TPWD 1961 F-5-R-8 #695: Inventory of Species Present in Lake Daniel near Breckenridge, Texas

Report of Fisheries Investigations . Inventory of Species Present in Lake Daniel near Breckenridge, Texas by Lawrence S. Campbell Project Leader Dingell—Johnson Project_F-5-R-8, Jeb 3—30 April 1, 1960 - March 31, 1961 H. D. Dodgen - Executive Secretary Texas Game and Fish Commission Austin, Texas Marion_Toole = KEnneth C. Jurgens and William 31 Brown Coordinator Assistant Coordinators A B S T R.A C T Lake Daniel, a ll,h00 acre feet lake near Breckenridge, Texas, was surveyed by taking gill net and seining samples of the fish populations. Of 626 individuals captured by gill nets, 57.18 percent were game species. Although there was some evidence of ”stunting" in white crappie and sunfish, the high degree of over all condition and the relative abundance of usuable game fish were regarded as far above average, and no management recommendations are made. It is recommended that the lake be resurveyed within the next five years. Job Completion Report State of Texas Project No. F-S-B-B Name: Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the waters of Region 3-B. Job No. B-3O Title: Inventory of Species Present in Lake Daniel near Breckenridge, Texas Period covered: April 12 1960 1 March 312 1961 OBJECTIVES To determine the species present and their relative abundance as well as to deter- mine the ecological factors influencing distribution. PROCEDURE A. Netting Collections 1. 2O gill nets were set at random locations in the lake to secure a sample of the fish population. 2. Ten sites were netted on two occasions. 3. Gill net collections were made with experimental gill nets composed of 25 foot sections of varying size mesh, including 3/h inch, lwinch,'l%winch, 2minch, and 3-inch mesh. h. Data for a sample number of individuals taken in nets consisted of length, weight, sex, stage of sexual develOpment. 5. Ecological data for each collection included: a. Temperature - air and surface water b. pH c. Depth of water d. Depth of net set e. Direction and strength of wind f. Dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide content of water g. Main cover types, if any, including dominant aquatic vegetation, brash, rock ledges, etc. h. Bottom type at point of collection (mud, silt, rock,gravel, etc.) B. Seining Collections 1. Collections were made with 25 foot, guinch seines and/or 12 foot, éwinch common seines. 2. Collections were made at locations selected in such a manner as to provide data on the fish populations in more than one type of habitat. 3. Seine specimens were tallied in a sample number of collections and in» dividuals were preserved for laboratory identification and measurement. h. Ecological data for each collection of specimens included the same items listed under Item 5 above. -gn Certain details that were included in the origisal work procedure for this got were not completed because they were obviously unnecessary; Gill nets provided an adequate means of sampling of the fish populations and hoop nets were not used for that reason. To provide useful data, fyke or hoop nets must usually be set for several consecutive days. Gill nets usually provide a significant catch within the first 2h hours. 'Hbop type nets are also more selective in the species captured and sampling by that method is considerably more expensive than by gill nets. Age was not accurately determined for any of the fish since presently accepted methods are known to be fallible in fish of this area. The data that is required for computing" K and that pertaining to sexual development were not taken for all fish netted. Hewever, that information was taken for a sample number of fish for each species present. In all instances where the total number of fish captured of a particular species was less than twentymfive, K data was taken for all of the fish available. For other species of fish where the total number of fish caught exceeded 100 indi» viduals, 25 percent of the total catch were weighed, measured, and sexed. RESULTS Lake Description Lake Daniel is located approximately'eight miles southeast of the City of Breckenridge is Stephens County, Texas. ”The reservoir is citywowned and is impounded by a compacted earth fill dam that was completed in l9h7. The approximate capacity of the lake is ll,h00 acres and the surface area covered at that elevation is about 583 acres. The reservoir impounds Gumsolus Creek, Big Creek, and East Gumsolus Creek and has a contributing watershed of about 20,000 acres. The shoreline of about 19 miles is irregular and the average depth of the lake is about 20 feet. Recreational Usage Although there is no factual information available on the amount of recreation the lake provides, the lake is obviously very popular with sportsmen and the fishing reputation of the lake is good. Fish Populations The distribution of the various species and information on some other aspects of the fish populations are included in the following annotated checklist of species. This data resulted from seining collections and from Observations of workers while the work was being done at the lake. W136 hCecfil of ies of. Teen. Daie... LEPISOSTEIDAE - Gare Lepisosteus osseus w longnose gar. Rot actually taken in either coining or netting in the lake but observed in stream areas of the region. - CLUPEIDAE - Earrings Dorosoma cepedianum - gizzard shad. Abundant but not indicated as being excesn -3... sively numerous. Apparently concentrated to some extent during the winter in the upper lake areas. ' CATASTOMIDAE - Suckers - Carpiodes carpio - river carpsucker. Common but not as yet overly abundant. A dormant_threat to the game fish populations. Ripe in sexual development in mid-winter. CYPRINIDAE — Minnows Cyprinus carpio - carp. Common but not numerous in the sense of a concentrated population. Notropis lutrensis - redhorse shiner. Common and numerous in specific localities. Pimephales vigilax — parrot minnow. Common and abundant. Note: Although extensive seining was attempted only the above species were actually captured. For a more detailed report on the species of fish present in this locality refer to completion reports for Jobs B-16 and B-29. AMEIURIDAE - Catfishes Ictalurus punctatus - channel catfish. Common and very abundant throughout the reservoir. Pylodictus olivaris - flathead catfish. These fish are almost never found in abundance; however, the population in this lake is greater than is normally found in other lakes of the area. CYPRINODONTIDAE - Killifishes and topminnows Fundulus kansaw — plains killifish. Rare. Gambusia affinis m mosquitofish. Common but not abundant. SERRANIDAE - Basses Roccus chrysops _ white bass. Not actually taken but so common in the adjacent waters that almost certain to occur in Lake Daniel. CENTRARCRIDAE - Black basses and sunfish Micropterus salmoides — largemouth bass. Common and fairly numerous. Successful reproduction and consecutive age groups obvious. Lepomis cyanellus - green sunfish. The most common sunfish present in the reservoir. Lepomis macrochirus - bluegill. About as common but possibly less numerous than green sunfish. Pomoxis annularis — white crappie. Common and numerous in aggregations. SCAENIDAE - Drum Aplodinotus grunniens — freshwater drum. Common but not numerous, evenly dis» tributed. DISCUSSION duders of a usuable resource. Although white crappie (23.80 percent of the total catch), were abundant, only two of 1&9 individuals captured were large enough to provide sport. There is a fishery problem present in the rough fish populations that make up h2.82 percent of all fish in this lake. Although this problem is not regarded as being severe at this time, since 3h.02 percent of the above figure are gizzard shed, the ability of suckers and carp to expand to dominating proportions is too well demonstrated in the past survey work of lakes of this region to permit a very optimistic appraisal of the lake's future recreational potentialities. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS There is no need for any management effort in Lake Daniel at this time. Game fishing in the lake is apparently satisfactory and all survey work indicates a favorable abundance of game fish. This reservoir should be resurveyed within the next five years. ‘ Prepared by Lawrence S. Campbell Approved by 2 EZW v/fl-f’éi Project Leader Dire or Inland Fisheries Division Date July 31, 1261 -5... Figure 1. A comparison of rough and/or forage species to game fish species. I I " Percent fiiTotal weight I Percent-l“ Number ?' ' a by . _ _ _ --_ Weimt Rough and/or forage species (Gizsard shad, river carpsucker, carp, freshwater drum, golden Shiner) 268 201 12 56.31 Game species . (Channel catfish, flathead eat- fish, largemouth bass, redear sunfish, bluegill, white crappie.) 358 156 9 h3.69 Totals 626 358 I 5 , 100.00 -5... Figure 2. Results of gill net collections taken from Lake Daniels during the period of October 27, 1960 through February 2%, 1961. Species Gizzard shad River carpsucker Carp Golden shiner Channel catfish Flathead catfish Largemouth bass Redear sunfish Bluegill sunfish White crappie Freshwater drum Totals - "Percent Total weight Average weight Percent Average I ' Number by ” 1...... an we a Feb. -7... Figure 3. Results of gill net collections taken from Lake Daniels on October 27, 1960 I Percent Total weight Average weight Percent Average Species Number by "K" Number - N... N. Gizzard shad 1.70 River carpsucker 2.28 Carp 2°39 Golden shiner 1.58 Channel catfish .89 Flathead catfish u—w- Largemouth bass 2.3l Redear sunfish 2.1M Bluegill sunfish 2.69 White crappie 1.20 Freshwater drum Totals -8- Figure h._ Results of gill net collections taken from Lake Daniels on February 2%, 1961. Percent Total weight Average weight Percent Average Species Number ' by ”K" NNNNe. . .N.NN.NN Gizzard shad 1.75 River carpsucker 5 1.98 Channel catfish 38 1.16 Largemouth bass 5 I.89 Bluegill sunfish 5 2.56 , White crappie 16 1.73 Totals 108