TPWD 1953 F-7-R-1 #13: Inventory of the Species of Fishes Present in Lake Diversion, Texas

STATE Texas PROJECT NO.F«7~R-l, Job s—a PERIOD June 15, 1953 —;ME§" 31; 1955 Job Completion Report by Leo D. Lewis and Walter W. Dalquest TITIE Inventory of the Species of Fishes Present in Lake Diversion, Texas. OBJECTIVES To determine the species present and their relative abundance, as well as to determine the ecological factors influencing their distribution. TECHNIQUES USED Six collection stations were established at the lake on July 23, 1953 at sites designed to sample the varied ecological niches present. Two lOOmft. gill nets were set at each station, to sample the population of the larger fishes present. It was intended that each station should be sampled at least once every month, preferably every three weeks, for periods of two days (and two nights) at a time. These plans were adhered to except when violent storms prevented running the stations for short periods of time. The stations were run as follows: July 23—2h; July 27~28g August Bl, September 9~l05 October 12; November 3—5; November 22—23; December lh-l6, 1953 and January 5-7; February emu; March 8—10 and April 6—9, lQSh. All fishes taken in gill nets were removed and, as soon as was practicable, the specimens were identified, measured, weighed and their sex and stages of gonadal devel— opment were recorded. All ripe ovaries and filled stomachs of predacious species were preserved for laboratory analysis. All abnormalities and diseases were noted and, if pathological conditions were apparent, the tissues were removed and sectioned in the laboratory for histological examination. Detailed notes were taken with special em- phasis on environmental and ecological data. The smaller fishes were taken at irregular intervals, with % inch meshed seines, as weather conditions and equipment permitted. Specimens were preserved in formalin for laboratory examination. Variations in water level of the lake and abundance of drowned timber and brush, made it impossible to establish permanent seining stations for comparative sampling of the small fish population. FINDINGS Lake Diversion, located in Archer and Baylor Counties, Texas, is a lake of mod— erate size (3,h20 acres in area at spillway level, H0,000 acre feet in volume). It is relatively old, the dam having been constructed in l923. Its greatest length is approx— imately 7 miles; its greatest width about 3 miles and it has a shoreline of roughly 28 miles. The lake is primarily a storage reservoir, of waterintended for irrigation. 29 The source of Lake Diversion water is principally Lake Kemp. Lake Kemp is a much larger lake located eighteen miles, by river, to the westward of the Lake Diversion Dam. The water level of Lake Diversion is kept at a desired level by regulated inflow from the Lake Kemp Dam. Lake Diversion also has a small watershed of its own (See Comple- tion Report, Jab C-l). During the present study, following periods of little or no* rainfall, the water level of Lake Diversion was not permitted to drop lower than two ft. below the level of the spillway, to avoid waste of possible rainfall. Only rarely, after heavy rains, did the lake level approach the spillway level for short periods of time. . Multicellular aquatic vegetation is not abundant in Lake Diversion. Pondweeds (Potomogeton) appear in shallower waters of protected bays in the late spring and occas— ionally form masses many yards in diameter, heuomflgdense enough to impede boat traffic in some places. The submerged Chara was more difficult,to evaluate. The bottom-weed makes no trace on the surface of the water. Bottom samples (obtained with an Eckman Dredge} showed Chara to be present at or near all our collection stations. In one_area (Duck Bay), the Chara forms enormous mats over the bottom of even quite shallow water. Emergent littoral vegetation is scarce and includes only a few small stands of cattail (Typha latifolia) near the mouths of some creeks. The water quality is poor, far too ”salty” for human consumption. Dissolved solw ids ranged from l,h20 to 2,800 ppm. during the present study (see Completion Report, Job le). The flocculating effect of the salts results in relatively clear water (Seichi disk readings varied from 110 to tho mm.) Maximum clarity is seldom gained. The lake is exposed to almost constant roiling action of winds. The lake lies in semi» desert "mesquite county,” with few cloudy days. As a result of abundant sunfght and water clarity, the plankton fauna is rich in species and individuals and the lake water is highly productive. The surfacg of the open water reached temperatures as high as 3200. in summer and as low as h C. in winter. During some cold snaps, a skim of ice formed near the shore of shallow, protected waters. A total of 30 species of fishes was detected in the lake. These fall into three general-groups: species of relatively large size and which are present in numbers great enough to cause them to be important, as game species or rough fish, in fisher~ ies management; forage fishes of the ”minnow” and ”sunfish” type (sunfishes in Lake Diversion rarely exceed 100 grams in weight and are seldon taken or sought by fisher~ men), casual species, too rare to be of economic importance. Each of these groups is considered separately. Large and Important Fishes Twelve_species are considered to belong to this group. Three are predators (all gore}; four are rough fishes (giszard shad, smallmouth buffalo, river carpsucker, Euro— pean carp); and five are game fishes (channel catfish, white bass, black bass, white crappie and drum). Not all these latter are game fishes in the classical sense. Nev~ ertheless considerable effort is devoted to their capture by sports fishermen and spec~ imens taken, even of the drum, are usually eaten. The three species of gars, together, make up approximately 5.7% of the large fish population (see Tables 2 and 3 for details) and 17.2% by weight of the larger fishes of the lake. The longwnosed gar is far the more common species. The status of these fish~ as is obscure. We consider the shortunosed gar and spotted gar to be beneficial in lakes with large populations of rough fishes; the long-nosed gar may be somewhat detri— mental to game fishes (see Completion Report, Job B—h for details of food habits.) Four species make up the rough fish population of the lake. These forms are exm tremely abundant, making up, together 6h% of the large fish population and 65% of the “31lldt7fifi by weigh.t. The gissard shed is the most abunda.nt form butihe smellmouth F1 "11': 1‘; '1 A. ~-1 \ .3“. - * vs. I . hr ‘\ h‘ a)" a' " ', ',---..-\_ :3 .f" ’1‘!“ I? —1 .H“ ' .1 b firfliD and ,alpnlur'T are also e.tramely aocncaut. Toe Eur: spean faip .s ..sr common (3% of largei ish populationJ. The presence of the em ma.llmouth buffal in the .iai' is is not entirely detriocrtal for it eucourrges commercial fi is.r iermen, whoom mu.st, by law, remove from the lake all other rough fishes tekenin their nets. Some few in in viduals angle for the rough fishes in lake Diversio . Of the game fishes_, the channel ca atfish, hlaca bass and white crappie are most popular among posts fie ”hezrmen. The w. 1ite bass is also very popular but somewhat er rratic in its habits. The drum is les a desired and usually is taken incidentally to angling for CETTTTH The sports species make up, together, 31% of the large fish popw ul..ation and trust.tute lT.<T by weight of the large fish population. The white base i the .most common game fish pecies (1.5% of large fish.) Tts. abundance is not rem il.e cted in aTl :fishermens cage for it is an oponwaoer fish, rarely taken by shore ii shermen. secondwmost ponder. is the crappie This species is rarely taken in the summer months but is the winter fish on this and nearby lakes. The channel catfish is relatively scarce, as ggmpared wi.th nearby lakes, but is popular with many fishermen. There seems to be relatively littl. trotline fishing in Lake Diversbn. Black base were not ammon in our nets out may be more common than our net records indicate. Small Tlfiéfi bass, three to six inches in length, were taken in numbers in seine hauls in shal— low water. Much angling effort, especially with artificial baits, is directed to this specie The drum, as mentioned, i.s rarely sought. by anglers but is commonly taken, especiallv by persons fishirg on the bottom for ca.tfish.1t is usually considered a slight ly inferior but suitable tabl.e fish. ' ’3'; 9.2... Forage Fishes Included here are those fishes that, from their small size, are presumed to serve as f‘ood for pred.atory and game fishes. We have no evi.dence that many of them do so, (heed the young of the larger fishes are far more commonly utilized a.s food by predw ory and game fishes (saw Completion Report, dob B t). None of the forage forms cone stitute game species althougt some few oluegills (Lepomis macroehirus) attain a weight ... of more than lOO grams an.d are occasionally t.aken and saved for food by fishermen ang- ling for crappic. A total of 30 blu.eg lls was to ikeli in gill net sets but are excluded the rec ords of the larger species of fishes. Emu ”J Tiles, one species of minnow, Notropis lutren.sis made up up a .r-‘Fi ° F T W or in population. sass rvmwon was the pairoi minnvw {Pimebhales Vigiiax), 9.96T; .1. 1' goes. rwonow iNoiropi .ao iniJ, 5 1.6% the long-ar sunfish {Lepomis cecalotis), 5.9T 3f the forage f one bf: degill {spools nitrornirlsJ, }.37. None of the other eight spec1es ma.de up as hush.se 2Tb of the forage fi.*iim pole ion Sc umpde peaial meniion shi old be mad of a 1 real concentration of the pupfish {Lyprinodon tacoQoTluviar lisJ at Duck Bay in la.te September 195 On this date the water level ::;%%?:n and, along th.e margin of Duck“ say, the newly exposed shallows were covered with a dense mat o ft.he underwater weed, Chara. For several yards out from the wet ris edge ind in many small says, a few yards E??3ss, the water was quite warm to the touch and nly an inch or two deep. T as woody shairov were literally swarming with pupfishes. Sew cal thousan.d were taken in five seine drags and thousands of others could have been ken. All were small, onemthi rd to one“ half grown. Two weeks later only a few were tiioc in the same locality. These ii.s h are enclu.ded from Table h because they reprem sent a highly abnormal. concentration. To all of the other seine hauls, including more p typicai hauls fr rom Dis ck Bay, the pupfish constituted only 1.89% of the total population. Casual Forms Five species are included in this headinv, as follows: goldeye, bigmouth buf~ ?alo, stoneroller chub, flathead catfish and yellowebellied sunfish. A single mature goldeye was taken in a gill net. We have taken no other speci~ nor have we heard of specimens taken by fishermen. This species is occasionally in the Big Wichita River, below the Lake Diversion Dam. Probably the speci» cm the lake was introduced with fisherman's bait. We have heard that the bigmouth buffalo was common in Lake Diversion in the past. Ag present it is extremely rare. We took no specimens in the course of netting opera ations but commercial fishermen working on the lake took two, along with several thous- and smallmouth buffalo. The reason for the apparent decrease and present rarity of the spades is unknown. It may be unable to reproduce successfully in saline waters. A single stoneroller chub (Campostoma anomalum) was taken in the Lake. It appear— ed on the surface of the water, apparently sick or dying, during routine seining oper~ ations. Very possibly it was the escaped bait of some fisherman. The flathead catfish should, one might think, be reasonably common in Lake Di- version. We took no specimens of this species in our nets in the course of our work. One small specimen was taken on a hook by a crew member, and two specimens taken by commercial fishermen were examined. We are unable to account for the scarcity of the species but this scarcity is, we feel sure, responsible for the unpopularity of trot- lining in the lake. One specimen of the yellow—bellied sunfish was taken in a seine haul in Byrd Bay. This small individual may have been introduced mto the lake as trotline bait. The spe— ies may also be represented in the lake by a small resident population. The yellow- ‘5) bellied sunfish is rare or erratic in its occunmnme in north central Texas. Species Absent from Lake Diversion The large fish population of Lake Diversion seems to be quite representative of The spotted bass or Kentucky jumper, introduced into Lake Kemp, is absent from Lake Diversion. A shiner (Notropis oxyrhynchus) present in large num~ is {but apparently notrative) in Lake Kemp, is lacking from Lake Diversion. The black bullhead (Amieurus males) is present in the Wichia River below the Lake Diver” sion dam and in the irrigation canal below the spillway of the dam but was not taken in the lake. Another shiner {Notropis percobromus) was found in the Wichita River both.above and below the lake but never in the lake. Apparently this species is a river form, avoiding lakes. Another Shiner (N. venustus) was found in the Wichita Riv” er below the dam but not in the lake. We have noted the following species of minnows used as live bait by fishermen near the Lake Diversion Dam: golden shiner (Notemigonus chrysoleucas), fathead (Pimem phales promelas), spottail shiner (Notropis venustus), goldfish (Carassius auratus). The use of this latter is unsual in the area but the other are probably used commonly. Excess minnows are often released by fishermen. Almost certainly the three species first mentioned have been released into the lake many times. SUMMARY Lake Diversion is located in Archer and Baylor Counties in north central Texas. it is an impoundment (dam constructed in 1923) of A0,000 acre feet at spillway level. During the course of this study (July 23, 1953 _ April 20, 195A) the lake was not more than two feet below spillway level and occasionally approached spillway level. The , {35’ L ‘I {'3'} p“: evel is pt at or do lake is primarily a storage reservoir for irrip a rd 5 B 1): l .t l near spillway level v water from Lake Kemp (see C mpletion Report, The lake waters are heavily polluted pith natural salts (lA2O ~‘800 ppm. total sol~ ids), relatively clear (turbidity llO—sAO mm.) as a result of the flocculation of sus~ pended materials, and rich in plankton due to water clarity and intense sunlight of the semimdesert surroundings. Aquatic vegetation includes considerable Potomogeton and Chara. Thirty species of fishes were found in the lake. Of thse, 12 are large and numw erous enough to be important as predators, game fishes, or rough fish species. These include: longnosed gar, spotted gar, shortnosed gar, giszard shad, smallmouth buffalo, river carpsucker, European carp, channel catfish, white bass, black bass, white crappie and drum. The ga.rs make up 5. T% of the large fish population (17.2% by weight); the rough fishes oL% (65% by weight); the game fishes 31% (l7.8% by weight). The white bass and white crappie are the most abundant sports species. The forage species include 13 species. Of these a minnow (Notropis lutrensis) makes up 6(. 3% of the population, another minnow (N. buchanani) makes up 5.2%, the perm rot minnow (Pimephales vigilax) 10%, the long-cared sunfish (Lepomis megalotis) 5.9% and the bluegill (L. macrochirus) 5.3%. The other species each constitute less than 2% of the pepulation 5f small fishes. Five speCies, the goldeye (Hiodon alosoides), bigmouth buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinel— lus), stoneroller chub (Campostoma anoma.1umi, fla.thead catfish (Pilodictt 13 olivaris 5 and yellow bellied sunfish (Lepomis auritusi have been taken in the lake but are too scarce to is of economic importance. Lake Diversion is, chronologically and biologically,an ”old” lake, with the rough ish species dominating the population. Improvement of the lake for fishermen would seem to depend on selective control of the rough fish species, especially the gissard shad and carpsucker. Tabie 1. Check List of Fishes of Lake Diversion wSpssiesw._n _ w.” Large and Importast. w Forsse Fishes Lepisosteus osseus X Lepisosteus productus X _Lepisosteus platostomus X Dorosoma cepedianum X Hiodon alosoides :gctiobus cyprinellus lotiobus bubalus X _ ”(Elm (”Carpiodes carpio X : Cyprinus carpio X Phenocobius mirabilis X fEEgropis buchanani X :fiotropis deiiciosus X Sggtropis lutrensis X ; Timephales vigilas X ; Eyhognathus piacita X ;' wm‘m‘mflm f dasoostoma anomalum % ictalurus punctatus X I Eiiodictus olivaris ternary-Ian's;- l?”'t..1171dulus kans as X 'Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis X _jdaebusia affinis ' X >4 Morons chrysops ‘m mm Lepomis macrochirus X m. Table 1. Check List of Fisdes of Lake Diversion (continued) Species Large and Important Forage Fishes' ' casuQITESEEEf' Lepomis megalotis X Lepomis microlophus X Pomoxis annularis - X Aplodinotus grunniens X 8. Table 11. Percentage Composition and Sea Ratios of Large and Important Species of Fishes from Lake Diversion, as Determined from Gill Nets Only. 6 ' ” ' species ' Total t of Total s Males' ' s resales _”" Lepisosteus osseus 73 5 he 56 Lepisosteus platostomus 5 .3 60 no ' Lepisosteus productus 6 .h 33 67 Dorosoma cepedianum hh3 3O 51 A9 Ictiobus bubalus 185 12 71 29 Carpiodes carpio 287 19 60 so Cyprinus carpio M2 3 51 s9 Ictalurus punctatus 38 3 37 63 Morons chrysops 206 15 52 #8 Mieropterus salmoides #1 3 22 78 Pomoxis annularis 107 7 49 51 Aplodinotus grunniens #9 3 37 63 Table 111» Weights, Percentage Composition by Weight, and Mean Weights of Large and Important Fishes from Lake Diversion, as Determined from Gill Nets. ; species _ Weight ’ a of Total .___ Mean Weight“ g Lepisosteus osseus 228.23 lbs. 15.9 3.99 lbs. Lepisosteus platostomus 12.60 lbs. .7 2.52 lbs. Lepisosteus productus 11.27 lbs. .6 1.88 lbs. Dorosoma cepedianum 277.86 lbs. 15.h .63 lbs. Ictiobus bubalus M55.56 lbs. 25.2 a.h7 lbs Carpiodes carpio 360.9h lbs. 19.9 1 27 lbs Cyprinus carpio 81.hh lbs. u.5 1.9% lb . Ictalurus punctatus 51.56 lbs. 2.8 1 36 lbs Morons chrysops 150.62 lbs. 8.3 ' .73 1b. Micropterus salmoides M5.08 2.5 1 10 lbs Pomoxis annularis M5.06 2.5 M2 1b Aplodinotus grunniens 31.09 1.7 63 lbs Table IV. Percentage Composition of Forage Fishes of Lake Diversion, As Determined from Seine Samples Only. FPercent _t Phenocobius mirabilis h .16 Notropis buchanani 137 5.6M Notropis deliciosus 5 .20 Notropis lutrensis 1,636 67.32 Pimephales vigilax 2M2 9.96 Hybognathus placita . #5 1.85 Fundulus kansae 5 .2 Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis H6* _ 1.89 Gambusia affinis 27 1.11 Lepomis cyanellus 6 .25 Lepomis macrochirus 130*% 5.35 Lepomis megalotis lhh 5.93 Lepomis microlophus I 3 .12 -* w Several thousand pupfish were taken in Duck Bay in five seine hauls on Septem~ ber 20, 1953. Because these hauls represent a non-typical, unusual, concen— tration, the specimens are not included here. ‘ttw Not included are some thirty bluegills taken in gill nets at the established ’ gill net stations.