. Mosquitofish production through monoculture resulted inthe highest yields per hectare.For the present, polyculture production ofmosquitofish as a secondary crop associated withcatfish appears to be the best approach. Marketdemands are isolated and varied, although the demand is present in states with organized mosquito-abatement programs. Fish are generallyrequested duringearly tomidsummer when mosquito-control efforts are initiated. Development ofmosquito-abatement district stocking programsis needed as part of the overall effort to optimize mosquitofish usage.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis publication is based upon work partiallysupported by the U.S. Department ofAgriculture under Agreement No.82-CRSR-2-1010 and PL95-113, AR.X959. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thispublication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U. S. Department of Agriculture.LITERATURE CITEDCHALLET,G. L.,and D.L. ROHE. 1974. Apilotprogram for theintensive culture ofGambusia afflnis (Bairdand Girard) and Tilapiazillii(Gervais), Part I- Description of facilities. Bull. Soc. Vec.Ecol. 1:38-40.HORSFALL, W. R. 1942. Biology and control ofmosquitoes in the ricearea. Ark. Agric.Exp. Stn. Bull. 427.HOY, J. B., A. G. O'BERG, and E. E. KAUFMAN. 1971. Themosquitofish as abiological control agent against Culex tarsalisand Anopheles freeborni in Sacramento Valley rice fields.Mosquito News 31:146-152.rvLLET, G.L.,G. T.REYNOLDS, and D.L.ROHE. 1974. Apilotprogram for the intensive culture of Gambusia affinis (Baird andGirard) and Tilapiazillii(Gervais), Part II-InitialOperation andproduction efficiencies. Proc. Calif. Mosq. Control Assoc.42:55-58.HOY, J. B.,E. E. KAUFMAN,and A.G. O'BERG. 1972. Alarge-scalefield test of Gambusia affinis and chlorpyrifos for mosquitocontrol. Mosquito News 32:161-171.r.VEN, B. R.,and C. D.STEELMAN. 1968. Studies on a biologicaland a chemical method ofcontrolling the dark rice fieldmosquitoin Louisiana. J. Econ. Entomol. 61:133-136. HOY, J. B., and D. E. REED. 1970. Biological control of Culextarsalis in a California rice field. Mosquito News 30:222-230.rVEY, R.B., M. V.MEISCH, D.L. GRAY,J. M.MARTIN,K.E. SNEED, and F. J. WILLIAMS.1974. Various fish species asbiological control agents for the dark rice field mosquito inArkansas rice fields. Environ. Entomol. 3:823-826.MEISCH, M. V., and L. E. COOMBES. 1974. Mosquitofish aspredators of ricefield mosquito larvae: Preliminary observationsunder applied field conditions. Ark. Farm Res. J. 23(4):3.NEWTON, S. H., A.J. MERKOWSKY, A. J. HANDCOCK, andM.V. MEISCH. 1977. Mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis (BairdandGirard), production inextensive polyculture systems. Proc. Ark.Acad. Sci. 31:77-78.rVEY, R. B., M.V. MEISCH, and F.L.CARTER. 1976. Toxicityoffive rice field pesticides to mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis, andgreen sunfish, Lepomis cyanellus, under laboratory and fieldconditions in Arkansas. Environ. Entomol. 5:1053-1056.REYNOLDS, G. T. 1975. Pilot program for the intensive cultureofGambusia affinis (Baird and Girard) and Tilapia zillii(Gervais).Part III- Second year operation and production efficiencies. Proc.New Jersey Mosq. Control Assoc. 62:129-137.IWLER, J. 1964. The use ofGambusia fish in the control of ricefield mosquitoes. Proc. Calif. Mosq. Control Assoc. 32:54-55.WALTER R.ROBISON, SCOTTH. NEWTON, Department ofAgriculture, University ofArkansas at Pine Bluff, Pine Bluff,AR 71601, andMAX V. MEISCH, Department ofEntomology, University ofArkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701.•Published with the approval of the Director of the Arkansas AgriculturalExperiment Station.103Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 37 [1983], Art. 43Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1983

https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2554&context=jaas

Mosquitofish Production in Monoculture and Polyculture Ponds

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UARK (University of Arkansas )

ScholarWorks@UARK