TPWD 1961 F-3-R-8 #640: Basic Survey and Inventory of Fish Species in Murvaul Bayou Reservoir

Report of Fisheries Investigatians Basic Survey and Inventory of Fish Species in Murvaul Bayou Reservair dehn N; DorcheEtér Assistant Project Leader- Dingell—Johnson Prpject Fé3nR-8, Jab 3-13 Dec-ember 1., 1959 -- November 30, 1960 H. D. Dodgen - Executive Secretary Texas Game and Fish Cammission Austin, Texas Harion Toole Kbnneth C. Jurgena and William H. Brown Coordinator Assistant Cecrdinators A B S T R.A C T This report covers the third and final year of a basic survey and inventory of fish species conducted on Lake Mtrvaul. During the third year it was found that several species of fish have become well established in the lake while other Species were not suited for the habitat and are minor in numbers or nonexistent. The condition of fish in the lake is good though there is a large population of black and white crappie which are very small but are sexually mature and reproducing. The water quality is good for fish life. During the third year many areas of the lake became infested with.submerged vegetation which has become a serious pro- blem. Recommendations are made to continue heavy fishing pressure and to treat large areas of vegetation along the shoreline. JOb Completion Report Investigations Project State of TEXAS . Project No. F-3-Ru8 _ Name: Fisheries Investigations and Surveys cf the waters of Region g-B. Job. No. 3—13 - . Title: Basic Survey and Inventory of Fish SpecieS'in Murvaul Bayou Reservoir. Period Covered: - December 12 1929 - November 302 1960 OBJECTIVES To continue and to conclude the gathering of information regarding the fish populations in Lake Murvaul cencerning relative numbers and conditions of fish during the lake's third year of impoundment. HISTORY Lake murvaul is a project of the Panola County Freshwater District No. l. The lake was impounded in the fall of 1957, at which time this work was first initiated. Impounded by an earth fill dam, the lake covers some h,000 acres and contains h7,000 acrewfeet of water. It is located near Gary, in Panola County, Texas, and its water is for municipal and industrial use. Prior to impoundment in September, 1957, a 12~ mile section of Murvaul Bayou above the dam was treated with Pro-Noxfish and powdered rotenone to eliminate as much of the existing fish population as possible. The lake was closed to fishing through two normal spawning seasons until May 30, 1959. PROCEDURE Data were collected quarterly, generally on the 20th of each month, during the third year. Limnological data recorded were turbidity (Secchi disk), water color, sky conditions, wind, time, and air and surface water temperatures. Nettin Eight experimental type gill nets (1,000 feet) were set at six random locations each collection month. The dimensions of the nets were l25-feet long by 8~feet deep, with mesh sizes of 1-, %~, 2w, 2%” and 3minches in 25—foot sections. 'The nets were set late in the afternoon and picked up the following morning. A total of 2h sets, made up of 32 nets, were made. All fish caught in nets were saved. These fish were then separated according to species, counted, and their total weight taken. The rough fish were then destroyed and returned to the lake. The game fish were individually weighed and measured for both standard and total lengths. Spot checks were made on stomach contents and sexual . «.2... developments. Coefficients of condition (“K" factors) were determined in the labora- tory. The average lengths, weights, and condition factors were calculated for each species. Seining Seining collections were made with a 26— by 6-foot bag seine, with a fi-inch mesh. Four collections, consisting of 3h hauls, were made. All specimens were preserved in 10 percent formalin solution and brought back to the laboratory for identification. FINDINGS During the third year netting and seining collections yielded a total of twentye six species of fish representing nine families. There was a total of 33 species representing nine families collected the second year and a total of #2 species and twelve families collected the first year. Table 1 lists the species phylogenetically, including species of all years. The names are those used by Hubbs in his "A Checklist of Texas Freshwater Fishes”, dated December, 1958. ' Netting Results Table 2 gives a tabulation of quarterly results of netting. There were 19 species collected in this manner. As can be seen from this table seven of the species were collected each and every time. This table also gives the totals of game fish and rough fish collected and percentages of each. 0f the 19 species collected by gill nets, there were nine rough fish species and 10 game fish species. As a matter of definition, rough fish are those considered undesirable or those not normally sought by sports fishermen. The rough fish predominated in the catch every month. The average percentages of rough fish and game fish were 68 percent and 32 percent rem spectively, compared to 70 percent and 30 percent respectively the second year and 65 percent and 35 percent for the first year. A total of 1,0h7 fish were caught in four gill net collections in this study period, which is only slightly less than the 1,083 fish caught in six gill net colle0w tions made the second year. There were 1,325 fish caught in twelve gill net collections during the first year. These data tend to indicate that as a lake's fish population develops, the numbers of individual fish species increase, while the total number of fish species decreases. This results in several dominant (major) species making up the bulk of the population while the remaining species make up only a minor portion of the total population. ' ’ The total of l,0h7 fish collected by gill nets during the third year includes 712 rough fish and 335 game fish. Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) were again the most abundant species with 332, or 31.71 percent, of the total numbers caught. The black bullhead (Ictalurus males) was again next with 170, or 16.29 percent, followed‘by white crappie (Pomoxis annularis) with lh2, or 13.56 percent, chub sucker (Erim son sucetta) with 71,.or 5.78 percent, bluegill (Le omis macrochirus) with 70, or 5.59 58 or 5.59 percent, and yellow percent, black crappie (E, ni romaculatus) with ,- bullhead.(;, natalis) with 57, or 5.50 percent. - Table 3 gives a compariSon of percentages of numbers of all netted fish for the ..3.... three-year period. Also, if a definite trend is indicated or Obvious, an overall change is shown. A total of 5h5.02 pounds of fish were taken by netting over the year. Table h gives the total weights of each Species for each month as well as the total, percenm tags, and average weights for the year. The percentages of rough and game fish for each month are also given. Over the year rough fish made up approximately 76 percent of the total weight of fish collected by nets. This compares to 67 percent the second year. Like the second year, the total weight of all bowfin (Amie calva) caught was greater than all the game fish combined.‘ The bowfin also had the highest average weight, while the spotted sunfish (L. punctatus) had the least followed by white Crappie. Blue catfish (I. furcatus) had the highest average weight of the game fish. This, however, was based on only two fish, so largemouth bass (MicroEterus salmoides) could be considered the heaviest of the game fish. I wk- The percentages of weights of netted fish from the second and third years are given in Table 5. No weights were taken the first year. The percentage of weight of rough fish captured increased some eight percent over last year. There was a bigy‘ decrease in both numbers and total weight of largemouth bass taken. Through the use of percentages and of total weights and numbers, a rough comm parison can be made of the relative abundance of the fish in the lake. Of the rough fish, the gizzard shad, chub suckers, and bullhead catfish present the greatest pres blem with their large numbers. As for the high weights of the bowfin it is possible that they may be an asset to the lake as a predator to help contain other noxious species. The following species could be considered as the major species in the lake or the most abundant as determined by numbers or weight. Common name ” Scientific name Bowfin Amie calva Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Spotted sucker ' Minytrema melanops Chub sucker ; ' Erimyzon sucetta Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus Black bullhead £3 melas Yellow bullhead .h' natalis Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides Bluegill sunfish Lepomis macrochirus White crappie Pomoxis annularis Black crappie - P, nigromaculatus Seining Results Table 6 gives the numbers of fish collected by seining each quarter. Seining yielded seventeen species and 612 specimens. This is an improvement over the second year when only fifteen species and 5?? specimens were taken. The greatest numbers of fish collected were in July and October. It is encouraging to note that some of the notropid species appeared in greater numbers than the second year. The most -u... abundant species collected by seining was again the bluegill sunfish. While the "moss" infested shoreline yielded the greatest numbers of sunfish, it was found that concrete boat launching ramps were the best places to collect other species such as the notropids. ' Growth of Fish Standard length records were kept on eight game fish species in order to deter- mine their growth as near as possible. The average standard lengths for all of these fish collected during the year are given in Table 7, as well as the averages for the previous two years. A definite increase in size can be seen for largemouth bass, redear sunfish.(ly microlophus), channel catfish, and blue catfish. White crappie decreased each year and the other species showed no definite trend due to different age groups involved. Table 8 gives the average weights in grams which show the same patterns as the lengths. Condition of Fish There was no great change in the condition of game fish in Lake Murvaul. The bass, bluegill, and crappie were down somewhat, while redear and blue catfish in- creased a good bit in condition. Table 9 shows the averages over the three—year period. Generally speaking all game fish are in good physical condition. Table 10 gives data on condition of eight game fish species with the ranges of standard length, weight and "K" factors given. Food Habits Very few of the game fish checked had any food items in their stomachs. There were two instances where channel catfish had been feeding on yellow corn, presumably from a ”baited hole”. The principal items in the diets of most predator fish were shad and bluegills. In addition, there was much vegetation found in stomachs of all fish containing food items examined. Sexual Development and Spawning Activity Spot checks were made of some game fish for sexual development. Of great signiw ficance is the fact that both species of crappie were approaching ripeness in January and by April were gravid and flowing. Even fish as small as four inches in length were sexually mature. Channel catfish checked in July and October were immature. However, the District Engineer has reported seeing fingerling channel catfish in the lake which indicates a successful spawn. Youngwofethewyear bass were collected by seining. ' Annotated Checklist of Fish Species This list includes all species collected in Lake Murvaul since this study began. l. Lepisosteus productus (spotted gar) - Only one has been collected during the three-year period. ' 2. Amie calva (bowfin) - Though not as abundant as before this is the heaviest fish in the lake with an average weight, based on those collected, of h.h2 pounds. -5- 3. Dorosoma cepedianum (gizzard shad) - This is by far the most commonly col- lected fish in the lake making up 31.71 percent of the total. They are of a small size with an average weight of only 0.15 pounds. h. Esox americanus (grass pickerel) — Only three were collected during the third year. They are most active during the winter months. 5. Ictiobus bubalus (smallmouth buffalo) - Only one was collected. It weighed 7.50 pounds. If at all, they apparently are not reproducing in any large numbers. 6. Carpiodes carpio (river carpsucker) - Noneimne collected during the second or third years. 7. Moxostoma poecilurum (blacktail redhorse) - None were collected the third year and only one was collected the second year. 8. Minytrema melanops (spotted sucker) . Based on collections, the population of this fish has apparently decreased somewhat. 9. Erimygon sucetta (chub sucker) — This is one of the major species in the lake. 10.. Notemigonus crysoleucas (golden shiner) - Only a moderate number of this fish is present. They were collected by'both seining and netting. 11.0psopoeodus emiliae (pugnose minnow) - It was collected only once during the second year. 1 12. .Notropis fumeus (ribbon shiner) - None were collected the third year and only two were collected the second year. 13. _N. venustus (spottail shiner) w Though not in large numbers, this is a fairly common shiner in the lake. . 1%. N. lutrensis (redhorse shiner) - Though not present in large numbers, this is one of the most common of the shiners in the lake. 15. N. stramineus (sand shiner) ~ Only ten specimens were collected during the third year. 16. N. atrocaudalis (blackspot shiner) — None were collected during the second or third years. " 17. N. volucellus (mimic shiner) — Though none were collected the second year, it was the most commonly collected Shiner during the third year. . 18. N. maculatus (taillight shiner) — None were collected during the second or third years. 19. hybognathus nuchalis (silvery minnow) - None were collected during the second or third years. 20. Pimephales vigilax (parrot minnow) — This species is rare in the lake. 21. Ictalurus punctatus (channel catfish) - This fine sport fish is gradually increasing in numbers. 22. I. furcatus (blue catfish) - Though there is no evidence of reproduction, the blue catfish which are caught average about five pounds in weight. 23. I. melas (black bullhead) ~ This species is still very abundant and, based on collection data, the population has apparently leveled off. 2h. I. natalis (yellow bullhead) - The numbers of this species are lower that they were last_ year but their weight has increased. 25. Pylodictus olivaris (flathead catfiSh) - None were collected the third year. Several large ones have been taken by fishermen. 26. Schilbeodes gyzinus (tadpole madtom) - Nonevmnxecollected the third year and only two were collected during the second year. 27. Fundulus notatus (blackstripe topminnow) w None were collected the third year and only two were collected in the second year. . 28. Gambusia affinis (common mosquitofish) - This is a fairly common species in the lake. 29. Aphredoderus sayanus (pirate perch) - Only three were collected the first year and none thereafter. -5... 30. ,Micropterus punctulatus (spotted bass) - No spotted bass were collected the third year. . 31. M. salmoides (largemouth bass) - The numbers of this fish in the netting col- lections were down from the previous two years. Seining indicated a good spawn was obtained in the spring of 1960. 32. Chasndbgygtus gulosus (warmouth) -. The warmouth is not too common, however, the ones collected were in good condition. 33. Lepomis cyanellus (green sunfish) w This is a rare species in the lake. 3h. L.. punctatus (spotted sunfish) - Spotted sunfish are not too common in Lake Murvaul. 35. L, microlophus (redear sunfish) - This is one of the minor game fishes in the lake. 36. L. macrochirus (bluegill sunfish) n By far the most commonly collected species ‘ by seining; it is also very common taken in netting and is a very popular fish with the anglers. ‘ 37. lg auritus (yellowbelly sunfish) — NOne were collected during the third year. ' I? megalotis (longear sunfish) - Only one was collected by netting the third year. 39. Pomokis annularis (white crappie) - ThOugh the average weight was only one ounce, this was the third most commonly collected fish by netting. #0. P. nigromaculatus (black crappie) - This species is also very common in the lake.' The average weight of those netted was less than two ounces (0.21 pounds). #1. Centrarchus macro terus (flier) - None were collected during the third year. M2. Ammocrypta vivax (Arkansas sand darter) - None were collected the second or third years. L3. Etheostoma gracilie (slough darter) - Only two were collected the third year. Limnological Conditions The water quality of Lake Murvaul is of a good quality for fish life. The pH is 7.3, the methylnorange alkalinity is 50 p.p.m. and the chloride content is 63.83 p.p.m. During the third year the turbidity, as determined by a Secchi disk, ranged from 28 i to #8 inches. Air temperatures ranged from 35 to 90 degrees F., while the surface water temperam ‘ tures ranged from 50 to 95 degrees F.. The color of the water normally was green but had a brown stain at times. IWeather conditions varied from clear and calm to thunderstorms vegetation During the year of 1959, the first traces of aquatic vegetation began showing up. During the yeargpf 1960, certain species of submerged vegetation presented quite a serious problemfiin the shallow water areas of the lake. Muskgrass (Chara sp.) was the prinicpal troublesome plant encountered. In addition, several patches of cattail (Typha lattifolia) began showing up. Water district personnel treated several areas of muskgrass with copper sulphate but obtained only temporary results. Other aquatic plants noted but not in serious amounts were duck potatoes (SagittarisImp.), pondw weeds (Egtamogoton _p .) and water lilies ( Nymphaeaceae). Lake Management Aside from the vegetation work mentioned above, there have been several thousanf -7... bullhead catfish removed from the lake by water district personnel. Also, there has been continuous heavy fishing pressure for sunfish. Fishing pressure on crappie, because of their small size, has been somewhat less intense. There has been some question concerning the advisability of additional stocking of channel catfish obtained from state fish hatcheries. Considering the numbers of predacious fish present in the lake, additional stocking would not be advisable un- less the catfish are first put into rearing ponds and fed until they reach a length of six to ten inches. ”They then could be put in the lake. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS During Lake Murvaul's third year of existence the fish population has tended to level off and certain species have become less common or nonexistent. The average size of most fish caught has decreased due to a number of age groups now involved. There has been a slight increase in the minnow and shiner populations. Both species of crappie are greatly overpopulated. Submerged and emergent vegetation have become a problem in the lake. Considering the above findings it is therefore recommended that: 1. Heavy fishing pressure he continued. 2. The lake be kept closed to commercial fishing except that contract fishing be allowed for rough fish removal. 3. The rough fish removal program carried on by Water District personnel should be continued. h. Additiona1_channel catfish should be stocked only if allowed to grow in rearing ponds first or if they are of a minimum of six inches in length. 5. Vegetation control work should be concentrated in coves or along larger areas of the shore instead of in spot treatments. Prepared by Jehn N. Dorchester Approved by .' 42L7~zzavv1/’nL/’5*19fifz:/ 'Assistant Project Leader Direc or Inland Fisheries Division Date February 92 1961 -8- Table l. A checklist of Lake Murvaul fish species. Name_ First ear _ ‘ Second ear Third ear Spotted gar Bowfin Gizzard shad Grass pickerel Smallmouth buffalo River carpsucker Blacktail redhorse Spotted sucker Chub sucker Golden shiner Pugnose minnow Ribbon shiner Spottail shiner Redhorse shiner Sand shiner Blackspot shiner Mimic shiner Taillight shiner- Silvery shiner Parrot minnow Channel catfish Blue catfish Black bullhead Yellow bullhead Flathead catfish Tadpole madtom Blackstripe topminnow Common mosquitofish Pirate perch Spotted bass Largemouth bass Warmouth Green sunfish Spotted sunfish Redear sunfish Bluegill sunfish Yellowbelly sunfish Longear sunfish White crappie Black crappie Flier _ Arkansas sand darter Slou;h darter XHHR NHNN NHNNKNHNNN MN N X X X X X X. X. X X X NXHM NNHNMX NNHHN >4 NNNNNM KM XXNNfiNNKRNXK N NNNMfiNNXNNNHfiNNHNHNKKNNHfiNXXNNNN N M