Gear specific catch rates and size structure of channel catfish in the Upper Mississippi River

Author(s):  
Colby G. Gainer ◽  
Hae H. Kim ◽  
Quinton E. Phelps

<em>Abstract</em>.—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 <em>Pylodictis olivaris</em>, channel catfish <em>Ictalurus punctatus</em>, and blue catfish <em>I. furcatus</em> 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.


<em>Abstract</em>.—Channel catfish <em>Ictalurus punctatus</em> are a major recreational and commercially important large river species. However, anthropogenic activities have heavily degraded the majority of riverine catfish habitats. To maintain catfish populations, an understanding of channel catfish early-life habitat use is necessary. We quantified habitat use of juvenile channel catfish in the middle Mississippi River from 2004 through 2007 by trawling in main channel, channel border, island, and artificial structure habitat (i.e., river training structures or wing dikes) features throughout the sampling reach (<EM>N</EM> = 878 trawls; <EM>N</EM> = 538 juvenile channel catfish). Channel catfish occurred most frequently in island and off-channel habitats. Few juvenile channel catfish were trawled in the main channel. All macrohabitat features were used by a broad size range of juvenile channel catfish, with the exception of the main channel, where only larger juvenile channel catfish were captured. Within each habitat, juvenile channel catfish catch rates were highest in sand substrate, low velocity, and shallow depths. Channel catfish in the middle Mississippi River use a variety of habitats during early life. Maintaining existing habitats, creating habitats with these attributes, and coupling this with proper management will foster sustainability of the channel catfish population at current commercial and recreational fishing levels in the middle Mississippi River.


2009 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 1487-1495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quinton E. Phelps ◽  
David P. Herzog ◽  
Ronald C. Brooks ◽  
Valerie A. Barko ◽  
David E. Ostendorf ◽  
...  

<em>Abstract</em>.—We examined spatial distribution of blue catfish <em>Ictalurus furcatus</em>, channel catfish <em>I. punctatus</em>, and flathead catfish<em> Pylodictis olivaris</em> 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.


<em>Abstract</em>.—Twenty-six Nebraska water bodies representing two ecosystem types (small standing waters and large standing waters) were surveyed during 2008 and 2009 with tandem-set hoop nets and experimental gill nets to determine if similar trends existed in catch rates and size structures of channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus captured with these gears. Gear efficiency was assessed as the number of sets (nets) that would be required to capture 100 channel catfish given observed catch per unit effort (CPUE). Efficiency of gill nets was not correlated with efficiency of hoop nets for capturing channel catfish. Small sample sizes prohibited estimation of proportional size distributions in most surveys; in the four surveys for which sample size was sufficient to quantify length-frequency distributions of captured channel catfish, distributions differed between gears. The CPUE of channel catfish did not differ between small and large water bodies for either gear. While catch rates of hoop nets were lower than rates recorded in previous studies, this gear was more efficient than gill nets at capturing channel catfish. However, comparisons of size structure between gears may be problematic.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document