TPWD 1967 F-2-R-14 #1129: Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the Waters of Region 2-B: Fisheries Resurvey of Lake Lyndon B. Johnson

a ixg JOB COMPLETION REPORT KZXJYLavfl As required by FEDERAL AID IN FISHERIES RESTORATION ACT TEXAS Federal Aid Project No. F-2—R-14 FISHERIES INVESTIGATIONS AND SURVEYS OF THE WATERS 0F REGION Z-B Job No. 3-24: Fisheries Resurvey of Lake Lyndon B. Johnson Project Leader: Richard L. White J. R. Singleton Executive Director Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas Marion Toole Eugene Ar Walker D-J Coordinator Director, Wildlife Services May 25, 1967 Job Completion Report State of Texas Project No. F-2-R-14 I Name: Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the Waters of Region 2-B Job No. .B-24 ~_- _ g ; ' Title: Fisheries Resurvey of Lake Lyndon B. Johnson . . -- Period Covered: ' ».Februar l 1966 - Januar 31 1967 Objectives: 1. To determine the effect of commercial netting on the river carpsucker, .'(Carpiodes carpio) - smallmouth buffalo (Ictiobus bubalus) pepulation ratio in Lake Lyndon B. Johnson (Granite Shoals). 2. To determine the over-all effect of commercial netting of rough fish on the fish pOpulation of Lake Lyndon B. Johnson (Granite Shoals)._ Techniques Usedzr Fifteen gill net sets were made monthly at selected sites. Each net consisted of 150 feet of mesh graduated from 1 inch to 3% inches square mesh (in 25 feet sections). Seine collections were taken monthly in an effort to supplement gill net data. All data collected were examined to determine fish pOpulation changes which might be correlated with commercial harvest. Scientific names of fishes mentioned are included in the check list (Table 1). Only common names will be used in the body of this report. Findings: During the final project segment of this job, commercial fishing.efforts were continued on the lake. This operation selectively removes smallmouth buffalo almost exclusively, through the.use of large (3é3k inch) mesh gill nets. =This technique is representative of that commercial fishing in Texas freshwaters which is done under contnxt with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Table 2 summarizes the data collected during this segment. Data collected during the first two segments of this job suggested that the selective harvest of smallmouth buffalo had not resulted in an over-all reduction in rough fish. There was, however, a significant shift in the ratios of buffalo to river carpsucker. As buffalo numbers and total weight declined, the corresponding carpsucker figures appeared to increase (Job Completion Report B-24(b), F-Z-R-lZ, June 1965 and Job Completion Report 3-24, F-2-R-l3, June 1966). Per cent by number of all rough fish taken indicates an increase in the ratio of rough fish caught to game fish caught (Table 3). The per cent by weight of all.rough fish taken shows a l per cent decrease over the previous segment. Table 1 A Check.List of_Species §2l2fl£$fic.flflfl9 .. .. I _ _ Commggflgggg I..s_..i-.Si._-.£s..a--__..~°:..=‘as.9§._- - -- * ~ ‘ . - Lonsnose gar 3.193939% 2222.41.92.93; - - - ,- .Gizzard shad Tctiobus bubalus Smallmouth buffalo Mm“ m ”w F§£Q;QQ_§.Ha£g;Q . _ River carpsucker fl9§9§£2g§_ggggg§£gm - I - - ' I. - ' _ 'Gray redhorse sucker Iggpgiggg carpig- .. . _ _ EurOpean carp .Ifistsaissssa essays ' I " ’ ' ‘ - Golden shiner' lggalurggIRgggtatus Channel catfish Intalurus natalis; ' 'xf' I I ” , " I . Yellow bullhead l-L-gl. ‘i'H-hj-Oflm “mm-“u" £il9fll££2§_9li3§£i§ '1. ”I ig'I in“ _ ' ' Yellow catfish or flathead a ._ . . _.,_3. . _ II _ catfish _ EPSSUEsEEEXSERE . . _ . I . .H _White bass mjcropterus treculi I ' ' I i “ ' Texas Spotted bass Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass ghaenobryttus gglggggp I "' f _ I I ' I =Warmouth LERQE£§.£ZQEQLLE§..' ; :" _Iln" _'T j' {I . Greensunfish Lepomis microloghus ‘ ' ""d ‘ ' ” 'Redear'sunfish- _' a-Eepomismacrochigug ' ' _ _ 'I _ Bluegill sunfish Lepomis auritis I._IiII 1 I T "I I Redbreast sunfish Lepomis_megalotis I_ f‘ I ' I” III':;- I _i' fLongear sunfish' 39mggigp§§9ularis '1-“I_ j _ '.-. j I 1' If“; I White Crappie 'éfllodinotus grunnien3" I ”I" 3* ' " ' ' - FreshWater drum ggghlasoma cyanoguttatum Rio Grande perch -3- -Table 2 Lake Lyndon B. Johnson -'3Netting Data 1967 Per cent Per cent §R§gies, _ _ . ..-. Number - .3 Number . Weight . By Weight Longnose-gar ' ' 34 0.56 - - 99.41 1.37 Gizzard shad ' 1,972 'I ' I 32.70 ' 895.37 12.31 Smallmouth buffalo 246 ' 4.03.- 1,532.03 21.06 River carpsucker 2,014 33.40 _ 3,189.36 43.84 . Gray redhorse sucker " . 47 0.78 I 68.47 0.94 European carp 50 0.83 250.67 3.44 Golden shiner ‘ 14 0.23 2.72 0.04 Channel catfish ' 121- 2.01 219.38 3.02 Yellow or flathead catfish 60 1.00 367.83 5.06 Yellow bullhead catfishI ” I '1 0.02 0.88 0.01 White bass . .. . - .149 _ 2.47 _ 185.18 2.54 Texas spotted bass ' 19 0.32 21.70 0.30 Largemouth bass - I 69 1.14 58.40 0.80 Warmouth I“ --'H I I ‘65- 1.08 15.16 0.21 Green sunfish 17 0.28 2.68 0.04 Redear sunfish ' " 27' I0.45 3.22 0.04 Bluegill sunfish '789 13.08 87.12 1.20 Redbreast'sunfish -' ' - 14 0.23-' 1.97 0.03 Longear sunfish ' 23 0.38 1.87 0.02 White crappieI I I _II _ 192 3.18 123.36 1.69 Freshwater drum ' . -106 1.76 148.24 2.04 Rio c.....‘,....""‘ I IIIII" I ' :I1I ... 0.02 I 0.06 I 0.001 Totals 6,030 7,275.08 ,4- 'Table.3 Per Cent of Rough Fish-Taken in Gill Nets Lake Lyndon B. Johnson 1959 1960.53 1961 -1962 '1963 1964 v 1965- 1966 Per cent By Weight '1-79a02 ' 85.57 f 88.71 90.14 85.94 - 87.81 'é86425 85.19 Per cent _ Q ..-I ,.. W .”' -’ . By Number 70.59. 72.54 73.89 75.82. 73.88. 77.17 67.63 73.96 Table 4 Number of Fish Caught Per 100 Feet of Net Lake Lyndon B. Johnson “In. I)? S n;- .h—HM 3...... '” I1959 1960I I 1961 1962 1963 '1964 1965 1966 sSmallmouth buffalo 6.12 5.303 - 3.20 7.71 3.23 2.32 1.53 0.91 River carpsuckerI 4.17 6.40 5.20 4.19 5.18 5.78 6.38 7.46 .2 H_fl_m__fl__________n_rr____fl________fl________________________________________ iTotals .-10.29 11.70. 8.40 11.90 8.41 ' 8.10 7.91 8.37 Table 5' Pounds of Fish Caught Per 100 Feet of Net Lake Lyndon B._Johnson Species ., . 1959 1960 . 1961 .1962 1963 1964 _ 1965 1966 *MWEMW MM— Smallmouth buffalo 15.21 15.47; 13.07 22:93 14.79 11.65 I “8.63 ' 5.67 River carpsucker 3.63 6.96~3 5.36 ‘5.13 6.86 8.48 10.54 11.81 W Totals . _ 18.84_ I22.43,-I 18.43 28.06 '_I21.65 _ 20.13_ -.19.22 17.48 -5 Otherwise, the data indicated continued reduction of smallmouth buffalo and con» current increase in river carpsucker (Tables 4 and 5). As reported in the tables, number and weight of buffalo caught per hundred feet of not have decreased from 7.71 and 22.93 in 1962 to C.91 and 5.67 in 1966. In the same period, number and weight of earpsueker have incre-sed trow 4.19 and 5.13 in 1962 to 7.46 and 11.81 in 1966. Since the carpsucker is considered less desirable than the smallmouth buffalo (Job Completion Report B-24(b), F-Z-R-lz), it appears that continued selective har- vest of buffalo may prove injurious to the fish pepulation as a whole. Recommendations: The field work for this job has been completed. This data will be compiled and detailed analysis will be made. It is anticipated that the results and conclusions will be published, probably as an issue of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Inland Fisheries Series. ,. . / 7; (WOW/4’ J W 3.1.... .1. 77’ Prepared by“, --. Riehsrd L. White Approved by ‘ in I 0’ n. I- II- II ha -- 0 III. In.“ I h..-.....I-..-II--I' ...-zit. F-‘.-—...>u'¢.'—.l I" I1._ I... .111- um-" -.\'. ...;Jr: 9-.- qlr...-._-» -'--1'.. .9'-"'..... -.u.-..w--...-.—-n. mural-v “a. Project Leader Coordinator Date: May 25, 1967 -_ ...-.....n- ...-ha. - . II In. --I -—i-—.I “gm.“ -, - M,“_Jh,hmh . , FRED G. LOWMAN - .u a. -- um I. a. ......II- the a -I.. .-'In---.I~‘.-'_-Nu «nah-......“ -..: ...- m.-. Inn up In. -..M.I~1 In: an. .. pincer-...“... I-_ Regional Supervisor