Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Do Nutrients Matter? |
| Message Subject: Do Nutrients Matter? | |||
Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | Folks who compare the growth rate of Leech Lake strain muskies in most of Minnesota with the growth rate of Wisconsin muskies in northern Wisconsin may be comparing apples floating in cider with oranges floating in water. The "alkalinity" of lakes like Leech, Cass, and Minnetonka is 140 to 150 parts per million -- THREE TIMES HIGHER than the alkalinity of lakes like Lac Courte Oreilles, Grindstone, and the Chippewa Flowage (40 to 50 parts per million). In all these lakes, alkalinity is an indirect indicator of the amount of calcium in the water. We all know that calcium is important for the growth of bone and other tissues. And people who raise fish for a living have known for decades that we can grow more fish and grow them faster in high-alkalinity lakes rich in calcium than in acidic, soft-water lakes. The near-surface rock in north central and east central Minnesota is different than the rock in most of northern Wisconsin. Except in the northeast, near-surface limestone in Minnesota makes direct contact with the water. The calcium from that limestone seeps into the water, causing many Minnesota lakes to be more productive than lakes in northern Wisconsin. Fish can grow faster there unless they're over-crowded. Talk to the guides who fish Mille Lacs, where the Minnesota DNR has stocked both Leech Lake and Wisconsin source muskellunge. Both grow fast and reach trophy size (50 inches) in Mille Lacs. It's no surprise when you consider nutrient chemistry, lake size, low tribal harvest (only 16 muskies in Mille Lacs in 1999, and NONE elsewhere), RARE use of live bait rigs, and other factors. So, do nutrients matter? Is it realistic to expect muskies in low-calcium lakes to get big IN THE SAME WAY as muskies in high-calcium lakes? Or might we expect the path to RECORD-BREAKING size in low-calcium lakes to be one of moderate growth rate and long life span? There must be something to all this, or Ed Crossman and John Casselman would not have concluded that the biggest fish on record (many from northern Wisconsin) got big by growing at a moderate rate and living a long, long time. The Minnesota State Record muskellunge is 54 pounds 0 ounces. Maybe fast growth results in shorter life span. Maybe we should preserve the genetics of a strain in Wisconsin that grows at a more moderate rate, but has demonstrated the capacity to live to record ages and sizes (many well-documented fish over 55 pounds). Maybe we should be VERY careful not to screw that up by introducing a faster-growing but shorter-lived strain of fish into northern Wisconsin -- an exotic strain that did not evolve in our lower-calcium waters. What do you think? Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward Edited by Dave N 2/17/2006 6:49 AM | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Great post Dave... Out of curiosity, what is/are the mechanism(s) by which a higher alkalinity accounts for a faster growth rate? Is it based upon increased habitat & forage (ie; a "eutrophic" effect for the ecosystem); or a anabolic effect on the fish themselves? Any ideas? Thanks. TB | ||
| MuskyMonk |
| ||
| Question, what is the alkalinity of Nancy Lake? The Mississippi strain had no problem growing quickly there. You cite the alkalinity of three lakes, what of the other lakes in Minnesotta? Are there studies on the growth rates of MS strain fish in which alkalinity was cited as an attributing factor and proven? Again, what is the alkalinity of Nancy Lake then? What of the possible fast growth strain that once inhabited (or perhaps still does) in the Chip? If memory serves me correctly, during the 1979-1986 Chip tagging study, there were fish that exhibited growth of up to 8 inches a year! And If memory also serves me correctly, I recall a 50.5"er caught on the Chip in 1998 that was aged at 11 years old. How can this be explained in such a low alkalinity water? I'll be waiting for a reply. "Some men see things the way they are and ask why. Others dream of things that never were and ask why not." A sentiment that bears repeating... | |||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | Monk, why are you asking all these diversionary questions? My question was pretty straightforward. Do nutrients matter, yes or no? I don't have time to rehash several other issues about a lake that's not even in my basin or in the native range of muskellunge in Wisconsin. I just want to know if people believe, or not, that nutrients matter. Do you have an opinion on that topic? Edited by Dave N 2/17/2006 6:48 PM | ||
| MuskyMonk |
| ||
| No, in my mind, nutrients does not matter as much as genetics. Thats my opinion. And if you will, can we agree that data supports the existance (past and maybe present) of a fast growth strain in the Chip? If you haven't already, I suggest you seak out the data from '79-86 study. It may very well help you gauge the current situation there as well as shed light on the idea that we could have a large growth strain right in our backyard. Thats the point of my post. We can have fast growers... whether they are from MN or WS... I don't care, but genetics should NOT be placed in the back of the bus when we are breeding animals. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe that water chemistry has a tremendous amount to do with growth rates, NR, success of and value at consumption of forage populations, and much more. I know what happens when my aquarium gets out of balance, and have many examples of waters I fish that are and are NOT 'well suited' chemically for rapid growth. Bass are very sensitive to this, and the largest Monster Florida Bass strain placed in northern waters don't grow worth a hoot, and in fact failed by any measure. If I remember correctly, one of the contributing factors to that failure was listed as water chemistry, among others. Are there other factors, I'm sure Dave knows all of them. It's a good point to be brought out and discussed. I know that when I had the pleasure of knowing Dr. Mora Guage, an esteemed scientist who was extremely concerned with the acid rain and natural 'leeching' of nasty metals and other compounds found naturally in the soil into Northern Wisconsin waters, I learned a bit about what that meant to our future fish populations, especially in the light of poor 'buffering capacity' of many lakes and rivers in the Northwoods in specifics. Several lakes in my area have Mercury warnings applied, and there isn't any significant source of Mercury there except the soils, presumably leeched into the waters through acid rain. Fingerpointing nasty untoward comments can please be posted elsewhere, where no one cares about the quality of the discussion. One of the contributing factors listed in works I've read about the big muskies, pike, and walleyes of Dryden, Ontario's Wabigoon is the alkalinity of that system due to the fact it was created in an area where there's a ton of erosion. I would again reference the presentation by Dr. Casselman here for excellent discussion about muskie's ultimate size potential in different waters. http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/play_wmv.asp?clip=479 | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Excellent post Steve. I completely agree with your assessment on water chemistry and nutrients in an ecosystem, re: fish genetics. But I didn't know you were a biologist and a water chemist?!?! Oh wait a minute....you aren't! You are just an intelligent fellow who takes the time to read, pay attention, ask questions & learn--without being judgemental and argumentative all the time. You guys are getting to be a RARE commodity around the musky boards these days! In my opinion you are a credit to this website, as is Mr. Neuswanger. TB | ||
| hi |
| ||
| Sorry guys but this doesn't make sense to me, let's take Lake Vermilion Minnesota, everybody knows this lake puts out big muskies every year and these fish grow fast, 50" in less than 10 years. Now Lets look at Vermilions walleyes probably the slowest growing eyes in the state. Why ? Does the alkalinity only have an effect on musky's ? | |||
| MuskyMonk |
| ||
| I apologize Steve if you thought my original post was "untoward" or "nasty", not the intention. And a final clarification; The question was asked... "Is it realistic to expect muskies in low-calcium lakes to get big IN THE SAME WAY as muskies in high-calcium lakes?" To me, the question was directed at the expectations of the lakes in WI vs. MN. Dave cited the Chip as a "low-calcium lake". I presented a set of facts, from catches on the Chip and the tagging study... that in my mind, YES it is realistic to expect similar, rapid growth as seen in MN. Saw it in Nancy lake, have evidence of it in the Chip. The tagging study I referrenced included data from over 1,600 muskies. In that study, if I recall correctly, a portion of the population on the Chip exhibited yearly growth from 5 to 8 inches. Additionally, one of the "JAWS" found on the Flowage was thought to have been aged at 15, as well as 50.5"er that was aged at 11 years old. In my mind that constituted clear evidence that the lake chemistry... at least in the Chip... was not a factor. So the question stands... was this a rapid growth strain that existed, and might still, in the Chip. I hope so, for at least the DNR might get the "right" strain when they are netting in the Spring. | |||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | tcbetka - 2/16/2006 10:33 PM Great post Dave... Out of curiosity, what is/are the mechanism(s) by which a higher alkalinity accounts for a faster growth rate? Is it based upon increased habitat & forage (ie; a "eutrophic" effect for the ecosystem); or a anabolic effect on the fish themselves? Any ideas? TB Tom, I know there is a threshhold above which increasing alkalinity does not seem to matter a great deal. At that point, the availability of phosphorus usually becomes the critical limiting factor to the production of algae, zooplanton, fish, etc. Here is some information from one "local" reference on the effects of total alkalinity on fish production: Back in 1946, J.B. Moyle published a paper in the Transactions of the American Fisheries Society entitled: "Some indices of fish productivity" (Vol. 76: 322-334). Moyle looked at the average annual yield of walleyes in Minnesota ponds and found the following relationship: With total alkalinity at 8-20 ppm (7 ponds), annual walleye yield was 19 pounds/acre. With total alkalinity at 21-40 ppm (7 ponds), annual walleye yield was 32 pounds/acre. With total alkalinity at 41-80 ppm (20 ponds), annual walleye yield was 71 pounds/acre. With total alkalinity at 81-120 ppm (15 ponds), annual walleye yield was 70 pounds/acre. (Recall that many northern Wisconsin lakes are in the 30-50 ppm alkalinity range.) According to Dr. Moyle, the greater productivity of waters of higher alkalinity did not result directly from alkalinity, but rather from phosphorus and other nutrients (like calcium) that increase along with total alkalinity. To sum it all up, higher alkalinity is more likely to be an INDICATOR than a CAUSE of higher biological productivity. I hope this helps, Tom. I'm not an expert in chemical nutrient cycling, but this provides a glimpse into that interesting realm of aquatic science. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Fascinating data on that walleye production as a function of alkalinity! I would not have imagined there would be that much of a difference. But I wonder--if this effect correlates to musky production as well, then one would expect that the WI lakes might very well produce nearly as much as the MN lakes? It should be pointed out of course that raising fish in the controlled environment of a pond is not the same as growing fish in at the ecosystem level. But I do see your point as to how there seems to be a critical point at which the slope becomes negative, and the production drops off. Now the $64,000 question... Did the walleye data indicate any significant *size* relationship to alkalinity, or was the higher productivity manifest in sheer numbers of fish? (I think you can see where I am going with this.) TB Edited by tcbetka 2/17/2006 5:17 PM | ||
| sorenson |
| ||
Posts: 1764 Location: Ogden, Ut | Nutrients absolutely matter. They matter so much in fact, that they are often the deciding factor in what SPECIES we can manage out here, let alone what strain... Most of our intensively managed systems are reservoirs, totally artificial systems. One interesting parallel that I can see is in our management of Bear Lake Cutthroat trout. Bear Lake is a hyper-oligotrophic system (about one notch more nutrient rich than distilled water). The cutthroats there are endemic and have adapted to become opportunistic feeders - they cannot pass up many meals - they grow exceedingly slow, but are quite hardy - real survivors. And they fight more like salmon than trout - real battlers. And they get pretty big - cutthroats over 10 pounds are not that uncommon. When the same strain is placed in a reservoir that is closer to mesotrophic, much more nutrient rich and consequently forage rich, these fish grow extremely fast - much faster than those in Bear Lake. BUT, they tend not to live as long. Anglers also complain about lack of fight in them. They also get introduced to a creel at a higher proportion and at an earlier age than their counterparts dwelling within Bear Lake. It's all a trade-off game; what might you be willing to give up? Some things are worth it, some are not. S. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | I wonder if there is a inverse correlation between the trophic status and the mortality of any given species within an ecosystem? I have a couple of thoughts... In a highly eutrophic environment there would be plenty of nutrients to support vegetation and plankton growth. There would be an increased forage base, and theoretically speaking, the growth of the predatory fish would be greater. However does this imply that the rate of disease is greater as well? I'll bet it probably does indeed... It just seems to me that fast growing fish may not always be the ones with the most longevity. Now consider the Shoepac (Sh) vs. Mississippi River (MR) strains of musky. As the WRMP website reports, there is some concern that the 2500 Sh-strain of muskies released into the Great Lakes will eventually pull a trojan horse to the overall musky fishery and we will end up with a bunch of little runt muskies swimming around the great lakes some years from now. However I can't help but wonder if, given enough time, those same Sh-strain muskies wouldn't some how exceed the maximum "limitations" we have imposed upon them. I mean, they have been placed into an entirely different ecosystem...who the heck knows how big they could get? If provided with more forage and exposed to less angling pressure and predation these fish, though possibly genetically "handicapped" by an inferior growth rate, may in fact live longer and thus outlive their faster-growing cousins; ultimately reaching a greater size in the process. Are the MR-strain fish healthier than their slower growing Sh-strain cousins? I wonder if there is any published study data reporting the mean age at death (from natural causes) of various musky strains? This would be interesting information. TB Edited by tcbetka 2/19/2006 8:51 AM | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | >Monk said: "No, in my mind, nutrients does not matter as much as genetics." That's like telling a human that it does't matter what you eat, drink or smoke--if all your relatives died of heart attacks, you are genetically destined to do so as well. (Doctor to patient: "Genetically, you're screwed...so live it up!" That'd go over *real* big in malpractice court!) Survey says...........NOPE! Genetic predisposition is just that--a predisposition. It is NOT written in stone. With few exceptions this has been well-documented in medicine. One's environment, lifestyle and habits (in medical terms 'risk factor modification') makes all the difference in the world. I see it every day in my line of work, and I'll wager its very similar with other species as well. You can take the best genetically-equipped muskies in existence, put them in the wrong environment and they will die just as quickly as any other strain. It isn't any ONE thing--maximum survivability is a multifactorial phenomenon. And I don't know how anyone could possibly identify *the* most important factor. TB Edited by tcbetka 2/18/2006 5:41 PM | ||
| MuskyMonk |
| ||
| TB, Again, when I address the question of "does nutrients matter"... especially to the Chip... a lake I hold near and dear... I say no. Why? Because there is historical evidence of a strain of fish in that lake that grew FAST and BIG... even in a low alkaline environment. And I wish to high heck that when Dr. Sloss does his sampling, he bounces whatever samples he draws from the Chip against Art Ross' and John Flemming's mid 50lbers... because more than likely you might ID ONE WI strain that can rival the MS strain in terms of growth. That is all I ask, and I hope they do that... it would make NO sense NOT to do that. | |||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Monk, You raise some good points. And if you look at that 'walleye productivity vs. alkalinity' data, it seems as though the alkalinity level of the Chip (40-50 ppm IIRC) is inline with that level yielding maximum walleye production. Though the range extends to 80 ppm, the lower end still does incorporate the values seen in the Chip. The confidence intervals are simply too wide in that data to be certain however. I would also be curious to see the results of the genetic studies, as you mentioned... TB Edited by tcbetka 2/19/2006 9:00 AM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'm also curious to know if the water chemistry has changed at all in the last 100 years. I know it sure has in many parts of the country, see my earlier post about the acid rain work done by Dr. Guages work in the early 80's. Monk, those fish you mention, and the growth studiers, where might I reference that work? | ||
| MuskyMonk |
| ||
| Steve, I have no clue where you might ref. those studies. I'm going off complete memory from articles I have read over the years. I would suspect though that Larry may know who would have the '79-86 tagging data. Again, going off what I recall, I believe upwards of 1,600 muskies were tagged and I thought there were over 200 recaptures. And I gather that through the recaputres, that is where the growth measurements were taken. The "JAWS" age and the other fish's age I mentioned were again, gleaned from articles written probably years ago. I tend to have a good memory when I read stuff like that... especially when the Chip is involved and topics like "world record class" fish and "15" years old are mentioned in the same breath. Believe me, I wish I had the articles and data at my fingertips to send you. Stuff like that NEEDS to be assessed when reviewing the genetics of the Chip. | |||
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |