Quantifying contributions to tournament catches among resident, stocked and hybrid black basses (Micropterus spp.)

Abstract

Millions of Florida bass, Micropterus floridanus Lesueur, are stocked annually into populations of largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides Lacepède, to increase trophy fish abundance. However, little effort has related the role that resultant hybrids make to angler catches. Largemouth bass were sampled from an important recreational fishery subject to extensive Florida bass stocking to address the hypothesis that anglers capture Florida bass, largemouth bass and hybrids at rates equivalent to their overall abundance in the population. Fin clips obtained from tournament angling events (n = 348) and boat‐mounted electrofishing sampling (n = 219) were screened at 38 species‐diagnostic markers and individuals were assigned to genealogical classes using Bayesian clustering algorithms. No significant differences were identified between angler and electrofishing catches providing evidence that hybridised individuals stemming from a long‐term stocking programme may constitute an important contribution to tournament angling catch.

Evaluation of Population Characteristic Differences between the Largemouth Bass and Its Backcross Following a Long‐Term Florida Bass Stocking Effort

“…2019), no differences have been observed between the proportion of FX‐LMB and LMB in the population and the proportion of these fish captured by tournament anglers (Hargrove et al. 2020). Similarly, Lutz‐Carrillo and Dumont (2012) noted no differences in angler catch rates and electrofishing catch rates of LMB hybrids and LMB in Texas reservoirs, although FLB angler catch was lower than electrofishing capture in some reservoirs.…”

“…Catchability has been demonstrated to be lower for FLB than for LMB in a pond setting (Kleinsasser et al 1990). However, in Chickamauga Reservoir, Tennessee, which has been stocked with FLB for many years and contains large numbers of FX-LMB and LMB (Hargrove et al 2019), no differences have been observed between the proportion of FX-LMB and LMB in the population and the proportion of these fish captured by tournament anglers (Hargrove et al 2020). Similarly, Lutz-Carrillo and Dumont (2012) noted no differences in angler catch rates and electrofishing catch rates of LMB hybrids and LMB in Texas reservoirs, although FLB angler catch was lower than electrofishing capture in some reservoirs.…”

“…Another study examined the catchability of FX‐LMB and other genealogical classifications and found that FX‐LMB were captured by anglers in proportion to their presence in the population (Hargrove et al. 2020). Despite extensive work that has examined differences among LMB, FLB, and F 1 hybrids, there remains a paucity of data on FX‐LMB, the dominant hybrid class observed in most systems.…”

“…One study that did include this group examined six small reservoirs in the southern portion of Arkansas and was inconclusive in finding any differences in size structure among fish with moderate or low levels of FLB alleles and pure LMB (Lamothe et al 2016). Another study examined the catchability of FX-LMB and other genealogical classifications and found that FX-LMB were captured by anglers in proportion to their presence in the population (Hargrove et al 2020). Despite extensive work that has examined differences among LMB, FLB, and F 1 hybrids, there remains a paucity of data on FX-LMB, the dominant hybrid class observed in most systems.…”