TPWD 1958 F-4-R-5 #404: Basic Survey and Inventory of Species Present in Lake Arlington

Marion Toole Coordinator Report of Fisheries Investigations Basic Survey and Inventory of Species Present in Lake Arlington by Leonard D. Lamb Project Leader Dingell-Johnson Project F-M-R-S, Job B~22 August 6, 1957 ~ October 31, 1958 H. D. Dodgen ~ Executive Secretary Texas Game and Fish Commission Austin, Texas William H. Brown and Kenneth C. Jurgens Assistant Coordinators Efii JOB COMPLETION REPORT State of TEXAS Project No. F-h-R-B Name: Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the Waters of Region h—B. Job No. B-22 Title: Basic Survey and Inventory of Species Present in Lake Arlington. ABSTRACT: Lake Arlington is a 2,200 surface acre water supply lake for the City of Arlington and is located on Village Creek near Handley, Texas, a short distance above the confluence with the west Fork of the Trinity River. Rough fish contributed 51 percent of the total number and 59 percent of the total weight of the fish taken in gill net collections with carpsuckers providing 27.6 per~ cent of the number and 3l.2 percent of the weight. This species increased in the net catch during the last few months of the project period to indicate that they would be- come a problem in the near future. White crappie did not appear in significant numbers in the catch during the first seven months of the investigation but were very numerous in the last five samples to make up l8.92 percent of the total catch. OBJECTIVES: To determine the species present and their abundance as well as to determine the ecological factors influencing their distribution. METHODS: Gill nets were used to take random samples from Lake Arlington at monthly intervals from August 1957 to June 1958. The sampling was changed in July to alternate months since little variation was noted. The sampling was discontinued with the end of the segment on October 31, 1958. The netting was begun during the period when the City of Arlington had closed the lake to fishing. The net stations were established to cover the entire length of the lake but with the opening of fishing the boat traffic became quite heavy. The advent of warmer weather brought out speed boats and water skis which forced the netting operations into the sloughs where some protection was afforded. _ The fish taken in gill nets were weighed, measured and examined for disease, parasites, and stomach content. The data recorded were tabulated for inclusion in his report. The shoreline of this lake was such that efficient seining was impossible. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: Lake Arlington is an impoundment that covers about 2,200 surface acres. It was constructed by the City of Arlington to serve as a water supply. The dam is located on Village Creek just South of Highway 80 in the east edge of Iandley, Texas. The dam was completed in April l957_and was filled within two weeks after the closure. This lake was stocked with largemouth black bass fry in May and with crappie, channel catfish and sunfish in September. The ban on fishing was removed on march 5; 1958» RESULTS: Netting operations produced only eleven species representing five families, seven genera, and eleven species (Table 1). Channel catfish, largemouth bass, bluegill sunfish, white and black crappie were stocked by the Eagle Mountain State Fish Hatchery but the other species present were native to Village Creek. There is little doubt that some specimens of those species introduced by the hatchery were also native but the limited stream flow of the stream before impoundment indicates that only a small population was able to survive the dry weather. Table 2 presents the comparison between the game and rough species with the channel catfish included in the game fish. The average weight of rough fish was 0.65 pounds while that of game fish was 0.h6 pounds. This was due largely to a comparaw tively heavy population of carpsuckers which contributed 27.6 percent to the total number and 31.2 percent to the total weight of fish taken in net samples. Game fish make up #1 percent of the total weight and M9 percent of the total number of all fish taken in gill nets. This is a good situation but it will be noticed that in latter months rough fish showed a sharp increase in the catch, with carp“ sucker providing the majority of this increase in both numbers and weight (Tables 5 and 6). Table 3 shows the success of gill netting in terms of fish caught per 100 feet of net. There is considerable variation in the catch from month to month but in general the number of fish taken is a good indication of the weather conditions at_ the time of netting. Netting in September and December of 1957 was hampered by high winds as was that of March. July netting suffered from high temperature that sent . the fish out of the sloughs and into the deep open water where the boat traffic made netting unwise. The high points in netting occurred in October 1957 and October 1958. The OctOber 1957 catch was dominated by largemouth bass with 32.56 percent followed by bluegill and black bullhead with 26.7% and 19.77 percent respectively. The October 1958 catch was dominated by white crappie with 6h.l percent followed by carpsucker and largemouth bass with 23.08 and 6.h1 percent respectively (Table 5). Table A presents data concerning the length, weight and condition of the various species taken. There is considerable difference in the length and weight ranges which may be expected since the early net samples included young of the year fish and the later samples included larger adults. The Table 5 data shows the first seven months to be the most productive period as far as largemouth base were concerned, since all but 16 of the 150 bass taken were caught during the last five net samples. The reverse is true of the carpsucker with 1M7 of the 200 total being taken in the last five samples. White crappie also failed to appear in significant numbers during the first seven months but increased sharply in the not catch of the last five samples. The success of the netting in terms of the number of each species caught per 100 feet of gill net set overnight is shown in Table 7 where the catch is recorded on a monthly basis. Carpsuckers (Carpiodes carpio) did not appear in the catch during the first two months of netting but steadily increased during the remainder of the netting period. Black bullheads (Ictalurus males) were taken in abundance the first month of netting but disappeared from the catch during the last three months. Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) were present in the netting catches of all but one of the months but no conclusion concerning this species could be drawn since they were not regularly abund~ ant in the samples. It would seem that the weather conditions tended to affect this species to a greater extent than other species since they were abundant in the catch when the weather was favorable and scarce when it was not favorable. Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) appeared in all but two of the net samples but like the bass seemed to follow no set pattern. White crappie (Pomoxis annularis) were scarce in the catches during the early months of the netting period but increased in the catch toward the end of segment period, the greatest number being taken during the final month of netting. . W Prepared by Leonard D. Lamb Approved by .ng/ Project Leader Director Inland Fisheries Division Date January 21” 1959 Table 1. Checklist of Fish from Lake Arlington August 16, 1957 - October 3l, 1958 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Dorosoma cepedianum Carpiodes carpio Cyprinus carpio Ictalurus punctatus Ictalurus melas Ictalurus natalis Micropterus salmoides Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis macrochirus Pomoxis annularis Pomoxis nigromaculatus gizzard shad river carpsucker carp channel catfish black bullhead yellow'bullhead largemouth bass green sunfish bluegill sunfish white crappie black crappie Table 2. A Comparison of Game Fish and Rough Species Caught in Gill Nets from lake Arlington August 16, 1957—October 31, 1958. Total number specimens caught 72h Total weight of specimens (pounds) h03.9h Average weight per specimen (pounds) .56 Total weight of rough fish (pounds) 237.59 Total weight of game fish (pounds) l66.35 Total number of rough fish 367 Total number of game fish 35? Average weight per rough fish (pounds) .65 Average weight per game fish (pounds) .h6 Percent rough fish (by weight) 59 Percent game fish (by weight) Ml Percent rough fish (by number) 51 Percent game fish (by number) #9 Channel catfish included in game fish. m. edeo w. moooemm ow QHHH Zoadwom ma bHHHsmdoo beam as Hewsm ow zcedae mom wosoom ow memo omsmoe states was Hom4-0oaoaae woo Home. geese 2o. oa so. as. so. some 2o. Ham. same see. so. see. so. mam. so. see. to. Zoom moss eoam mass cosmos commas some eon. ease ass was. some eonsom ease ass _. soo._eaa soa_2oa ems poo. smegma m poo mo mp.mm mo.oo :o.oo Ho.4m H:.mm maaaosaoe m woo .mm 4.mw Ea.ww .4.ww m.me m.me Ooaoome w woo mm mm.ow mm.mo mm.mm Hm.ao Hm.ao eoaasaae m moo mo ww.em wo.oo - wo.oo Hm.aa Hm.np eoooeeoe m moo we Hm.m4 Ho.mo Hm.mo o.ew o.ew genomes m moo mm Ha.ma Hm.wo Hm.mo m.mw m.ow eoeeeoee w woo m4 wo.m~ mm.ww mm.ww Ho.oa Ho.oa aseos w woo em H4.mw Hm.oo Hm.oo m.m: m.m: posse w woo mm mm.me H4.ww P4.ww Hm.m: Hm.mr gee w woo me wq.wa mp.ww my.wm Hm.:: Hm.r: gape w woo mo mm.mo Hm.mm Hm.mm m.mo m.mo eoaoaoe w woo Hmm ma.4r mm.oo mm.oo mo.mm mo.mm goose mm woomo om: sow.me mm.mw mm.om Hm.mm Hm.mm a,“ Hodge r. boomer... Seamus mom ooewweowooa om oooaweeoo ow Memo Oowwaoaem go. mew”. Beam wees Home beweomdoo assess amt Home--0oaoooe wet Home. meeOHam floaty was. Azzv Azev Ameav _ Aasmv 3m: 2e: 20. boomer wmome Hoomao beoeeme Samoa... wmome seamed be. was a beoeeme mt.omeoosasos mm Hmo-mmo Hoe menmoo Ham H.mm-s.mo m.om mt.mmmmmw moo Hmo-mmo mom emoleom mas m.ao-:.oo m.mo mmp.mmmmww om Hom-wmm mam Hmm-Hm:a mom m.mm-w.:o m.mm mp.eosoaeaom Hp moo-mmo one Hem-ooa mom H.wo-H.om H.ma mn.soemm Ho: Hmosmmo may Haowwmm mom H.morm.ao m.ma mu.soasesm r emolmwo mew Hoagw0m mos H.mo-m.mo m.wm mr.mmoeoooom Hmo Hem-mmo mm: am-:4m mmo H.4m;w.Ho m.mw mu.oemsapeom H Hmo:wmo Hmo pro-~:o are w.po-w.:o w.eo mn.smoeooeosea. mm om-Hmo ewe wo-emo Haw w.eo-m.oo :.mm mw,mosoosesm . own www-mwm ems mmymmo we: H.FOL:.40 m.mo wr.somaossoopaaom m Hmo-pmm Haw wampwm woo m.wmyw.eo m.mo Hdeo m. mwooHem medeHocaHoo Ho Zed coder 6% zosdee Ho bHHHomaoo bmwoc rammed Hmc Hmmm s Oodowoe wHo Hmmm. meQHmm homomd mendeeoee 20. : zo. a. o. oewomHooss H H.m4 H :.mr o. ooeoeo th.oeeeHo m Hh.UEBOdedom Mb seHem ww Mb.oeemHHm fir.meHsowmem Hm MF.oMmoeHHCm mfi.seoeooUHeom H Wh.mooSHaHHm H WP.oneosmosHmasm eoasem .o o.oo mm.oo Ho :m.:m H :.mrp wo.oo m Hw.m: H.m4 a wH.mm H.m4 Hoo.oo mm Hoo.oo Ooaoesa zoaaaaae so. a so. a a one o r8 4 _ m.Hr w Hw.ww : :.mm H H.m4 H H.Hm H4 Ho.44 Ho Hm.mo m m.ww mm um.ma om mo.oo _ H H.m4 mw mm.4: H H.Hm m m.ww u. Hoo.oo .o beamsooe moosmnw wmoesmew 20 . .9 2.0 o .2. 20.. a. w Hw.rm 4 Hm.mm Hw mm.oo Hm mw.mm m Hm.mm m m.oo m HH.mm Hm :w.me Ho so.oo m4 Ho.mm H m.qo m Hw.mH H H.Fm m m.:H : m.om we Hoo.oo mm. Hoo.oo .4 Hoo.oo