A Review of Marking and Tagging Methods for Blue Catfish, Channel Catfish, and Flathead Catfish

Abstract.—Using Long Term Resource Monitoring Program data collected from impounded (Pool 26) and unimpounded (Open River) reaches of the upper Mississippi River, we investigated population dynamics of flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris, channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus, and blue catfish I. furcatus from random sites located in side channel border (SCB) and main channel border (MCB) habitats. Objectives were to (1) compare trends (1993–2007) of three catfishes collected in Pool 26 and Open River reaches of the upper Mississippi River, and (2) provide needed information to managers on population dynamics through time using a binary gear approach of active (i.e., daytime electrofishing) and passive gears (hoopnetting). Active gears resulted in a higher catch per unit effort (CPUE) of all catfishes in each habitat–reach combination as compared to passive gears. Passive gears resulted in negligible catches of blue catfish and flathead catfishes (e.g., mean of <1 fish/net night). Catch per unit effort using active gear resulted in a greater number of channel catfish captured in Pool 26 compared to the Open River, with Open River SCB habitat having the lowest CPUE in most years. Blue catfish in the Open River had a higher CPUE using active gear as compared to Pool 26, with the Open River MCB having the greatest CPUE. Flathead catfish had a higher CPUE in MCB habitat compared to SCB habitat, with the Open River MCB having the highest CPUE in most years. However, declining trends in flathead catfish appears to be occurring in Open River habitats while trends in flathead catfish appear to be slightly increasing in Pool 26. The most common length-classes captured were substock and stock-sized fish regardless of habitat, species, or reach. Trends for channel catfish were easily determined due to high catch rates; however, more monitoring and enhanced sampling is needed to accurately assess flathead catfish and blue catfish trends and to accurately determine demographics for all three species.

Download Full-text

Conservation, Ecology, and Management of Catfish: The Second International Symposium

Conservation, Ecology, and Management of Catfish: The Second International Symposium ◽

10.47886/9781934874257.ch56 ◽

2011 ◽

Keyword(s):

Ictalurus Punctatus ◽

Channel Catfish ◽

Large Scale ◽

Growth Data ◽

Blue Catfish ◽

Brown Bullhead ◽

Black Bullhead ◽

Flathead Catfish ◽

The North ◽

Shared Environmental Factor

Abstract.—Growth rates are a core characteristic of catfish populations that are of increasing research interest. However, few studies have synthesized growth data across catfish populations and species to examine large-scale drivers of catfish growth. Here, a metaanalysis of growth was conducted for channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus, blue catfish I. furcatus, flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris, brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus, and black bullhead A. melas, and relationships were documented between growth and climate variables, hydrologic habitats (lentic versus lotic), and latitudinal countergradients (a tendency for faster subannual growth in the north). Blue catfish, black bullhead, and brown bullhead growth correlated significantly and positively with temperature metrics. Blue catfish, flat-head catfish, and brown bullhead growth also correlated significantly and positively with sunshine fraction, wind speed, and evapotranspiration. Channel catfi sh growth did not correlate to any climate metrics. After removal of growth effects related to climate, blue catfish and brown bullhead had significantly faster growth in lotic than lentic habitats. Channel catfish and black bullhead had faster growth in lentic than lotic habitats. Flathead catfish showed no difference in growth between hydrologic habitat types. After standardizing growth by postsexual maturation age and the thermal opportunity for growth, significant and highly predictive countergradient growth relationships (mean r 2 = 0.47) were found for all five species across sites (i.e., faster temperature-standardized growth in more northerly populations). Slopes of these relationships did not differ among species, suggesting similar responses to latitude. There may be a genetic basis for countergradient growth in catfishes that developed over evolutionary scales via selection by a shared environmental factor. Catfish growth is variable within and among species but can be intensely shaped by all three primary factors evaluated in this study.

Download Full-text

Population characteristics and potential factors influencing recruitment variability of blue catfish, channel catfish and flathead catfish in Thunderbird Reservoir, Oklahoma

Lakes & Reservoirs Research & Management ◽

10.1111/lre.12390 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 27 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Austin D. Griffin ◽

Richard A. Snow ◽

Michael J. Porta

Keyword(s):

Channel Catfish ◽

Population Characteristics ◽

Blue Catfish ◽

Flathead Catfish ◽

Factors Influencing ◽

Recruitment Variability ◽

Potential Factors

Download Full-text

Conservation, Ecology, and Management of Catfish: The Second International Symposium

Conservation, Ecology, and Management of Catfish: The Second International Symposium ◽

10.47886/9781934874257.ch43 ◽

2011 ◽

Keyword(s):

Channel Catfish ◽

Mississippi River ◽

A Priori ◽

Blue Catfish ◽

Flathead Catfish ◽

Sand Bars ◽

Longitudinal Gradients ◽

Gravel Bars ◽

Catch Rates ◽

Local Variability

Abstract.—We examined spatial distribution of blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus, channel catfish I. punctatus, and flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris at macro-, meso-, and microscales in the unimpounded Mississippi River between its mouth and the mouth of the Missouri River (river kilometer 1,847). Fish collections represented 1,309 trotlines fished at 154 river segments in 1997–2009. Blue catfish was the most abundant catfish species, followed by channel catfi sh and flathead catfish. At the macroscale level, we tested for longitudinal gradients along five a priori reaches ranging in length from 154 to 595 km. Blue catfish and flathead catfish generally decreased in upriver reaches, whereas channel catfish were abundant at the two extremes of the river span and least abundant in middle reaches. Species catch rates at the mesoscale level varied across nine habitat types with catch rates of blue catfi sh highest along natural banks; channel catfish highest in dikes, main channel edge, and gravel bars; and flathead catfish highest in articulated concrete mattresses/riprap and steep sand bars. Percentage contribution to variance in catch rate apportioned by each spatial scale differed across species but was always highest at the macroscale level, indicating greater spatial dependence at this scale. Site-specific mesoscale and microscale conditions account for local variability in abundances and are important in allocating effort in sampling programs. However, considering macroscale has the greatest influence over catfish populations, it is at this broad-scale level that management may be most effective.

Download Full-text

Conservation, Ecology, and Management of Catfish: The Second International Symposium

Conservation, Ecology, and Management of Catfish: The Second International Symposium ◽

10.47886/9781934874257.ch5 ◽

2011 ◽

Keyword(s):

Ictalurus Punctatus ◽

Channel Catfish ◽

Sampling Technique ◽

Missouri River ◽

Minimum Length ◽

Commercial Fishing ◽

Blue Catfish ◽

Public And Private ◽

Flathead Catfish ◽

Sport Fish

Abstract.—Catfish have provided sustenance for Missouri inhabitants since prehistoric times, and their abundance and large size capabilities contribute to a popular sport fishery. Catfish were first propagated in state fish hatcheries and stocked in public and private waters in 1911. The Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) began intensive rearing of channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus in 1938. Since 1942, fingerling channel catfish have been used in MDC’s private impoundment stocking program. In the early 1960s, MDC initiated production of advanced fingerling channel catfish (>20.3 cm) for stocking in small public lakes. Catchable-size channel catfish (>30.5 cm) are provided for kids’fishing clinics and the urban fishing program where angler effort is as high as 30,000 h/ha. Blue catfish I. furcatus and flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris were first reared for stocking in public impoundments in 1978 and 1983, respectively. Commercial markets currently exist for channel catfish, flathead catfish, and blue catfish harvested from the Mississippi and St. Francis rivers. Catfish have comprised 21% of the commercial fish harvest since commercial fishing reports became a requirement in 1945. Channel catfish aquaculture has been a viable commercial industry in Missouri since the 1950s. The first official state sportfishing regulation established for catfish was a seasonal restriction in 1928 followed by a 30.5-cm minimum length limit for channel catfish in 1933. Separate daily sport fish bag limits are in effect for flathead catfish, blue catfish, and channel catfish. Currently, catfish are the most preferred sport fish group in Missouri. Most (75%) catfish anglers prefer to fish for channel catfish, most are harvest-oriented, and more than 80% prefer to fish with rod and reel. Competitive fishing for catfish began in the early 1980s, with most tournaments held on the Missouri and Mississippi rivers and associated lower tributary streams. Major management achievements include banning commercial catfishing on the Missouri River and developing an effective sampling technique for monitoring channel catfish populations in small public lakes. Current fisheries management efforts are directed by a statewide plan and primarily focused on measuring exploitation, growth, movement, and fecundity of blue catfish and flathead catfish in the Missouri River, upper Mississippi River, and associated tributaries, and growth and exploitation of blue catfish and flathead catfish in two large reservoirs.

Download Full-text

Conservation, Ecology, and Management of Catfish: The Second International Symposium

Conservation, Ecology, and Management of Catfish: The Second International Symposium ◽

10.47886/9781934874257.ch57 ◽

2011 ◽

Keyword(s):

Growth Rate ◽

Logistic Regression ◽

Channel Catfish ◽

Data Sets ◽

Eastern United States ◽

Blue Catfish ◽

Age Bias ◽

Logistic Regression Models ◽

Flathead Catfish ◽

Pectoral Spine

Abstract.—Otoliths have been shown to provide more accurate ages than pectoral spine sections for several catfish populations, but sampling otoliths requires euthanizing the specimen, whereas spines can be sampled nonlethally. To evaluate whether, and under what conditions, spines provide the same or similar age estimates as otoliths, we examined data sets of individual fish aged from pectoral spines and otoliths for six blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus populations (n = 420), 14 channel catfish I. punctatus populations (n = 997), and 10 flathead catfish Pylodictus olivaris populations (n = 947) from lotic and lentic waters throughout the central and eastern United States. Logistic regression determined that agreement between ages estimated from otoliths and spines was consistently related to age but inconsistently related to growth rate. When modeled at mean growth rate, we found at least 80% probability of no difference in spine- and otolith-assigned ages up to ages 4 and 5 for blue catfish and channel catfish, respectively. For flathead catfish, an 80% probability of agreement between spine- and otolith-assigned ages did not occur at any age due to high incidence of differences in assigned ages even for age-1 fish. Logistic regression models predicted at least 80% probability that spine and otolith ages differed by ≤ 1 year up to ages 13, 16, and 9 for blue catfish, channel catfish, and flathead catfish, respectively. Age-bias assessment found that mean spine-assigned age differed by less than 1 year from otolith-assigned age up to ages 19, 9, and 17 for blue catfish, channel catfish, and flathead catfish, respectively. These results can be used to help guide decisions about which structure is most appropriate for estimating catfish ages for particular populations and management objectives.

Download Full-text