Observations on Spruce Creek

[silverfox]

Ever since the thread about PAFBC using wild trout funds on Spruce Creek in the Caverns section, I've been paying close attention to the activities on that small stretch. Here's what I've observed lately.

Being fall, the spawn is on and there has been a lot of spawning activity in the cavern stretch directly above the bridge designating the lower boundary. There were a few large (giant really) stocked brookies that built redds and spawned there. While they were spawning, some large wild and stocked browns along with some large stocked rainbows were feeding off the eggs from the brookies while they were spawning.

Next, the wild browns took over the same redds that the brookies built and spawned in those redds. The brookies disappeared, but the big rainbows stayed and ate the brown eggs as they were being laid.

Now, as of just a few days ago, the rainbows took over those same redds and the browns were staged directly below the rainbows eating their eggs.

Most of the large rainbows are covered in a white fungus. There were several large dead browns in the water. The other day when I was there most are gone but there is still one large dead brown just up from the bridge. I took a picture of a rainbow that is probably close to 24 inches long up from the white house that's head was completely covered in white fungus. I don't think it can see and I don't think it's going to make it much longer.

There were more browns in there covered in fungus but they're gone now (maybe dead). Mixed in with all the big fish are several small browns that seem to be doing well and feeding on eggs.

One of the most obvious things about this little stretch of stream is the redd location. It's just up from the bridge and there is really no other spawning going on in that stretch. Basically, the fish identified the best location for their redds and all 3 species used that same spot. There are 3 big redds but one is the primary one that they've all been using. There are no redds upstream or down as far as I could see.

This brings up a few interesting points. 1) what will the proposed "stream improvements" do to the spawning situation? If they disrupt that one prime spot, my guess is that nothing will spawn in that area again. 2) what good will habitat do if non-native species and stocked trout constantly eat the previous spawn's eggs?

Somewhat unrelated, I came across a "habitat improvement" project on another stream recently. I'm not sure when this was done, but it was somewhat recently. This section of the stream had 3 good (naturally occurring) holding areas for big wild browns. Now there are none (they were torn out). There were a few small wild browns using the area, but no big fish like there used to be. In my opinion, whoever installed these lunker bunkers and dug out the stream ruined more habitat than they created.

 

[Dave_W]

Some interesting observations - thanks for the update.

Not sure what to make of it (the weird spawning stuff - not the stream improvement project complaint).

The spawning may amount to nothing. I think most of us have witnessed stockies going through the spawning motions... often in off season, and in sloppy comical manner.

On the other hand...
It's common to see wild RTs and STs (brook trout) spawning in Big Spring on the exact same redds, although in this case the RTs spawn first and the STs come along later in the winter and use the same gravel. These are fully wild fish and generally very successful at spawning (especially the STs) and the local consensus is that the fall spawning RTs in Big Spring are recently descended from hatchery escapees.

Might the Spruce Creek activity described here produce some wild progeny? I've caught many tiny wild RTs down in the Harvey section and I've long suspected that they were a result of spawning efforts by pellet fed stockies, which are common to see spawning in the fall.


Thoughts?

How 'bout the fungus? Might it be related to low water levels? Overpopulation of overfed fish in a small area?

 

[Acristickid]

That they will move out of that tiny public stretch and onto more suitable spawning areas.

 

[silverfox]

Dave_W wrote:
Some interesting observations - thanks for the update.

Not sure what to make of it (the weird spawning stuff - not the stream improvement project complaint).

The spawning may amount to nothing. I think most of us have witnessed stockies going through the spawning motions... often in off season, and in sloppy comical manner.

On the other hand...
It's common to see wild RTs and STs (brook trout) spawning in Big Spring on the exact same redds, although in this case the RTs spawn first and the STs come along later in the winter and use the same gravel. These are fully wild fish and generally very successful at spawning (especially the STs) and the local consensus is that the fall spawning RTs are recently descended from hatchery escapees. Might the activity described here produce some wild progeny?


Thoughts?

How 'bout the fungus? Might it be related to low water levels? Overpopulation of overfed fish in a small area?

That's interesting. I've seen the opposite in terms of species on Big Spring (St first then RT) but that could just be because they spawn so close together that something may trigger one species ahead of the other and it may change from year to year?

I do know that the modified light cycle from hatchery-raised RT "sticks" with them. In other words, being in the wild for several years doesn't change their spawning time.

My concern and this is across all streams with sympatric populations, is that the resulting spawn success is likely diminished because of the reuse of redds by multiple species one right after another. I'm sure they're digging up previously laid eggs in the process of reusing the redd. I'm sure the spawning RT could result in wild RT in Spruce. It certainly has the water quality

I think you're right on the fungus. I know that's a naturally occurring species in the streams across the country and infestation in trout is usually a sign of some stressor on the trout. The low water this year and/or population density could play a role. I've seen it in varying degrees all over the place, but it seems really bad at Spruce this year. Some fish are covered from head to tail.

 

[Fredrick]

Curious if the fungus will die when the water temps get colder . Cant say that I've ever seen a fish with fungus on it in the winter time .

 

[PennKev]

silverfox wrote:
1) what will the proposed "stream improvements" do to the spawning situation? If they disrupt that one prime spot, my guess is that nothing will spawn in that area again. 2) what good will habitat do if non-native species and stocked trout constantly eat the previous spawn's eggs?

These questions, particularly #2, seem to be asked in a way that assumes that the Indian Caverns stretch exists in a bubble. Yes, this one spawning area might be altered or eliminated, but it is not the only place on Spruce that fish spawn. Eliminating this spawning area for the sake of improving year-round habitat for trout on a public stretch is probably a worthwhile trade. Also, why should we assume the habitat improvements won't create new spawning sites? Doing so would seem at least a little premature. Lastly, your use of "non-native species" terminology suggests that you think this habitat improvement is or should be targeted towards brook trout. I don't see how that would even be remotely possible given the uncontrollable numbers of wild and stocked fish throughout the rest of the creek. Additionally, I don't ever recall seeing anything that would indicate the voluntary wild trout funds would prioritize brook trout.

 

[tomgamber]

Fredrick wrote:
Curious if the fungus will die when the water temps get colder . Cant say that I've ever seen a fish with fungus on it in the winter time .

Wondering how much the temps fluctuate on a spring creek...I've known several that stayed in the 50s all year long.

Regardless, (with no evidence to back it up) If the crud was introduced by stocked fish. It'll probably come back. Bigger question is, is the "fungus" harmful?

 

[Dave_W]

Another possible explanation for the fungus is just spawning stress.

These fish may just be plum used up and exhausted from their efforts and may have incurred weakened immune systems.

It's not uncommon to see some rough looking or dead trout after the spawn.

 

[Mike]

Dave has the most logical explanation. Additionally, Saprolignia fungus is generally considered to be present in all freshwater systems. It most commonly takes advantage of fish under stress, and often appears in locations where the slime layer has been damaged or removed, as occurs during spawning. This can also occur as a result of other agnostic activities, damage during foraging activities, and damage during migration, including local movements in low water conditions. In addition, it often appears on dead fish eggs. I would not be concerned about occasional fish with fungus, especially at this time of the year.

 

[JackM]

"agnostic activities?"

I have to ask.

 

[greenghost]

Mike wrote:
Dave has the most logical explanation. Additionally, Saprolignia fungus is generally considered to be present in all freshwater systems. It most commonly takes advantage of fish under stress...

Agreed. Trying to create an artificial big-fish stream by heavily stocking large fish in a relatively small watershed-- no matter how fertile-- has got to add stress to all inhabitants of the stream. Add a year of low flow and "Viola!", fungus galore.

To be honest, between the uncalled for stockings, agricultural pollutants, and other assaults on the waterway, I'm surprised Spruce Creek has survived as well as it has. I suppose that its high alkalinity and abundant springs have been its saving grace... like so many other waterways in the Karst geological region.

 

[rrt]

agonistic

 

[larkmark]

Let's hope they don't screw it up with " improvemens". I honestly wonder how much research is done before these projects are put in.
As for Big Spring, I certainly don't think it is looking all that great the last couple years. Not sure what is happening in there. There is no where near the number of big fish and fish numbers overall seem down. Everytime I look up in the ditch there are less fish.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

agonistic: opposite of antagonistic. An agonist is a chemical that binds to a receptor and activates the receptor to produce a biological response.

Regarding the fungus, it seems dog food does not promote a good slime layer. :lol:

 

[Mike]

Yes, agonistic. Darn computer changed the word and I didn’t see that it had done so. In animal behavior agonistic behavior involves the interaction within or between species in establishing or selecting territories, lies, personal spaces, mates, etc. It does not necessarily involve contact, as posturing can be enough to establish a territory or chase off the competition. The advantage to that is that there is no possibility of physical damage, meaning that both individuals get to potentially contribute to the gene pool in the future. There is a fine line between agonistic behavior and breeding behavior in trout.

 

[silverfox]

Dave_W wrote:
Another possible explanation for the fungus is just spawning stress.

These fish may just be plum used up and exhausted from their efforts and may have incurred weakened immune systems.

It's not uncommon to see some rough looking or dead trout after the spawn.

That's my bet too. All 3 species trying to spawn in one small area with a lot of fighting and jockeying for position going on is likely leading to stress and physical damage that's manifesting in the fungi infestation. I would think the size of the fish might play a role too. The smaller fish all look fine. It's the abnormally large ones that seem to be suffering. The fighting and breeding activities probably take a bigger toll on those large specimens.

 

[silverfox]

PennKev wrote:

silverfox wrote:
1) what will the proposed "stream improvements" do to the spawning situation? If they disrupt that one prime spot, my guess is that nothing will spawn in that area again. 2) what good will habitat do if non-native species and stocked trout constantly eat the previous spawn's eggs?

These questions, particularly #2, seem to be asked in a way that assumes that the Indian Caverns stretch exists in a bubble. Yes, this one spawning area might be altered or eliminated, but it is not the only place on Spruce that fish spawn. Eliminating this spawning area for the sake of improving year-round habitat for trout on a public stretch is probably a worthwhile trade. Also, why should we assume the habitat improvements won't create new spawning sites? Doing so would seem at least a little premature. Lastly, your use of "non-native species" terminology suggests that you think this habitat improvement is or should be targeted towards brook trout. I don't see how that would even be remotely possible given the uncontrollable numbers of wild and stocked fish throughout the rest of the creek. Additionally, I don't ever recall seeing anything that would indicate the voluntary wild trout funds would prioritize brook trout.

Assuming there would be a loss of spawning sites in that stretch would still result in a net loss. i.e., there are X number of spawning sites in the stream currently. There's a reason the fish chose that site. Removing it may cause them to chose another site, but why wouldn't they use that new site currently if it's just as good?

Regarding non-native, I admit, I think of everything in terms of native fish. So I've already got a sour taste toward streams like Spruce that should be a brook trout stream by all rights.

Ironically, there are fish barriers on spruce already, so it would be a perfect stream to restore to native fish habitat. It's not impossible at all. That kind of thing is done out west all the time. It's just not in fashion in the East yet.

 

[troutbert]

silverfox wrote:

Somewhat unrelated, I came across a "habitat improvement" project on another stream recently. I'm not sure when this was done, but it was somewhat recently. This section of the stream had 3 good (naturally occurring) holding areas for big wild browns. Now there are none (they were torn out). There were a few small wild browns using the area, but no big fish like there used to be. In my opinion, whoever installed these lunker bunkers and dug out the stream ruined more habitat than they created.

Where was this?

 

[PennKev]

Assuming there would be a loss of spawning sites in that stretch would still result in a net loss. i.e., there are X number of spawning sites in the stream currently. There's a reason the fish chose that site. Removing it may cause them to chose another site, but why wouldn't they use that new site currently if it's just as good?

This is only relevant if spawning activity and spawning areas are a limiting factor in Spruce Creek as a whole. My experiences fishing the Harvey stretch and the I.C. stretch lead me to believe it is not an issue and the creek is capable of producing more juvenile fish than it can support. I've caught plenty of juvenile browns, but much more so in the Harvey section where year-round holding habitat is superior. The spawning habitat at I.C. is not worth much if those fish have no where to live and grow.

The I.C. section is relatively short and, IMO, poor habitat overall. A single spawning site located there tells us very little about trout spawning in the majority of stream which cannot easily be seen by the general public. I would bet that there are many such areas on the creek.

 

[silverfox]

PennKev wrote:

Assuming there would be a loss of spawning sites in that stretch would still result in a net loss. i.e., there are X number of spawning sites in the stream currently. There's a reason the fish chose that site. Removing it may cause them to chose another site, but why wouldn't they use that new site currently if it's just as good?

This is only relevant if spawning activity and spawning areas are a limiting factor in Spruce Creek as a whole. My experiences fishing the Harvey stretch and the I.C. stretch lead me to believe it is not an issue and the creek is capable of producing more juvenile fish than it can support. I've caught plenty of juvenile browns, but much more so in the Harvey section where year-round holding habitat is superior. The spawning habitat at I.C. is not worth much if those fish have no where to live and grow.

The I.C. section is relatively short and, IMO, poor habitat overall. A single spawning site located there tells us very little about trout spawning in the majority of stream which cannot easily be seen by the general public. I would bet that there are many such areas on the creek.

You're right. I'm not sure how successful these fish are in there with all the egg predation. I'm sure the fry get eaten by the pellet heads pretty quickly too.

All of this is moot with all the stocking in there. There's nothing natural about that stream at this point, so they might as well install a bunch of fake stream structures there. I just wish they wouldn't use wild trout donation funds.