Comparison of Growth, Body Weight, and Contribution to Recreational Creel of Channel Catfish and Channel Catfish × Blue Catfish Hybrids in Two Public Put–Grow–Take Fisheries in Kansas

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben C. Neely ◽  
Sean T. Lynott ◽  
Jeff D. Koch
Keyword(s):  
Body Weight ◽  
Channel Catfish ◽  
Blue Catfish

Relative Harvestability by Angling of Blue Catfish, Channel Catfish, and Their Reciprocal Hybrids

1981 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Tave ◽  
Andrew S. Mcginty ◽  
Jesse A. Chappell ◽  
R. O. Smitherman
Keyword(s):  
Channel Catfish ◽  
Blue Catfish ◽  
Reciprocal Hybrids

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

2011 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Population Dynamics ◽  
Channel Catfish ◽  
Mississippi River ◽  
Upper Mississippi River ◽  
Catch Per Unit Effort ◽  
Blue Catfish ◽  
Resource Monitoring ◽  
Flathead Catfish ◽  
Unit Effort ◽  
Catch Rates

<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.

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

2011 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Ictalurus Punctatus ◽  
Channel Catfish ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Growth Data ◽  
Blue Catfish ◽  
Brown Bullhead ◽  
Black Bullhead ◽  
Flathead Catfish ◽  
The North ◽  
Shared Environmental Factor

<em>Abstract</em>.—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 <em>Ictalurus punctatus</em>, blue catfish <em>I. furcatus</em>, flathead catfish <em>Pylodictis olivaris</em>, brown bullhead <em>Ameiurus nebulosus</em>, and black bullhead <em>A. melas</em>, 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 <em>r </em><sup>2 </sup> = 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.

scholarly journals Channel catfish ovarian fluid differentially enhances blue catfish sperm performance

2020 ◽  
Vol 149 ◽  
pp. 62-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.N. Myers ◽  
A.J. Bradford ◽  
V.S. Hallas ◽  
L.L. Lawson ◽  
T.E. Pitcher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Channel Catfish ◽  
Blue Catfish ◽  
Ovarian Fluid
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document