TPWD 1958 F-4-R-5 #359: A Study of Crappie in Lake Whitney: Segment Completion Report, Project No. F-4-R-5

SEGMENT COMPLETION REPORT State of TEXAS Project No. F—h—R-5 Name: Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the waters of Region HeB. Job No. E-u Title: A Study of Crappie in Lake Whitney Period Covered: November 1, 1957 through October 31: 1958 OBJECTIVES: To determine the population of crappie in Lake Whitney and the reasons for the recent small harvest. Study the pattern and extent of travel of tagged or marked crappie and the ecological factors influencing their distribution. To develop satisfactory methods of sampling crappie fry and study the effects of a bacterial type of infection found on some of the crappie. ABSTRACT: The trapping and marking of crappie in Lake Whitney has been continued along the same general lines as during the l956-57 segment with the trapping stations ex- panded to Cover the entire lake. The Monel Metal jaw tags were used and returns of the tags taken by fishermen was encouraged through publicity. The same type of poultry wire trap was used and the card system of recording data was augmented by a permanent.ledger on which the trap catches of species other than crappie was recorded along with the data on tagged crappie and their recapture. The most numerous species taken in the traps was bluegill sunfish which made up 59.3 percent of the total followed by crappie with 16.h8 percent. The gill net catch was dominated by gizzard shad which provided 57.66 percent, with crappie come prising only h.hl percent. None of the five tagged crappie returned during this segment had been released during the previous segment. The returns represented 2.1 percent of the number tagged which is a smaller percentage than the h percent return of the previous segment PROCEDURE: The trapping and marking of crappie in Lake Whitney was continued along the same general lines as during the previous segment except that the trapping was extended to cover the entire lake. The same traps were used as well as the Monel Metal jaw tags. Latex marking was not attempted since the material was not obtained. Publicity was given to this work in an effort to obtain maximum information regarding tagged fish taken by fishermen. Card forms were distributed to the camps around the lake that when filled out, would provide data wanted on recaptured tagged fish. These cards were picked up at intervals and the data was recorded and filed. Data from these cards enabled the biologist to determine the days of freedom and distance between points of tagging and recapture. The traps used were constructed of one-inch mesh poultry wire over a frame of six-gauge concrete reinforcement wire, having 6 by 6 inch mesh. These traps were 5 feet long and 27 inches in diameter. They were of both single and double throat construction but there appeared to be little difference in the effectiveness of the two. These traps were constructed with a door to facilitate the removal of the fish. Crappie taken in traps were tagged and returned to the water in the vicinity of the trap. The data were recorded and all recaptures were noted. Data on other fish taken in the traps were tabulated and filed. A 5" by 8" card was used to record data in the field but a ledger was kept in the office to which field data was transfered for permanent record. This ledger provided space for all data concerning the tagged crappie as well as the other species taken in traps. Gill net collections were made in the vicinity of the traps to provide compara~ tive information on the relative abundance of crappie in the area and to serve as a check on the efficiency of the trap as a means of taking this species. RESULTS: The trapping work of the previous segment was confined to the mtidle one-third of the lake with the exception of one trap station in Kings Creek, which was used for a short period. These trapping stations were increased in number during the present segment with stations added in both the upper and lower portions of the lake. (Figure 1). It will be noted that large areas of the lake have not been trapped and an effort will be made to include these areas in the next segment. In Table l, the data concerning the number of each species taken in traps is given together with the percentage of the total trap catch represented by each species It will be noted that bluegill sunfish made up the bulk of the trap catch with 59.30 percent of the1978 fish taken. They were followed by white crappie with l6.h8 percent and carp with 8.3M. The remaining 15.88 percent was divided among 16 species with none making up as much as 3.00 percent. shows that only 59 of the 1,339 fish taken were crappie for h.hl percent. The gill net collections were dominated by gizzard shed with 772 specimens making up 57.66 percent of the total catch (Table 2). The comparison of the trap and gill net catches indicates that the traps are no less effective in the taking of crappie but nuch_work is needed with regard to baits or other attractors in increasing the catch of crappie. previous segment but it will be noted that none of the tags returned during the 1957-58 segment were from the previous year. The longest period of freedom among 3e 1* the five tags recovered during present segment was 19 days and the shortest poriod was one day. Four of the recaptured fish were taken at the place of release while one moved from Lakeside Village to the mouth of Mesquite Creek a distance of one mile. This fish was recaptured after four days of freedom. ' The recaptured crappie from the previous segment were free from less than one day to 1&9 days between tagging and recapture, with the average period of free- dom being 19 days. The distance traveled by individual tagged crappie varied widely. Nine or 26.h percent, failed to move at all while two crappie moved 9.75 miles down the lake. The average distance traveled was 1.02 miles from the point of ram lease. A total of 39 tagged crappie have been recaptured during the life of this job with 18 or #6 percent being recaptured in the traps. These fish showed a minimum of travel and were recaptured after an average of 7.2 days of freedom and 300 yards from the point of release. They ranged in days of freedom from none to 36 days and moved a maximum distance of one mile. Nine out of the eighteen failed to move at all. crappie was recaptured in a trap one mile from the point of release on the day following the tagging. One Of 850 crappie tagged during the l956w57 segment, 3h or k percent, were recaptured while of the 237 tagged during the 1957-58 segment only 5, or 2.1 percent, were rem captured. This indicates that some changes in methods are needed in both trapping orappie for tagging and in their recapture. Prepared by Leonard I). Lamb Approved by ”W Project Leader . ion Date 13W 23:.3195_ Table 1. Number of each Species of Fish captured by wire traps, Lake Whitney, November 1957 through October 1958. W Species No. of Fish Trapped Percent of Total Number Trapped White crappie 326 16.h8 Black crappie 5‘ 0.25 Largemouth bass 25 1.26 White bass #2 2.13 Bluegill sunfish 1,173 59.30 Carp 165 8.3M Channel catfish 35 _ 1.77 warmouth 58 .2.93 Longnose gar 5 0.25 Spotted gar 3 0.16 Flathead catfish 12 0.60 Texas gray redhorse 1 0.05 Gizzard shad #2 2.13 Spotted bass 1 0.05 Longear sunfish 15 0.76 Carpsucker 29 l.h6 Buffalo 8 "0.u1 Drum ' 32 1.62 Green sunfish 1 0.05 Totals 1,978 100.00 Table 2. Tabulation of data from gill net collections from Lake Whitney, November 1,_1957 -- October 31, 1958. - Mm Species No. Caught Percent of lbs. Caught- Percent Avg. Wt. No. Fish Lbs.Fish Total No. Total Wt. Lbs. 100' Net 100‘Net 'Spotted gar 8 .59 ' 21.30 2.61 2.66 0.15 0.39 'Longnose gar 19 1.22 58.09 7.13 3.06 0.35 1.08 Gizzard shad 772 57.66 375.21 26.06 0.29 12.30 6.95 IBuffalo 67 5.00 22.50 5.22 0.63 1.22 0.79 Carpsucker 39 2.91 38.80 2.76 0.99 0.72 0.72 'Carp 120 8.96 62.12 7.62 0.52 2.22 1.15 Channel catfish 121 9.02 102.22 12.80 0.86 2.22 1.93 White bass 51 3.81 33.07 2.06 0.65 0.92 0.61 Spo+'3d bass 3 0.22 2.62 0.32 0.88 0.06 0.05 Largemouth bass 32 2.39 39.23 2.82 1.23 0.59 0.73 Redear sunfish 3 0.22— 0.89 0.11 0.30 0.06 0.02 Bluegill sunfish 38 2.82 8.92 1.09 0.23 0.70 0.17 White crappie 59 2.21 22.80 3.05 0.22 1.09 0.26 Drum 7 0.53 2.82 0.35 0.21 0012.111_19-05 W Totals 1.339 100.00 812.65 100.00 22.79 15 10 Had mow MS mmm woo becameemewosmunowoe.nowosowao If; Hommoa Gemwwwo meadowam as beam afiwdnowo woos a code Hommoa 04.1004o snows Hemmom memes 0H.UOQW pecan HH Uoow woods ab woow owe. zones woow msowwos Dodo QUoH. we. Uoow come. we. meow oboe. we. done oboe. me. 600W EsHaoowm woaw zmHmoon woow paces afi @00W on09 Grow. wOQW onoe oboe. boow habwwoe oedo msbeooe noes eves. wane owes .. mesa zones omo%oo haswwoe oo<o anwooe nose EmHQOQWm mesa EMHQOQWm moan ZmHmoon mesa ENHQOQWm wane uw.:boow www.:wooW% beam ascend m. some Po Hmmm awesome oodOdee ch Hmmm Erode ascend Zosew moo. as. noose HE Uoow. wH. mowo Qo.oe. noose ones. we. Boner mam WWW. onos ores. bw. woo wpsww Honda wwm www. wowoa no. OH. cw. ENHmoon woow- zmHQOQWm woow boodm ab woos amuse Uoow mobemoe ooeo we. nonwoo 6w. EoHQoQWm bw. ores. mean we. nonwon we. gonna cosmos nonwooe nose wowos oven. ww. wowoa mews cw. onos oboe. uw. flswaoon mesa EoHQOon cw. vw.ubooo wewm ow wsoomos wH.:WHSo Us 0 IUO§ boaoeewswon ow Homeow woo Meade 20. deodow W eHHom Mmo Modem w w\r sea mo. Hewo m0 weemm rw.sewom an. m\r 2H. ow Hews mo. seesaw zo deesow 20 dwsdow woo woemm H 2H. so Howe Hm.sw. an. Haas mo woemm zo seesaw W.se. on. Howe zo eeo<oH Bo eeodoH H sw.mb. moo amemm H EHHo zo eeo<mH woo .msmm Hewo ZH.IEHHo Howe w w\r Be. on. Hoke h:5.uMsUMon moodHnfioa Hammad memUoHe osmoswom Ha beam zfieooowo macs zoeoswoe Ho H_mmmo gsosmo Ooeooon wH mem Hdeo w. 1.... .u.l.....ui.. “Hui. 1| III... . r Eu“... bomoeHoeHos ow HeeeoH Ham 20. Uses Hommoo gnome Gammon Uses msnmwo Samoa mosmwa beam 0% meoomos woo 4-wo-ma ooooe oe.ooow m- «-ma ooooe oa. oooe o 2o sesame er mawoamq moose ovoe.woow mquamq sesnm we. mam. Hm moo %meom mom m- mswa goose woos oooa mammsma oo. ow. woos Ha ox: so. so Howo woo ma msmq stww fim Sesame ma mamq no. on. wHee we a BM. ensemm ores. on m- m-ma macaw am sesame mussma mops ooeo m woo eoaoa arm on Hams as woos ooow onem-m4 mooaeoa ooeo mo w\: oopo poo a- m-m4 asHoooaa oooa m- «-mo zopoooWa ooow mo mo eoeoo qu my «fwd SNHQOon meow msHmamq mHsHH fiw Eeewee m w\: EH. eoHOmm ones. moo m-Hogma eoeoa noes ooow oammswa oo. oe.ow. so moo.eoaoo mAm maHmamm. ZOHoo <Ho€ boow we mama ZOHen <Hoa we. Hm 20 someoH oHo :-H -mm eoeoaaoo eaHHoao a- m- we goose oa soaooaao a H aoHo so poem mmm ::H 5mm HewomHmo <HHHemm : mes m4 HoWomHmo dHHHemo Hm 20 deodoH ore :-Hm-mm. assoaooo eoeeomo rammsme eoWooaoo eoeHaao HP 2o aeoeop ©:4 ruHmumm comes oeomw booms :aH H4: m4 Goose oe.mee H 20 someoH bodeostdHooms:QWos.sowoeowoo UW.adoow oo.aoomms= .0H.sowoow.l;uo.avooo.- WH.aste i U5.ansn. .zw.yzHHo= Heb.aH:5HweH ww%.:wOoW% .. Segment Completion Report State of Texas Project No. F—2-R-5 Name: Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the Waters of Region 2-B Job No. E-2 Title: A Study of Crappie in Lake Whitney Period Covered: November 1, 1957 through October 31, 1958 Attached is Figure 1 (Map of Lake Whitney Showing Trapping Stations} which was not attached to this report when it was distributed. Please attach this map to your report for this job. n -———---— ——u———H—~-—~d—~+—-H~———A