TPWD 1953 F-7-R-1 #14: Inventory of the species of fishes present in Lake Kemp, Texas

STATE Texas PROJECT NO. Fm7~R—l,Job B-l PERIOD June 15, 1953 - May 31, 1955 Job Completion Report by Leo D. Lewis and Walter Dalquest TITLE Inventory of the species pf fishes present in Lake Kemp, Texas. OBJECTIVES To determine the species present and their relative abundance as well as to determine the ecological factors influencing their distribution. TECHNIQUES USED Seven collection stations were estabablished on the eastern half of the lake on August 2M, 1953 at sites designed to sample the varied ecologi- cal niches present. Two 100 ~ ft. gill nets were set at each station, in _ an effort to sample the populations of larger fishes in the lake. It was inn tended that the stations should be sampled at least once each month; prefern ably every three weeks, for periods of two days (and two nights) at a time. These stations were sampled on the following dates: August 2h~25, September 30~00tober 1, October 21,23 and November 19—12. Following the last date weather conditions became so dangerous at the exposed stations, and lack of cover for the crews working in the field presented such problems that these stations were abandoned and six new sta~ tions were established at the western end of the lake. This part of the lake is more distant from laboratory in Wichita Falls than are the stations at the eastern end of the lake, but the new stations are better protected from the violent winter storms, typical of the area, and overnight accomodations were available for the collection crew. The new stations were operated on the following dates: December l~3, 1953; December 29, 19533 January 19-22, last; February 2u~26, 195A; March lh—l6, igsu. All fishes taken in gill nets were removed and, as soon as was prac~ ticable, the specimens were identified, measured, weighed and their sex and stages of gonadal development were recorded. All ripe ovaries and the fill— ed stomachs of predatory species were preserved for laboratory analysis. All abnormalities and diseases were noted and, if pathologic conditions were appar— ent, tissues were saved and sectioned in the laboratory for histological exam- inationu Detailed notes were taken, with especial attention to ecological and environmental data. The smaller fishes were taken at irregular intervals, with fi-inch meshed seines, as weather conditions and equipment permitted. Specimens tak- en were preserved in formalin for laboratory examinationo Extreme variations in water hwel of the lake and abundance of drowned timber and,stumps, made it impossible to establish permanent stations for comparative sampling of small fish population. FINDINGS Lake Kemp, located in Baylor County, Texas, is a moderately large and relatively old impoundment. The dam was constructed in 1923 and, at spillway level, the lake holds 560,000 acre feet of water with a surface area of 22,800 acres. Its greatest length is approximately 20 miles and its greatest width is about eight miles. The shoreline, at spillway level, is approximately 125 miles. The sources of Lake Kemp are the headwaters of the Big Wichita Riv» er, notably the North and South forks of this river. During most of the period of this study the headwaters were intermittent, almost dry at times, and greatly polluted with natural salts (see Completion Report, Job Cal). The watershed draining to the lake is considerable and after rains the lake is subject to rapid rise. Throughout the year, but especially during the late spling and summer, water is withdrawn (to Lake Diversion) for irrigation. During most of the period of study the lake was 30 feet or more below spill- way leveldand at one time approached a minimum of 50,000 acre feet in volume. Lake Kemp is devoid of rooted aquatic vegetation. There is an abunm dance of brush, weeds, etc. that grows on areas temporarily above water lev» el and which are partially or completely submerged when the lake rises. These, in many cases, seem to serve as emergent vegetation for fish species. There is little fixed algae along the shores due to the violence of wave action and fluctuations in water level. The lake is rich in plankton as a result of water clarity and abundance of sunlight. The lake is situated in semi~desert country, where cloudy days are unusual. water clarity is a direct result of flocculation of suspended particles by dissolved.salts (See Completion Report Job Cal). Turbidity (Seichi disk) reached extremes of 735 mm. during the per— iod of study, following periods of calm weather. Following storms turbidity was reduced to less than 300 mm. The temperature of the surface water, away from shore, varied from 2500 in summer to soc in winter (all_temperature read- ings taken at 7230 A. M.) Skim ice formed over shallow water in protected coves in early January lQSh.. A total of 26 species of fish was detected in the lake. These fall into three general groups: species of relatively large size and whiwh are present in numbers great enough to cause them to be important, either as game species or as rough fish,in fisheries management: forage fishes, of the "min- now" and "sunfish” type (sunfishes in Lake Kemp rarely reach 100 grams in 'weight and are almost never taken by fishermen); casual species, too scarce to be of economic importance. Each of these groups is considered separately. large and Important Fishes Nine species are considered to belong to this group. One is a pro.— ator (the gar); three are rough fishes (gizsard shad, carpSucker and carp); five are game species (channel catfish, white bass, black bass, white crappie and drum). The position of the drum on this list may be open to question; nevertheless many persons do fish for drum, and many others that take drum while fishing for other species, save and eat them. The spotted gar is not abundant in the lake. The status of this spe— cies remains in doubt. Pending a thoroughgoing investigation of its food habits, we consider it beneficial in lakes where rough fish make up the great- est part of the population. Certainly the gars feed on sunfishes and giZzard shad isee Completion Report, Job B—h) and this we consider beneficial. { "j M.“ {,3 _¢ ‘E Q . ,2 __, _:_ J- -: I ”cf; _3 "i, - ..\ ,_ '-.“ t '1 "1 ' 4.. .3 -,._ r" '33-. .. 3-" I"; . . _ g "I _1_ m _ . ‘_ u 3 i 'C Rigid i. 1.53. no 53 {.1 05;} 3.31. u ‘63 cliff: .L S 3.1 {g f: it} 4-15.11- o .J. 01.1 all. LEE L's-{7.3 b.3313) t) . l I i) 8 PC L .3- C S j a." J-.. ° - 1. .. ‘9 ..=* -,, .: . .l .._ m... -. . ._ "; . ., , ..:..W i. . . a . -. ’ r‘ .. L. P, 4 F '1 . L; 33.6 (:5, 3 .1: 351 13d 81.16:: U. (33.1321 .I.a .3- 3-53.? I... a 3; 33' LLC aid 4." 5 o 0558 milk; 1' , make 1.7.1.2 ~ J) pa in” {3 11 L: .2 ' but} I r- 1 f_' .J ’ E .31 ‘1 a l * c n . ihls soon population. 4. The European carp makes up an additions o peice fish, and relatively scarcity of game fish, is r C) ical of an ”old” in oundment. Admittedly Lake hemp is a ”co at present, with a disproportionately high ratio of rough to game fis s compared with nearbv lakes (see Completion Reports, Jobs BMB and Jobs 3-3). Nevertheless it is encouraging that only three species make up the rough fish population. Thus the lake is well adapted to experimental control of rough fish species. 0 e of the three species of rough fishes in Lake Kemp can now be controlled eelectivelv by use of chemicals (giszard shad; see Progress '3) 3...; Report, Job sni, segment 1.) Five species of fishes constitute the game fish population of Lake Kemp. These forms are here consicered game in that virtually all angling efforts by sports fishermen are devoted to their capture. .Some of these spew cies are not game fishes in the classical sense. The channel catfish is the third most common of the game fishes, and it is also one of the most soughtmafter species. It is especially easy to take on trotlines, is an excellent food fish, and reaches large size (our .4" largest specimen weighed la pounds.) The white bass (Morons chrysops) is the second most abundant fish in Lake Kemp. Locally called ”sand bass", this species is appreciated by most anglers and taken whenever possible. For the most part, however, the white bass is taken incidental to black bass or crappie fishing. The black bass (Micropterus salmoides) was once abundant in the lake but is now far less common. Gill nets probably do not give a true picture of the relative numbers of black bass. The given figure (2% of the largewfish population) may be too low. As compared with other lakes in the general area (see Completion Reports, Jobs hw2 and Bn3), the black bass population of Lake hemp is low. Observations of f’ hing success also verify this. Black bass in Lake hemp do, however, reach la *e sine and fish in excess of six pounds weight intensivelv sought by fishermen using artificm ‘1 ”4—1;” “Hi-3 \v—v‘m U} U, are not uncommon. The species 1 irl lures and is one of the most important sports fishes of the lake. The white crappie (Pomoais annularis) is the most abundant and poem cibly the most important game fish of the lake. Few crappie are taken in the late summer (even in note) but the .rappie is the winter and early spring fish ir Lake Kemp. Large catches are often made at baited holes and some specimens reach large size (up to four. pounds, in some instances). The drum (splodinotus grunniens) is rarely sought by fishermen. It is, however, often taken especially by persons seeking the channel catfish. Those «a? drum taken are rarely discarded, although considered as slightly inferior as 'both a game and fish food, it is suitable for the table. Some specimens of large size, in excess of 20 pounds, have been taken in Lake Kemp. The young of the drum are important as food for the other game fish species (see Completion Report, Job Bet). Forage Fishes Included here are those fishes which, from their small size, are pre— e y food for the predatory species. We have no evidence that E.” 88 t. manr of tiem do so (see Completion Report, Job amt). None of these forms cone .'°- . 1- Lake Kemp, though some sunfishes might grow large enough ti he called panfis . We have taken no sunfishes in the lake that than 100 grams. We have never seen a fisherman at Lake his bag. weighed more Kemp with a sunfish in One of the four species of minnow (Wotropis) in Lake Kemp, two(N. lu— trensis and N. huchanani) are the usual common minnows of the Wichita Rise drainage. Other minnows of the Wichita drainage are missing from Lek he Kemp and two forms (N. bairdii and N. oryrhynchus), more typical of the Brazos Riv— er drainage are present. N. hairdii is present, though rare, throughout the Wichita River but we have no records of N. oxyrhynchus scouring below Lake Kemp. The Parrot Minnow (Pimephales vigilax) is relatively scarce in Lake Kemp and the plains minnow (Hybognathus placita) extremely common. This latter is usualm ly considered a river minnow but breeds in Lake Kemp. The plains killifish (Fundulus kansae) and, to a lesser extent, the Red River pupfish (Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis) are forms typical of the sahne waters of the upper Wichita River and are not common in Lake Kemp except near its head. The mosquito fish area. It (Gambusia affinis) is found in virtually all natural waters of this was relatively scarce in Lake Kemp. mm 'v: .1. Of t e sunfish group, the two common local species (Lepomis megalotis and L. macrochirus) are present, and the latter outnumbers the former. Two species present in nearby lakes (L. cyanellus and L. microlophus) were not de- tected. The orangemspotted sunfish LL. humilis) is usually a pond fish in north central Texas, and was not detected in nearby lakes. taken in Lake Kemp on April 27, l95h. ords indicate. Four specimens were It may be more widespread than our rec— Casual Forms Four species of fishes, all of large size, are too scarce in Lake Kemp to be of importance from the standpoint of fisheries management. Several spasm imens of the shortnosed gar (Lepisosteus platostomus) were taken in gill nets. This form is not typical of large lakes and probably specimens trapped by the construction of the Lake Kemp Dam have managed to breed and persist in the lake, greatly outnumbered by the very similar spotted gar (Lepisosteus productus) . I"??? m .-c latter seems to he the more successful lake fish G The blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus) is present in the lake in small numbers. Individuals of large size are occasionally reported by fishermen but some, perhaps most, of these are probably large channel catfish Clctalurus punc~ tatns.) We took but a single blue catfish in the period of the study. l ad catfish (Pilodictus olivaris) is present in Lake hemp in smal num'ers. Small specimens were reported taken occasionally by fishermen on troiin e s tudied one specimen taken in the nets of a commercial fish“ Eilfiifléillo the Kentucky Jumper (Micropterus punctulatus) has been introduced into Lake Kemp. Specimens are often reported as taken by fishermen but at least some of these are unusually brightly colored black base. We took no specimens in gill nets bot obtained one small individual from a fisherman. The true status of this species rema “he ins in ouht; we suspect it is now scarce. Species Absent from Lake Kemp Two species of large size are abundant in Lake Diversion, a few miles downstream from Lake Kemp, and are in the Wichita River just below the Lake Kemp Dam, but have never, to our knowledge, been taken in Lake Kemp. These are the longnosed gar (Lepisosteus osseus) and the smallmouth buffalo (Ictio~ bus bubalus). Two species that are rare in Lake Diversion, just below Lake EEEp, were not found at all in Lake Kemp (Hiodon alosoides and lotiobus bub“ alus.) Two species of minnows and two species of sunfishes, found in Lake Diversion, were not detected in Lake Kemp. It is assumed that either these forms were not in the river above the Lake Kemp Dam when the dam was construc~ ted (probable in most cases), were once present in Lake Kemp but have since become exterminated, or have been introduced into Lake Diversion but not Lake Kemp. It is noteworthy that a minnow (NotrOpis percobromus) was found in the river between Lake Kemp and Lake Diversion and in the river below Lake Diversion but has not been taken in either lake. Apparently this is a river form that does not survive in lakes. SUMMARY Lake Kemp is located in Baylor County, north central Texas. It is an impoundment (dam constructed in 1923) of 560,000 acre feet at spillway level. Dunng the course of this investigation (August 2M, 1953 to April 22, 195h) the lake was 30 feet or more beneath spillway level and at one time approached 50,000 acre feet in volume. The lake waters are heavily polluted with natural salts (1050 to 2100 ppm. total solids), relatively clear (turbidity 300-735 mm.) due to floccula- tion of suspended matter, and rich in plankton as a result of water clarity and intense sunlight of the semi—desert surroundings. No multicellular aquatic vegetation occurs in the lake. Twenty—six species of fishes were found in Lake Kemp. Of these, 9 are of large are and numerous enough to be important as game species of rough fish species; 13 are forage forms (minnow and sunfish types); four are of rare or casual occurrence. 0f the important forms, one is a predator (spotted gar); three are rough fish (gizsard shad, river carpsucker and EurOpean carp) and five are game or food species (channel catfish, white bass, black bass, white crappie, drum). Of 1003 fish of the large and important group, weighing 933.3h pounds, of certainly-known sex and taken in gill nets only, #0 (h%) weighing 99.7% pounds (10.7%) were gars, 711 (71%) weighing 6&8.18 pounds (69.5%) were rough fish; and 252 (25%) weighing 177.28 pounds (19%) were game fish. Four species of minnows (Notropis lutrensis, N; buchanani, N. oxyrhynchus and Hybogw nathus placita) made up 92.3h% of the 2,312 forage fishes taken in seines. Four species of fishes (shortmnosed gar, blue catfish, flathead catfish and spotted bass or Kentucky jumper) are too scarce in the lake to be important from the standpoint of fisheries management. Lake Kemp is, biologically, an old impoundment, with the rough fishes greatly outnumbering the game fishes in both numbers and weight. From the standpoint of fishermen, it is now in poor condition. It is encouraging how~ ever thatthe rough fish pepulation includes only three species. Species Large and Forage .. it _.. .. _. ._._ Wishes Lepisosteus platostomus Lepisosteus productus X Dorosoma cepedianum X m Garpiodes caiflifl X Gyprinus carpio X EL? Hybopsi mm: aestivalus X Notropis bairdii X Notropis buchanani X Notropis lutrensia X u Notropis oxyrhynchue X Elbognath3§_placita X Dimephales vigilax X m; (m=m.m ictalurus punntatus X Ictalurus furcatus Pilodictus olivaris “tum—am Funduius kansae X agzmmm. in: . 39:... §yprinodon rubrofiuviatilis X dambosia affinis X rmmmxm (gerone chrysogg X ' WJI W‘sflflm‘mm: Micropterus salmoides X Mieropterua punctuiatus m -Pomokis annularie X mum-1m Aplodinotus grunniens X _ Lawmwnmnm m_mnm_mmlm_nmn.-flmq-flm.-.w 7. Table ll. Percentage Composition and Sex Ratios of Large and Important Species of Fishes From Lake Kemp, as Determined from Gill Nets Only. Lepisosteus productus Dorosoma cepedianum Carpiodes carpio Cyprinus carpio lctalurus punctatus Mnrone chrysops Micropterus salmoides Pomoxis annularis Aplodinotus grunniens Table 111. Weights, Percentage Composition by Weight, and Mean Weights of Large and Important Fishes from Lake Kemp, as Determined from Gill Nets. . . Meee eiee’e Lepisosteus productus Lepisosteus platostomus Dorosoma cepedianum Oarpiodes carpio 530.00 56.8 1.20 Cyprinus carpio 61.58 6.6 1.01 ictalurusjpunctatus‘ 33.30 3.6 .86 A3.3l Morons chrysops Micropterus salmoides h1.08 M.M 2.7% 33.uk Pomoxis annularis Aplodinotus grunniens 26.15 2.8 3.27% n * Includes one very large specimen; weight 25-5 lbs. Fable 1?. Percentage Oomposition of Fora.ge Fishes for Lake Kemp As Determined from Seine Samples Only. my...“ imam Netiop s on chana.ni 2AA 5312‘ fietroois lutrensis 1178 hotropis oryrhvnchue 271 Pimephales vi iiaw 19 tmmu Fvboneis -t alu us 10 Bybwgnaihus placita. 53h ww‘mm my mm” Luroulu ka neae 5M LMWW! ..nr1n»dun rulrof uviatilis 7 :rfi..4=uaa.§" Nah “Is-is eff inis 11 f .. .A-.-..':.-u:_':.:z—I=n-.-nmz -.'n'.:~‘..nu_l.¢I-I-n"'. m:- nepor a how; in a u...” in»! .7813. it”: L's-a; rm: luzmrmau'lzuLm— Mr.- Lecarie megaiiiie l2 E-‘§=arg.ll_;a‘.; 11:: aw. in“: mm»... ..1:.. r::-._ ' vial-vase: I‘LL-r .‘J Tr-‘A-‘Js'num— ”I ' - :::rb:..'m:.'.'.ul\.::;u.'—‘r:..-;:D:J:mm.a'fiflrmmmmlmmmmmwmwm. -. -. . .. . STATE TPV s MAE: PROJECFE so. PM 3-3. PERIOD 5 June 15, 1953': "' May 31., 3:953 m C O R R E C T l O _ Is U) :EI'; III 9-3 Line 6J Page 5, Job Baal. Job Fw’Tw-Rwl should read [Ictiobus Syprimslfli instead sf Istio‘bus bubsl‘us. ..-- { ‘ V15“? is :J. .. w. SCOTT SCHREINER WALTER w. LECHNER. CHAIRMAN 1L $155” .. w. T. SCARBOROUGH KERRVILLE FORT WORTH C E” O'flffifi" KENEDY .51.. .' . HERMAN F. HEEP .1 - 5" FERBERT J. FRENSLEY 4 FRANK M. WOOD WICHITA FALLS ' l. w, ELLIOTT BUDA MEXIA f HQUSTON 55 TH HOWARD D. DODGEN W. .J. CUTBIRTH, JR EXECUTIVE SECRETARY AUSTIN _. AUSTIN ASS'T EXECUTIVE SEC'Jv AUSTIN . TEXAS 13TO 0” Park Rpad ”Oveflb9T 369195H We Finally got aTOUfld TO OOOOF OOadiOg TOO 1. DvojeCt anortg- Mjg1tV SOFT? TO have dO1aYed you in YO”? efForts 0 get TOOO ShhmiTTed Tn +wa HTOO and WilflliFe Service. The OTSTOHOS sOe FOw afl1 unijOOTOOT.. ROFOOOOCO To TOO OOOOOS OOO given On T’O FTOST OOOO of each “9; A11 OTOOO OOOOOTS eXOeO t FOO TO O OOOS sent bac 1:4 are O.K. 'FO e mosT TOOOOtanT OTOTOFO was ours —— not VOOOS. We F 1J1 like to have it OOOOO ctOd, anfi you can 10 as 2.501}. TFJMELSC 11(5) the ?@St. I 151.5511 ‘pmfprrfing 1-0 dOb B“1 OOOOOT, OOgO 5.?1ease change TOO word bu1m1J1.s To' 'CVOOinellls. NO w111 OOO_O _TOTO as many Oflpies as you can OFFOOd TO send NO OF 311 OOO OOOOOTO, OSOeeiO11y Job 1—1. FOOHAS FOO OveOyThTOg. Hy OOOOFO # 10010 giOs Again For bOTOO so dilaTOOy. f1 TOCOOO y youOO, ‘. huh, 'r“\ r. S. F1eOse ask W111 5£O.tt what new. TTOO31O FOO OUT TTOOO TOOTi TO H51tezchTerm. RECEWED NOV 1 71954 G. & F. COMM. GAME AND FISH COMMISSION” y HATE Y .1"; LE BLANC. SR. .355 ARTHUR A. COFFIELD AHFA