DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of Three Types of Artificial Habitats for Fishes in a Freshwater Pond in Maine, Usa

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of Three Types of Artificial Habitats for Fishes in a Freshwater Pond in Maine, Usa BULLETIN Or MARINE SCIENCE. 55(2-3): 1149-1159. 1994 EVALUATION OF THREE TYPES OF ARTIFICIAL HABITATS FOR FISHES IN A FRESHWATER POND IN MAINE, USA John R. Moring and Peter H. Nicholson ABSTRACT Three types of artificial structures (brush bundles, cinder blocks, tire bundles) were studied along transects in Lac D'or, a boreal, freshwater pond in central Maine. Observations were made of 1,397 adult and juvenile fishes by means of 18 dives during the day and 6 dives during the night in 1990. Cover attracted the five species of fishes in the pond (pumpkinseed, Lepomis gibbosus; chain pickerel, Esox niger; brown bullhead, Ameiurus nebu/osus; common shiner, Luxi/us comutus; and golden shiner, Notemigonus crysoleucas). Numbers of fishes were significantly higher in areas with artificial cover (70% of fishes, average counts pcr transcct), or in areas with natural weed beds (29%) than in areas without cover «1%). Pumpkinseeds were distributed about equally in areas with tire bundles (38%), cinder blocks (34%), and brush bundles (28%), whereas golden and common shiners were attracted pri- marily to brush bundles (62%). Numbers of fishes associated with artificial habitat werc significantly higher at night. Common and golden shiners occupied locations on the periphery of structures, whereas pumpkinseeds frequently inhabited recesses of cinder blocks and brush bundles. Associations with artificial habitat decreascd rapidly in Octobcr when water tcm- perature declined to below 12°C, By early November, as water temperatures decreased to 7°C, fishes moved to the bottom, away from cover, and markedly reduced their movements. Artificial habitats were re-examined in June 1991 following winter ice cover. All structures remained intact, except several branches from submerged brush bundles had been removed by animals, probably beaver Castor canadensis (Castoridae). Although artificial habitat may only serve to redistribute fishes in a lakc or pond, such structures arc rccommendcd as a long-term option for freshwaters where cover limits carrying capacity of fishes. Artificial habitat has long been used by management biologists to improve local sportfisheries by providing cover and protection for fishes and attachment sites for macroinvertebrates and other prey (Wege and Anderson, 1979; Moring et aI., 1989), although the magnitude of the added food organisms is not always clear (Bohnsack et aI., 1991). Both predatory and prey fishes are attracted to artificial reefs (Wege and Anderson, 1979) and such concentrations of fishes, in turn, attract anglers (Polovina, 1991). Although most artificial reefs have been constructed in marine waters, fresh- water reefs have been utilized since before the 1930s (Stone, 1985). Initially, these were "brush shelters." During the 1930s and 1940s, the State of Michigan placed piles of brush in numerous lakes (Hubbs and Eschmeyer, 1938; Rodeheffer, 1939, 1945). Other types of artificial material, such as submerged pulpwood and other woody debris (Moring et aI., 1989), plastic "trees," "lily pads," and tubes (1. Warnecke, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona, unpubl. data) and rocks to increase spawning areas (Trendall, 1988) have also been introduced to freshwater environments. In recent years, logs (48%), brush (27%), and tires (21 %) have been the most common materials introduced to freshwater lakes (Sport Fishing Institute, 1984). Most reefs have been constructed in the South and Midwest as attractants for black basses and other centrarchids and for catfishes (Ictaluridae). But, evaluations of this management technique in freshwater ponds of boreal waters have been 1149 1150 BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, VOL. 55, NO. 2-3, 1994 limited (Haley et aI., 1987), The only study of artificial structures in Maine (with only limited analysis) occurred in the early 1970s, in Sand Pond, near Baldwin (DeRoche, 1973). Natural materials tended to attract largemouth bass (Mierop- terus salmoides), yellow perch (Perea fiaveseens), and pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), Waters of northern New England have long been managed primarily for sal- monid fishes. Yet, the recent increase in popularity of fishing for black basses (Hartley and Moring, 1991), esocids (Herke, 1988), and other non-salmonid ga- mefishes in ponds and lakes of northern New England has led to the need for new management techniques to meet angler demands. The objectives of this study were to evaluate three types of artificial structures as attractors of freshwater fishes, and to evaluate seasonal changes in fish abundance. STUDY SITE Three types of artificial reef material were evaluated in Lac O'or, a freshwater pond that is part of Hirundo Wildlife Refuge, near Alton, Maine (Fig. I). Area and maximum depth of the pond are 1.4 ha and 3 m, respectively. Water temperatures during the growth season ranged from 7°C in November to 26°C in August. The non-natural impoundment has contained a fish community for almost 25 years and the fishes have been studied since 1972 (Moring, 1988). Five fish species are currently in the pond: pumpkinseed, chain pickerel (Esox niger), brown bullhead (Ameiurus Ilebulosus), common shin- er (Luxilus cornutus), and golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas). The pond is ideally suited for studies of artificial habitat because it is logistically convenient, closed to angling, and protecled from wind and other disturbances. The fish fauna is representative of many non-salmonid fish communities of northern New England. METHODS AND MATERIALS Prior to the introduction of artificial structures in Lac O'or, four transects were established in the deepest part of the pond on 8 June 1990 (Fig. 1). Each transect was 46 m (150 ft) long and marked by a rope, staked at each end. Each metal stake was attached to a clear plastic fishing bobber with monofilament line so that the position of each transect could be easily located. At the same time, the markers were inconspicuous and did not detract from the natural setting of the refuge. Pre-introduction surveys were conducted on 15 and 18 June 1990 by two divers who swam along the length of each transect and counted all fishes within sight during two passes, one near the bottom and one just below the surface. Artificial habitats were introduced on 20 and 21 June 1990 to three of the transects; the fourth transect served as a control. One unit of each of three types of artificial structure was placed at 15 m intervals along the length of each transect: bundled tires, brush bundles, and concrete blocks. Thus, there were three replicates of each treatment. The sequence of structures was different for each transect (Fig. 1). Tire bundles consisted of four tires placed end-to-end in a "+" pattern. Holes were drilled in the tires, and each tire bundle was secured with coated rope. No anchor was necessary bccause the protected conditions in the pond prevented displacement by winds or waves. Two 4-tire units were placed in an interlocking pattern on each transect. Concrete cinder blocks (each 20 cm X 41 em, with two open recesses), were stacked three layers high, but in an irregular pattern on each transect rope. Brush bundles consisted of tripod wooden frames, each 1.2 m X 1.2 m X 1.2 m of 5 em X 10 em wooden boards, to which bundles of white birch and white spruce limbs were tied. The tripod frames were then anchored to the bottom. On each sampling date, divers swam slowly along the bottom and recorded the species, number, and approximate size of all fishes associated with each type of structure or along the control transect. Because of the limited visibility, the divers then made a second pass near the surface to record fishes associated with the upper parts of the structures. Graham (\992) found that counts of fishes made by divers near freshwater artificial structures can be influenced by diver disturbance and diver adaptation to low light levels. Our structures were in comparatively shallow water and, because divers approached laterally, along a transect, the effect of disturbance should be equal for each structure, thus making diver counts appropriate as a technique. Data were recorded on underwater writing slates. In addition to fish counts, water temperature, weather conditions, time, underwater (horizontal) visibility, and Secchi disc measurements from the surface were also recorded. Following the two dives prior to installation of structures, on 15 and 18 MORING AND NICHOLSON: FRESHWATER ARTIFICIAL HABITATS 1151 j, ':, DAM ,~i, '/,".' " ; •••• I r.',: . : ... J' ." :1 . ','. LAC O'OR ALTON I MAl NE SCALE; SOm .. -. , . Figure I. Lac D'or, Hirundo Wildlife Refuge, near Alton, Maine, and locations of three experimental transects (I, 2, 3) and a control transect (4) for studies in June-November 1990. C = cinder blocks; T = tires; and B = brush bundles, June 1990, 16 dives were made during the day at about weekly intervals from 21 June (4 h after final introduction of habitat) to 7 November 1990. In addition, six dives were made at night between 3 August and 16 October to count fish, Only two transects could be surveyed on two of the night dives because underwater lights failed (transects I and 2 on 3 August and 20 September). Sampling was terminated after the 7 November dive because the water temperature declined to 7°C and diving conditions became more difficult. A final daytime dive was made on 19 June 1991. The purpose of this dive was to examine the 1]52 BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE. VOL. 55. NO. 2-3, 1994 60 • 150 0 0 • DAY 50 Z • o NIGHT 0 0 Z • DAY •... 120 0 0 o NIGHT u 0 :::> • ... + CONTROL .0 Q U ::;) 0 90 C '"•... '"•... 0 •• '"•... Z •.. • Z 30 ::) '" 0 :J Z 0 0 60 V • 0 0 U I •+ 20 •I • 0 + I • I 0 • 30 I 10 I 0• + I • I • 0 ++ • I JU JUL AUG 5EP OCT NOV JUN JUl AUG SEP I OCT NOV MONTH MONTH Figure 2.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Esox Lucius) Ecological Risk Screening Summary
    Northern Pike (Esox lucius) Ecological Risk Screening Summary U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, February 2019 Web Version, 8/26/2019 Photo: Ryan Hagerty/USFWS. Public Domain – Government Work. Available: https://digitalmedia.fws.gov/digital/collection/natdiglib/id/26990/rec/22. (February 1, 2019). 1 Native Range and Status in the United States Native Range From Froese and Pauly (2019a): “Circumpolar in fresh water. North America: Atlantic, Arctic, Pacific, Great Lakes, and Mississippi River basins from Labrador to Alaska and south to Pennsylvania and Nebraska, USA [Page and Burr 2011]. Eurasia: Caspian, Black, Baltic, White, Barents, Arctic, North and Aral Seas and Atlantic basins, southwest to Adour drainage; Mediterranean basin in Rhône drainage and northern Italy. Widely distributed in central Asia and Siberia easward [sic] to Anadyr drainage (Bering Sea basin). Historically absent from Iberian Peninsula, Mediterranean France, central Italy, southern and western Greece, eastern Adriatic basin, Iceland, western Norway and northern Scotland.” Froese and Pauly (2019a) list Esox lucius as native in Armenia, Azerbaijan, China, Georgia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Moldova, Monaco, 1 Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Ukraine, Canada, and the United States (including Alaska). From Froese and Pauly (2019a): “Occurs in Erqishi river and Ulungur lake [in China].” “Known from the Selenge drainage [in Mongolia] [Kottelat 2006].” “[In Turkey:] Known from the European Black Sea watersheds, Anatolian Black Sea watersheds, Central and Western Anatolian lake watersheds, and Gulf watersheds (Firat Nehri, Dicle Nehri).
    [Show full text]
  • Little Pee Dee-Lumber Focus Area Conservation Plan
    Little Pee Dee-Lumber Focus Area Conservation Plan South Carolina Department of Natural Resources February 2017 Little Pee Dee-Lumber Focus Area Conservation Plan Prepared by Lorianne Riggin and Bob Perry1, and Dr. Scott Howard2 February 2017 Acknowledgements The preparers thank the following South Carolina Department of Natural Resources staff for their special expertise and contributions toward the completion of this report: Heritage Trust data base manager Julie Holling; GIS applications manager Tyler Brown for mapping and listing of protected properties; archeologist Sean Taylor for information on cultural resources; fisheries biologists Kevin Kubach, Jason Marsik, and Robert Stroud for information regarding aquatic resources; hydrologist Andy Wachob for information on hydrologic resources; and wildlife biologists James Fowler, Dean Harrigal, Sam Stokes, Jr. and Amy Tegler for information regarding wildlife resources. 1 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Office of Environmental Programs. 2 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey. i Little Pee Dee-Lumber Focus Area Conservation Plan The goal of this conservation plan is to provide science-based guidance for future decisions to protect natural resource, riparian corridors and traditional landscape uses such as fish and wildlife management, hunting, fishing, agriculture and forestry. Such planning is valuable in the context of protecting Waters of the United States in accordance with the Clean Water Act, particularly when the interests of economic development and protection of natural and cultural resources collide. Such planning is vital in the absence of specific watershed planning. As additional information is gathered by the focus area partners, and as further landscape-scale conservation goals are achieved, this plan will be updated accordingly.
    [Show full text]
  • THE TRUE PIKES by E Rnest G
    THE TRUE PIKES by E rnest G . K arvelis The true pikes are members of the family erel" in their names. The varied popular Esocidae and of the genus, E SOJ;. T he following names have caused conside r able confusion. spec ies are found in North America: muskel­ The true pike s (fig. 1) are readily identified lunge (E s OJ; mas quinongy), northern pike (E s ox by the following characteristics: they have lucius), chain pickerel (E s OJ; niger), redfinpickerel slender bodies, wh ich are deepest n e ar the (E s OJ; americanus americanus ), and g rass pickerel middle and t a per backward to a slender (E so:r arn eri canus vermiculatus). The se common and caudal peduncle; the dorsal fin is posterior, sci entific na mes are those recommended in opposite, a nd similar to the anal fin; the 1960 b y the Committee on Names of Fishes pectoral fins are small and inserted low. The of the American Fisheries Society. ventral or pelvic fins are posterior and the caudal fin is well forked. No fins have spines. The pikes are know!"! by various popular The head is long with a prolonged ducklike name s. The muskellunge is know n locally as snout. The lower jaw contains strong, sharp masquinonge, musky, Great Lakes muskel­ teeth of various sizes. The roof of the m outh lunge, northern or tiger muskellunge, and carries broad bands of fine, s harp, closely Ohio or Chautauqua muskellunge. The northern packed teeth. The tongue also has a band of pike is also called the great northern pike, small teeth.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Species Mapping in North Carolina Using Maxent
    Aquatic Species Mapping in North Carolina Using Maxent Mark Endries U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Field Office, Asheville North Carolina INTRODUCTION The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is to work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service is the lead governmental agency involved in the recovery of federally endangered and threatened species in freshwater and terrestrial habitats. To meet its recovery and protection goals, the Service: (1) works with other federal agencies to minimize or eliminate impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants from projects they authorize, fund, or carry out; (2) supports the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat on private land through technical and financial assistance; and (3) provides scientific knowledge and analyses to help guide the conservation, development, and management of the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources. Freshwater ecosystems present unique management challenges due to their linear spatial orientation and their association with upland habitat variables. On broad scales, the movement of aquatic species within the stream environment is limited to upstream and downstream migration. The inability of aquatic species to circumnavigate man-made obstacles causes them to be particularly vulnerable to habitat fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation has a major influence on species distribution and complicates distribution mapping. To better understand the spatial distributions of freshwater aquatic species in North Carolina, the Service created predictive habitat maps for 226 different aquatic species using geographic information systems (GIS) and maximum entropy (Maxent) modeling. These maps were derived by comparing known species occurrences with a suite of stream- or land-cover-derived environmental variables.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix to Preliminary Summary of Fish Surveys
    04/25/2005 09:06 FAX 401 222 3812 RI DEM OWM ! iEE SDMS DocID 253315 .-i.-. (--. ^ -u A '1- "| '-•! ~,•. •! '•O­ A Preliminary Summary of Fish Surveys That Were Coi iducted in Rhode Island's Streams and Ponds Between 1993 an i! 2002 Superfund Records Ccnier SITE: _£ BREAK: By Alan D. Libby OTHER: _^ Appendix: Woonasquatucket and Moshassuck River Wate rsheds May 2004 RI Department of Environmental Management Division of Fish and Wildlife Great Swamp Field Headquarters P.O. Box 218 West Kingston, Rhode Island 02892 Research Reference Document # 2004/1 Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Project F-20-R 04/25/2005 09:07 FAX 401 222 3812 RI DEM OWM 12)003 5.0.11 Woonosquaiucket River Watershed Localities surveyed in the Woonasquatucket River and Moshassuck Riv :r Watersheds. ha ui \ ho o o Ol o CO Table 1. - The relative abundance (number-per-hour) of fish species collected from ponds in the Woonasquatucket River and the Koshassuck River watersheds by electrofishing In 1995. Abbreviations are as follows: 8BL = brown bullhead, BC = black crappie, BG - bluegill, BK =banded killi­ fish, BUD = blacknose dace, BRK = brook trout, BRH • brown trout, CP * chain pickerel, CRP = common carp, EL = American eel, GS • golden shiner, g LMB » largemouth bass, MP = northern pike, PS * punpkinseed, RB « redbreast sunfish, RNB • rainbow trout, SO = swamp darter, SMB « smallnouth bass, TD = tessellated darter, WC = white catfish, WP = white perch, WS » white sucker, YB - yellow bullhead, and YP » yellow perch. ro NS N3 00 h-1 Number-per-Hour ro Pond/Station No. BG YP PS UP 1MB EL CP BK B8L GS BC YB TO NP WS CRP BRN BRK RNB WC RB SHB BNO SO 73 H-t O Woonasquatucket Waterman Res.
    [Show full text]
  • Walleye Vs. Pickerel
    Walleye vs. Pickerel The Walleye (Sander viterum) is the largest North American species in the perch family and one of the most sought-after sport and food fishes. As in all members of the perch family, walleye have two distinct dorsal fins with the first being spiny-rayed and the second soft-rayed. They are distributed across Saskatchewan. Walleye Some residents of Saskatchewan refer to the walleye as pickerel (sometimes yellow pickerel). It is a common name for the species as jack is for northern pike. In Saskatchewan we try to discourage the use of pickerel when referring to walleye because of the following two species: The Chain Pickerel (Esox niger) that is an especially popular sport fish in the winter when large numbers are caught through the ice. The chain pickerel is a member of the pike family and has the long snout with concave profile and sides with chain like markings. Though it looks like the northern pike, the pickerel has only 4 pores on the underside of the jaw, while the pike has 5. In Canada the chain pickerel can be found in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec. Chain Pickerel The Redfin Pickerel (Esox americanus) that is the smallest member of the pike family and the only one not considered an important sport fish. Its long head has a short snout with sides that have greenish-yellow to brown wavy bars. Unlike the chain pickerel, the dark bar under its eye slopes down and back. In Canada it is found in the St Lawrence River, and south west through the Great Lakes (Erie and Ontario).
    [Show full text]
  • High Point Lake Somerset County
    Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission Biologist Report High Point Lake Somerset County April and May 2015, March 2016 High Point Lake is a 338 acre impoundment located in southern Somerset County near Mount Davis, the highest point in Pennsylvania. Additional and specific information about this lake can be found on the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) website at http://www.fishandboat.com/water/lakes/high_point/00highpoint.htm. The PFBC owned lake is a popular impoundment for recreational fishing and boating and contains naturally reproducing populations of a variety of gamefish and panfish including Largemouth Bass, Smallmouth Bass, Northern Pike, Yellow Perch, Black Crappie, Bluegill, Pumpkinseed, and Brown Bullhead. Chain Pickerel, a non-native species in the Ohio River Basin, have also been introduced into the lake and are now naturally reproducing. Anglers are encouraged to harvest all legal sized Chain Pickerel. In addition to the naturally reproducing gamefish and panfish noted, supplemental stocking of Walleye fingerlings also occurs at High Point Lake. All fish species at High Point Lake are managed under statewide regulations. Biologists from the PFBC Area 8 Fisheries Management Office in Somerset surveyed High Point Lake in April and May 2015 and March 2016 using Pennsylvania style trap nets and night flatbottom boat electrofishing. Trap netting occurred in April 2015 and night electrofishing occurred in May 2015 and March 2016. The primary objective of the April and March surveys was to assess the success of the fingerling Walleye stocking program at the lake. Additional data on panfish and other gamefish was also collected during the April trap net survey.
    [Show full text]
  • Board of Game and Inland Fisheries Meeting Agenda
    Revised Board of Game and Inland Fisheries 4000 West Broad Street, Board Room Richmond, Virginia 23230 August 14, 2012 9:00am Call to order and welcome, reading of the Mission Statement and Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 1. Recognition of Employees and Others 2. Public Comments – Department plan to build a new headquarters under PPEA 3. Public Comments – Non-Agenda Items 4. Approval of July 10, 2012 Board Meeting Minutes 5. Committee Meeting Reports: Wildlife, Boat and Law Enforcement Committee: Mr. Turner, Chairman of the Wildlife, Boat and Law Enforcement Committee, will report on the activities of the August 7, 2012 Committee Meeting. The Committee will recommend the following items to the full Board for final action: Staff Recommendations – Fisheries Regulation Amendments Staff Recommendations – Diversity Regulation Amendments Staff Recommendations – Boating Regulation Amendments Staff Recommendations – 2012-2013 Migratory Waterfowl Seasons and Bag Limits Staff Recommendations – ADA Regulation Agency Land Use Plan Proposed CY2013 Board Meeting Schedule Finance, Audit and Compliance Committee: Mr. Colgate, Chairman of the Finance, Audit and Compliance Committee, will report on the activities of the July 25, 2012 Committee Meeting. The Committee will present the following reports: FY2012 Year-end Financial Summary Internal Audit FY2013 Work Plan - Final Action Education, Planning and Outreach Committee: Ms. Caruso, Chairwoman of the Education, Planning, and Outreach Committee Meeting. Ms. Caruso will announce the next Committee Meeting will be held on October 17, 2012 beginning at 10:00am. 6. Closed Session 7. Director's Report: 8. Chairman's Remarks 9. Additional Business/Comments 10. Next Meeting Date: October 18, 2012 beginning at 9:00am 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Management Plan for the Bridle Shiner (Notropis Bifrenatus) in Canada
    Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series Management Plan for the Bridle Shiner (Notropis bifrenatus) in Canada Bridle Shiner May 2011 About the Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series What is the Species at Risk Act (SARA)? SARA is the act developed by the federal government as a key contribution to the common national effort to protect and conserve species at risk in Canada. SARA came into force in 2003, and one of its purposes is “to manage species of special concern to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened.” What is a species of special concern? Under SARA, a species of special concern is a wildlife species that could become threatened or endangered because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. Species of special concern are included in the SARA List of Wildlife Species at Risk. What is a management plan? Under SARA, a management plan is an action-oriented planning document that identifies the conservation activities and land use measures needed to ensure, at a minimum, that a species of special concern does not become threatened or endangered. For many species, the ultimate aim of the management plan will be to alleviate human threats and remove the species from the List of Wildlife Species at Risk. The plan sets goals and objectives, identifies threats, and indicates the main areas of activities to be undertaken to address those threats. Management plan development is mandated under Sections 65–72 of SARA (http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/approach/act/default_e.cfm). A management plan has to be developed within three years after the species is added to the List of Wildlife Species at Risk.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Econfina Creek Wildlife Management Area
    SANDHILL LAKES MITIGATION BANK (FITZHUGH CARTER TRACT) OF ECONFINA CREEK WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA ANNUAL REPORT 2016-2017 Prepared by Scott Berish, Wildlife Biologist and Shelby Sutton, Wildlife Technician Division of Habitat and Species Conservation Wildlife Habitat and Management Section TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………….…..2 LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………...….....5 LIST OF APPENDICES……………………………………………………………….………..6 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………... 7 HABITAT……………………………………………………………………………….………7 Ecological and Land Cover Classification……………………………………………………... 7 Water Levels……………………………………………………………………………....….....8 FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS………………………………………...………...…..9 Freshwater Fish…………………………………………………………………………............10 Fish Population Assessment……………………………………………………………....…10 Electrofishing………………………………………………………………………………..10 Public Fishing………………………………………………………………………………..13 Wildlife Populations……………………………………………………………………………19 White-tailed Deer ……………………………………………………………………………...19 Management Objectives……………………………………………………………………..19 Line-Transect Distance Sampling…………………………………………………………...19 Hunting Pressure and Harvest……………………………………………………………….22 Wild Turkey……………………………………………………………………………………26 Management Objectives……………………………………………………………………..26 Harvest………………………………………………………………………………………26 Small Game…………………………………………………………………………………….28 Waterfowl………………………………………………………………………………………29 Harvest……………………………………………………………………………………….29 Wood Duck Nest Boxes……………………………………………………………………...31 Avifauna………………………………………………………………………………………...33
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Memphremagog
    March 2006 Table of Contents General Watershed Description............................................................................................1 Black River Watershed..........................................................................................................2 General Description....................................................................................................2 Special Features, Values, and Uses..........................................................................2 River Assessment......................................................................................................7 Lake Assessment.......................................................................................................8 Barton River Watershed......................................................................................................10 General Description..................................................................................................10 Special Features, Values, and Uses........................................................................11 River Assessment Information.................................................................................13 Lake Assessment Information..................................................................................16 Clyde River Watershed.......................................................................................................18 General Description..................................................................................................18
    [Show full text]
  • Jacob Kirk Ichthyology 4453 Literature Review of the Chain Pickerel Esox
    Kirk 1 Jacob Kirk Ichthyology 4453 Literature Review of the Chain Pickerel Esox niger Kirk 2 ABSTRACT The Chain Pickerel Esox niger is the larger of the two pickerel species found in Mississippi. This predatory fish is characterized by an elongated body, homocercal tail, and an elongated snout with several sharp teeth. Other species within the family Esocidae similar in appearance to the Chain Pickerel include the Grass Pickerel Esox americanus and Northern Pike Esox lucius. Chain pickerel are solitary ambush predators that prefer to lie-in-wait for their prey and dart towards them at high speeds once in range. They prefer shallow, calm waters within the littoral zone with dense vegetation. Grass Pickerel have been known to hybridize with Chain Pickerel. These fish are considered an important game species and are quite common throughout most of their range. CONTEXT AND CONTENT Kingdom – Animalia Family – Esocidae Phylum – Chordata Genus + Species – Esox niger Class – Actinopterygii Order – Escociformes GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS The Chain Pickerel is a member of the pike family and is very similar to Northern Pike and Grass Pickerel in body shape and structure (Ross 2001). Though not the largest in its family, the Chain Pickerel is the largest pike species found in the Southeastern United States (Ross 2001). E. niger is an elongate, moderately compressed fish with a large, terminal mouth and Kirk 3 well-developed teeth (Ross 2001). Much like other members within the family, its dorsal and anal fins are set far back, its pectoral and pelvic fins are set low on the body, and has a homocercal caudal fin (Ross 2001).
    [Show full text]