Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
WARMWATER POPULATION ASSESSMENTS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE:BLACK BASS AGE APPENDIX
(1997-2005)
Michael RacineFisheries Biologist
New Hampshire Fish & Game DepartmentRegion 4
Keene, NH 03431
2
INTRODUCTION
Black bass (Micropterus dolomieui, smallmouth and M. salmoides, largemouth) fisheryresources in the State of New Hampshire have experienced increased pressure from anglers inrecent years. The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHFGD) requires clubs andorganizations to apply for permits to hold bass tournaments and a database which tracks thesepermits has shown an increase in tournament pressure over time (Gries and Racine 2006).
New Hampshire’s black bass fish populations are highly utilized by anglers, with smallmouth and largemouth bass ranking among the top four species fished for by anglers (ResponsiveManagement 2004). Additionally,the state’s bass anglers are the most satisfied; 87% of smallmouth bass anglers and 81% of largemouth bass anglers were either very or somewhatsatisfied with their fishing experiences for these species. Strong support for special black bassmanagement regulations was also shown in the survey: 70% supported catch and release; 68%supported special length limits; 50% supported reduced bag limits; and 47% supported artificiallures and flies only (Responsive Management 1996).
According to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation,116,000 anglers fished 1.4 million days for warmwater species in New Hampshire (panfish:19,000 anglers fished 316,000 days; black bass: 97,000 anglers fished 1.084 million days) (U.S.Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S.Census Bureau 2003). The level of angler participation in black bass fishing represented 38% ofNew Hampshire’s freshwater anglers and 44% of the total days of fishing. Since the average trip expenditure for anglers fishing in New Hampshire is $24 per day, the total expenditures byanglers fishing for warmwater species equals approximately $33.6 million.
As black bass populations in the state are managed solely by natural reproduction, it is necessaryto collect population assessments to monitor their status in response to existing or proposedmanagement strategies and to ensure their continued health. Additionally, age analysis allowsfor growth comparisons among waterbodies and aids in making appropriate managementdecisions.
This report summarizes age analysis of black bass sampled in New Hampshire water bodies bythe NHFGD from 1997–2005.
METHODS
Fish Capture/Scale Collection
Fish were sampled by boat electrofishing (Smith-Root SR18 and SR12) and/or by fyke nets.Fyke nets were set for at least 2 nights before retrieval and fish were processed after capture andreleased. Boat electrofishing was conducted after sunset using two or three netters.Electrofishing equipment was adjusted according to water conductivity and observed fishbehavior relative to their position in the electrode’s field. The study design incorporated timed
3
runs using the equipment’s “on” meter time when sampling for target species (black bass or other pre-determined species) and random or community runs, to assess the other fish species inthe lake. Black bass were captured during both target and community runs. All fish were placedin a live well upon capture, processed and then released.
Fish were measured to the nearest millimeter, total length (TL), and weighed to the nearest gram.Scales were taken above the lateral line immediately behind the left pectoral fin (DeVries et al1996).
Scale Processing
All non-regenerated black bass scales (i.e. complete and normal) were pressed on acetate slides.Each slide held images of scales from a single fish and efforts were made to fit as many scales oneach slide as possible. Scale impressions were aged using a microfiche reader. Age, annulilengths, and distance to scale edge (nearest millimeter) were recorded for each fish. Roughlyone quarter of both largemouth bass and smallmouth bass were assigned a confidence rating,which acted to gauge a reader’s impression of his/her aging accuracy. They are defined as:
1 = very confident2 = confident3 = + 1 year4 = + 2 years
Data were imported into MS-Access where the Fraser-Lee method of back-calculation wasperformed on all fish 8 years old or younger and then were exported to MS-Excel. The Fraser-Lee equation is:
Li = Lc –a Si + a;Sc
Li = back-calculated length of the fish when the ith increment was formed,Lc = total length of the fish at capture,Sc = radius of scale at capture,Si = radius of scale at capture,a = intercept parameter.
The intercept parameter (i.e. correction factor; fish length at which scales begin to form) usedwas 20 for largemouth bass and 35 for smallmouth bass as suggested by Carlander (1982). Datafrom all fish without confidence ratings and from fish with ageing confidence ratings of < 3 wereused to generate average total length at age by waterbody and species. Year classes werecombined due to small sample sizes. An equal weighting method was used for each mean whendetermining final growth rate averages. Total length versus age plots in MS-Excel used averagelength at age per species and plots were fitted with a logarithmic trendline. Only values for ages< 6 were used to create the trendline in order to standardize this comparison among waterbodies.The equation for this trendline was used to obtain age at quality size (11.8 inches (300 mm) forlargemouth bass and 11.0 inches (280 mm) for smallmouth bass; Gablehouse 1984).
4
Corresponding growth per species was characterized as “slow”, “average” or “fast” using the 25th and 75th percentiles, as breakpoints, of age at quality size (11.8 inches (300 mm) forlargemouth bass; 11.0 inches (280 mm) for smallmouth bass) from waterbodies using maximumback-calculations of fish aged to 5 and 6 years old. Age at quality size determination is ofinterest to fisheries managers as it is the age at which bass reach a size favorable to anglers andallows comparisons to be made among waterbodies.
RESULTS
Scales were aged from 2,394 largemouth bass, representing 80 water bodies, and 800smallmouth bass, representing 28 water bodies.
Back-calculated Lengths at Age of Largemouth Bass and Smallmouth Bass
Mean back-calculated length at age, number of fish aged, and age at quality size varied bywaterbody and species (Tables 1a.–1c., 2 and Figures 1–108). Average maximum aged used indetermining age at quality size for largemouth bass was 5.6 (SD = 0.6, n = 79) and was 5.4 (SD= 0.8, n = 25) for smallmouth bass (Figure 109 and 110).
Statewide averages of back-calculated length at age (1997-2005) varied by species (Tables 3 and4 and Figures 111 and 112).
Black Bass Growth Categorization
Back-calculated age at quality size and corresponding correlation coefficients of the logarithmictrendline for largemouth and smallmouth bass are presented in Tables 1a.–1c. Average age toreach quality size for largemouth bass was 3.74 (SD = 0.62, n = 79) and was 4.47 (SD = 1.66, n= 25) for smallmouth bass. All largemouth bass correlation coefficients were > 0.92 for all waterbodies. Smallmouth bass correlation coefficients were > 0.90 for waterbodies having fish agedat > 4 years. The lowest correlation coefficient, 0.89 for Island Pond, only had back-calculationsfrom age one through four.
Largemouth and smallmouth bass growth categories of “slow”, “average” or “fast” are presented in Tables 5 and 6. The distribution of largemouth bass age at quality size values (n = 72 waterbodies) was normal (Shapiro-Wilk W test, P = 0.28; Figure 113). The distribution ofsmallmouth bass age at quality size values (n = 25 waterbodies) was not normal (Shapiro-WilkW test, P < 0.0001, Figure 114). These growth characterizations may allow for identification ofwaters in need of alternative management regulations. The eight waterbodies with the fastestlargemouth bass growth to 300 mm in order of increasing age were Turkey Pond, Concord(2.41), Pleasant Pond, Francestown (2.60), Crystal Lake, Gilmanton (2.70), Rainbow Lake,Derry (2.72), Bolster Pond, Sullivan (2.84), Bow Lake, Strafford (2.86), Sportsman Pond,Fitzwilliam (3.01) and Pawtuckaway Lake, Nottingham (3.06). The eight waterbodies with theslowest largemouth bass growth to 300 mm in order of decreasing age were Naticook Lake,Merrimack (5.48), Sandy Pond, Richmond (5.22), Otternick Pond, Hudson (4.99), Greenwood
5
Pond, Kingston (4.98), Willand Pond, Somersworth (4.94), Crooked Pond, Loudon (4.80), LakePotanipo, Brookline (4.79) and Little Island Pond, Pelham (4.68).
The five waterbodies with the fastest smallmouth bass growth to 280 mm in order of increasingage are Clement Pond, Hopkinton (3.00), Swains Lake, Barrington (3.14), Cunningham Pond,Peterborough (3.28), Pleasant Lake, Deerfield (3.37) and Pawtuckaway Lake, Nottingham(3.38). The five waterbodies with the slowest smallmouth bass growth to 280 mm in order ofdecreasing age are Goose Pond, Cannan (10.77), Laurel Lake, Fitzwilliam (7.31), SkatutakeeLake, Harrisville (5.68), Highland Lake, Stoddard (5.60) and Spofford Lake, Spofford (5.41).
DISCUSSION
This report summarizes age analysis of black bass sampled in New Hampshire waterbodies bythe NHFGD from 1997–2005 by listing individual waterbody’s length at age and age at length growth categorization by species and by also creating statewide averages by species. Animportant implication of this report is the potential to use the growth categorization as ascreening tool to identify poor or exceptional growth waters that could benefit from alternativemanagement strategies. There may be a need to perform more in depth studies and more detailedanalyses in future years, including year class comparisons.
Attempts were made to obtain black bass back-calculated length at age from other New Englandstates including Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, and Vermont. New Hampshire’s average back-calculated length at age for both largemouth bass (ages 1-6) and smallmouth bass (ages 1-6) were remarkably similar to those of Connecticut (Table 3 and 4). Differences in averages byage never differed by more than 12 mm for largemouth bass and 10 mm for smallmouth bass.Massachusetts did not respond to data requests and both Maine and Vermont had average lengthat capture data. Therefore, no comparisons were made with these states.
Using age at length to categorize smallmouth bass growth may be premature at this time. Notonly was the distribution of smallmouth bass age at quality size values not normal, but also thesmall sampling size of 20 waterbodies may not accurately depict the true range of bass growth inNew Hampshire.
This document is intended to be a living document with updates of individual waterbody averagelength at age results. Statewide averages should be updated periodically as data becomesavailable and time permits.
6
LITERATURE CITED
Beamish, R.J. and G.A. McFarlane. 1983. The Forgotten Requirement for Age Validation inFisheries Biology. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 112:735-743.
Boucher, David P. 1998. Precision and Relative Accuracy of Maine Black Bass Age Estimatesfrom Scales and Otolith Sections. Fisheries Progress Report Series No. 98-1. MaineDepartment of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Augusta, Maine.
Buckmeier, David L. 2002. Assessment of reader accuracy and recommendations to reducesubjectivity in age estimation. Fisheries 27, no 11: 10-14.
Campana, Steven E, Annand, M. Christina, McMillan, James I. 1995. Graphical and StatisticalMethods for Determining the Consistency of Age Determinations. Transactions of theAmerican Fisheries Society 124: 131-138.
Carlander, K.D. 1982. Standard intercepts for calculating lengths from scale measurements forsome centrarchid and percid fishes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 111:332-336.
DeVries, Dennis R. and Frie, Richard V. 1996. Determination of Age and Growth. Pages 483-512 in B.R. Murphy and D.W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition.American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Gablehouse, D. W. 1984. A length-categorization system to assess fish stocks. North AmericanJournal of Fisheries Management 4:273-285.
Gries, G. and M. Racine. 2006. Warmwater population assessments in New Hampshire (2005).F-50-R-21 Project Segment Report. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department.Concord, NH.
Jacobs R.P. and E.B. O'Donnell. 1996. An Electrofishing Survey of Selected Connecticut Lakes.Final Report. Federal aid in Sport Fish Restoration. F57R. Conn. Dept. Environ.Protection, Hartford 190pp
Schneider, James C., P. W. Laarman, and H. Gowing. 2000. Age and growth methods and stateaverages. Chapter 9 in Schneider, James C. (ed.) 2000. Manual of fisheries surveymethods II: with periodic updates. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, FisheriesSpecial Report 25, Ann Arbor.
Whitworth, Walter R. 1989. Management brief: Evaluation of Largemouth Bass GrowthEstimates Obtained from Angler-Collected Scale Samples. North American Journal ofFisheries Management 9:116-119.
7
Table 1a. Mean back-calculated length at age, total number of fish aged, logarithmic trendline correlation coefficient, age at quality size, and growth categorization for largemouthbass by water body (sample year(s) combined for 1997–2005).
Mean back-calculated length (mm) at ageNumber offish aged
Water body TownSampleYear(s) Species
MaximumAge < 8 with
CR < 4a
Maximumage used for
back-calculations 1 2 3 4 5 6 >1 5-6 R2b
Age at qualitysize
300 mmGrowth
CategorizationAngle Pond Sandown 2002 LMB 5 5 95 195 278 318 331 6 1 0.99 3.76 A
Ashuelot Pond Washington 2005 LMB 7 6 81 229 313 349 383 417 7 3 0.99 3.10 FBeaver Pond Derry 2001 LMB 6 6 70 150 252 323 365 391 16 3 0.98 3.73 A
Bellamy Reservoir Madbury 2000 LMB 8 6 91 168 233 296 348 397 19 7 0.97 3.89 ABolster Pond Sullivan 2004 LMB 6 6 101 239 313 365 400 440 21 3 1.00 2.84 FBow Lakee Strafford 1997 LMB 5 4 88 194 323 377 8 1 0.98 2.86 F
Brindle Pond Barnstead 2001 LMB 8 5 76 211 291 351 382 20 5 1.00 3.17 FCenter Pond Stoddard 2004 LMB 6 6 95 210 288 338 377 395 29 8 1.00 3.29 F
Contoocook Lake Jaffrey 1997 LMB 7 5 73 184 263 308 339 18 1 1.00 3.88 ACountry Pond Kingston/Newton 2001 LMB 7 6 81 184 240 315 351 4 2 0.99 3.85 ACrescent Lake Acworth 2003 LMB 8 6 100 194 261 309 344 361 24 5 1.00 3.87 ACrooked Pond Loudon 2000 LMB 7 5 77 162 230 273 312 33 17 0.99 4.80 SCrystal Lake Manchester 2001 LMB 8 6 86 176 280 325 360 381 13 3 0.99 3.61 ACrystal Lake Gilmanton 2005 LMB 5 5 108 226 299 383 447 3 1 0.98 2.70 F
Connecticut River Hindsdale 1998, 2002 LMB 8 6 95 173 251 303 339 399 53 11 0.99 3.71 ACunningham Pond Peterborough 1997 LMB 6 6 65 158 261 344 380 396 28 6 0.98 3.53 A
Deering Lakee Deering 1997 LMB 4 4 79 198 265 298 40 0 1.00 3.87 ADodge Pond Lempster 2004 LMB 8 6 84 187 259 316 353 391 28 12 1.00 3.67 ADorrs Pond Manchester 2001 LMB 7 6 89 190 268 304 317 337 6 1 0.98 4.23 S
Edward McDowell Lake Peterborough 2002 LMB 7 5 86 187 255 321 383 25 1 0.98 3.51 AElm Brook Pool Hopkinton 1998 LMB 8 6 75 199 285 339 393 426 50 9 1.00 3.21 F
Flints Pond Hollis 2001 LMB 8 5 82 149 235 309 333 8 1 0.97 4.33 SForest Lake Winchester 2002 LMB 7 6 83 164 286 355 396 419 47 6 0.98 3.24 FGoose Pond Canaan 2004 LMB 7 5 97 187 289 335 357 6 1 0.98 3.43 A
Gorham Pond Dunbarton 2002 LMB 7 6 86 184 256 307 340 360 23 8 1.00 3.98 AGreat Pond Kingston 2001 LMB 8 6 74 163 260 315 345 374 9 3 0.99 3.87 A
Greenwood Pond Kingston 2001 LMB 8 6 84 178 244 258 306 323 18 4 0.99 4.98 SGregg Lake Antrim 2004 LMB 7 6 86 172 255 323 372 394 16 4 0.99 3.59 A
Halfmoon Pond Barnstead 2005 LMB 7 6 80 197 289 342 389 415 8 3 1.00 3.23 FHarrisville Pond Harrisville 2005 LMB 6 6 72 185 277 323 353 359 15 4 0.99 3.76 A
a Oldest fish aged with a confidence rating of 1 to 3.b Correlation coefficient for logarithmic trendline.c “S” represents “slow” growth, “A” represents “average” growth, and “F” represents “fast” growth. See Table 7 for age at quality size categories.d Age at quality size values not ascertained due to insufficient data.e Age at quality size values should be interpreted with caution as no fish over 4 years old were aged.
8
Table 1b. Mean back-calculated length at age, total number of fish aged, logarithmic trendline correlation coefficient, age at quality size, and growth categorization for largemouth bassby water body (sample year(s) combined for 1997–2005).
Age at qualityMean back-calculated length (mm) at age
Number offish aged size
Water bodySampleYear(s) Species
MaximumAge < 8 with
CR < 4a
Maximumage used for
back-calculations 1 2 3 4 5 6 >1 5-6 R2b 300 mmGrowth
CategorizationHarvey Lake Northwood 2001 LMB 8 6 81 159 231 287 350 414 10 3 0.96 3.86 AHeads Pond Hooksett 2001 LMB 8 6 72 161 253 331 378 413 22 9 0.98 3.52 A
Highland Lake Stoddard 1997, 2005 LMB 7 6 78 191 267 317 343 368 44 9 1.00 3.80 AHopkinton Lake Hopkinton 2005 LMB 8 6 92 185 259 303 340 411 23 10 0.98 3.67 AKimball Pond Hopkinton 2005 LMB 2 2 128 298 22 0 0.97 - SLaurel Lake Fitzwilliam 2003 LMB 6 6 66 147 226 277 316 371 49 11 0.98 4.44 S
Little Island Pond Pelham 2003 LMB 7 5 75 149 226 263 333 9 4 0.97 4.68 SLong Pond Danville/Kingston 2001 LMB 8 6 72 177 265 306 334 343 11 4 0.99 4.12 S
Massabessic Lake Auburn 1997, 1999 LMB 8 6 71 172 263 319 359 406 137 79 0.99 3.61 AMassasecum Lake Bradford 1997 LMB 7 6 66 173 270 340 373 428 41 7 0.99 3.39 AMerrimack River - 1997 LMB 6 6 64 168 248 330 389 444 5 1 0.98 3.38 AMonomonac Lake Rindge 2005 LMB 8 5 102 237 309 341 374 6 2 0.99 3.07 F
Mountain Brook Res. Jaffrey 2004 LMB 5 5 79 195 269 348 393 27 1 0.99 3.24 FNashua River - 2003 LMB 5 6 84 141 216 289 348 13 8 0.94 4.38 SNaticook Lake Merrimack 2004 LMB 5 6 76 178 237 264 273 44 2 0.98 5.48 S
Northwood Lake Northwood 1997, 1999 LMB 5 5 82 187 281 349 419 22 3 0.98 3.11 FNorway Pond Hancock 2005 LMB 6 6 77 188 274 320 346 365 43 6 0.99 3.77 A
Nutts Pond Manchester 2001 LMB 6 6 83 179 242 275 306 345 9 2 1.00 4.61 SOnway Lake Raymond 2004 LMB 8 6 90 222 301 341 365 380 21 8 0.99 3.32 FOtter Lake Greenfield 2005 LMB 6 6 72 156 234 290 322 343 58 19 0.99 4.49 S
Otternick Ponde Hudson 2003 LMB 4 4 81 160 221 280 11 0 0.98 4.99 SPawtuckaway Lake Nottingham 1997 LMB 6 6 92 193 277 342 407 460 16 7 0.98 3.06 F
Phillips Pond Sandown 2002 LMB 7 6 84 174 245 292 338 348 16 2 0.99 4.24 SPine Island Pond Manchester 2001 LMB 7 6 87 174 253 324 403 434 15 3 0.97 3.32 FPleasant Lakee Deerfield 1999 LMB 4 4 61 120 225 313 3 0 0.92 4.35 SPleasant Ponde Francestown 2002 LMB 4 4 113 231 342 384 7 0 0.99 2.60 F
Poole Pond Rindge 2005 LMB 5 6 72 206 278 319 355 32 2 1.00 3.54 APotanipo Lake Brookline 2005 LMB 6 6 75 162 234 285 311 322 38 3 0.99 4.79 SRainbow Lake Derry 2001 LMB 6 6 91 247 335 387 412 440 5 1 0.99 2.72 F
a Oldest fish aged with a confidence rating of 1 to 3.b Correlation coefficient for logarithmic trendline.c “S” represents “slow” growth, “A” represents “average” growth, and “F” represents “fast” growth. See Table 7 for age at quality size categories. d Age at quality size values not ascertained due to insufficient data.e Age at quality size values should be interpreted with caution as no fish over 4 years old were aged.
9
Table 1c. Mean back-calculated length at age, total number of fish aged, logarithmic trendline correlation coefficient, age at quality size, and growth categorization for largemouth bassby water body (sample year(s) combined for 1997–2005).
Age at qualityMean back-calculated length (mm) at age
Number offish aged size
Water bodySampleYear(s) Species
MaximumAge < 8
with CR <4a
Maximumage used for
back-calculations 1 2 3 4 5 6 >1 5-6 R2b 300 mmGrowth
CategorizationRobinson Pond Hudson 2003 LMB 5 5 81 186 251 300 348 29 0 1.00 3.92 A
Sandy Pond Richmond 2002 LMB 8 6 79 142 197 250 314 331 39 1 0.96 5.22 SScobie Pond Londonderry 2001 LMB 8 6 84 162 251 292 319 363 4 4 0.99 4.25 SScott Pond Fitzwilliam 2003 LMB 5 5 82 172 266 310 332 23 2 0.99 3.95 ASip Pond Fitzwilliam 2003 LMB 7 6 85 199 246 303 341 372 27 5 1.00 3.91 A
Skatutakee Lakee Harrisville 1997 LMB 4 4 73 201 298 357 13 0 1.00 3.08 FSpofford Lake Spofford 1998 LMB 8 6 64 168 270 330 359 381 10 3 0.99 3.68 A
Sportsman Pond Fitzwilliam 2002 LMB 8 5 83 222 304 359 390 25 2 1.00 3.01 FSpruce Pond Deerfield 2001 LMB 8 6 80 149 253 312 361 396 13 4 0.97 3.75 AStevens Pond Manchester 2000 LMB 6 6 113 193 253 277 323 359 4 1 0.99 4.25 SStone Pond Marlow 2004 LMB 7 5 89 195 277 343 359 17 2 0.99 3.41 A
Suncook Lake Barnstead 1997 LMB 7 6 80 182 272 337 379 416 9 2 0.99 3.36 ASwains Lake Barrington 1997 LMB 6 6 71 174 282 351 392 426 21 3 0.99 3.26 FTuree Pond Bow 2000 LMB 7 6 76 154 244 316 354 387 44 14 0.98 3.83 A
Turkey Pond Concord 2000 LMB 6 6 140 250 346 399 445 463 19 6 0.99 2.41 FTurtletown Pond Concord 1997,99-02 LMB 8 6 79 195 278 328 362 401 169 44 1.00 3.47 A
Walker Pond Webster 2002 LMB 7 6 70 155 220 296 327 364 14 1 0.98 4.32 SWarren Lake Alstead 1997, 2003 LMB 8 6 89 197 279 317 337 356 141 24 0.99 3.83 AWash Pond Hampstead 2002 LMB 7 5 73 183 270 312 362 17 2 1.00 3.64 A
Willand Pond Somersworth 2000 LMB 8 6 76 159 220 270 304 334 14 3 0.99 4.94 SWinnipesaukee Lake,
Lees Millse Moultonboro 2004 LMB 4 4 80 210 270 351 25 0 0.99 3.25 Fa Oldest fish aged with a confidence rating of 1 to 3.b Correlation coefficient for logarithmic trendline.c “S” represents “slow” growth, “A” represents “average” growth, and “F” represents “fast” growth. See Table 7 for age at quality size categories. d Age at quality size values not ascertained due to insufficient data.e Age at quality size values should be interpreted with caution as no fish over 4 years old were aged..
10
Table 2. Mean back-calculated length at age, total number of fish aged, logarithmic trendline correlation coefficient, age at quality size, and growth categorization for smallmouth bass bywater body (sample year(s) combined for 1997–2005).
Age at QualityMean back-calculated length (mm) at age
Number offish aged Length
Waterbody TownSampleYear(s) Species
MaximumAge < 8
with CR < 4
Maximumage used for
back-calculations 1 2 3 4 5 6 >1 5-6 R2b 280 mmGrowth
CategorizationAngle Pond Sandown 2002 SMB 6 6 88 154 233 284 338 393 11 4 0.96 3.61 ABow Lake Strafford 1997 SMB 5 5 87 140 200 240 335 10 2 0.90 4.57 A
Center Pond Stoddard 2004 SMB 5 5 80 153 222 279 329 21 4 0.97 4.04 AClement Pond Hopkinton 2001 SMB 6 6 90 173 259 328 389 437 9 1 0.97 3.00 FCrescent Lakef Acworth 2003 SMB 7 6 82 161 219 276 318 339 20 0 0.99 4.13 ACrystal Lake Gilmanton 2005 SMB 7 5 92 131 226 307 359 4 1 0.91 3.64 A
Connecticut River Claremont 1998, 2005 SMB 7 6 82 165 241 304 359 389 42 13 0.98 3.42 FCunningham Pond Peterborough 1997 SMB 7 6 109 170 230 302 363 412 3 2 0.94 3.28 F
Goose Pond Canaan 2004 SMB 5 5 95 142 174 197 227 18 2 0.99 10.77 SGregg Lakee Antrim 2004 SMB 4 4 89 161 237 325 28 0 0.94 3.55 A
Halfmoon Pond Barnstead 2005 SMB 6 6 88 135 208 299 330 392 15 2 0.93 3.73 AHighland Lake Stoddard 1997 SMB 7 6 81 129 179 232 283 298 10 6 0.95 5.60 SIsland Ponde Washington 2002 SMB 4 4 77 137 187 292 29 0 0.89 5.37 SLaurel Lake Fitzwilliam 2003 SMB 7 5 89 133 187 215 254 24 3 0.97 7.31 S
Little Island Pond Pelham 2003 SMB 6 6 79 134 195 248 291 314 8 2 0.97 5.01 AMassabessic Lake Auburn 1997, 1999 SMB 7 6 86 132 191 254 312 360 41 24 0.93 4.35 AMassasecum Laked Bradford 1997 SMB 3 3 70 152 222 4 0 - - -Merrimack River - 1997, 1999 SMB 7 6 88 152 225 283 325 358 88 48 0.98 3.91 A
Monomonac Laked Rindge 2005 SMB 3 3 88 173 266 3 0 - - -Northwood Lakee Northwood 1997, 1999 SMB 4 4 78 139 218 252 43 0 0.92 3.72 A
Otter Lakee Greenfield 2005 SMB 4 4 87 140 231 295 6 0 0.95 4.04 APawtuckaway Lakee Nottingham 1997 SMB 4 4 88 159 257 326 11 0 0.95 3.38 F
Pleasant Lake Deerfield 1998, 1999 SMB 7 6 86 149 228 311 364 400 102 67 0.94 3.37 FSkatutakee Lake Harrisville 1997 SMB 7 6 80 134 185 231 268 303 41 13 0.97 5.68 SSpofford Lake Spofford 1998, 2000 SMB 9 6 80 131 182 232 277 314 125 60 0.95 5.41 SSuncook Lake Barnstead 1997 SMB 6 6 66 117 190 290 354 387 13 1 0.93 3.82 ASwains Lake Barrington 1997 SMB 7 5 91 178 281 327 361 9 1 0.99 3.14 FWarren Laked Alstead 2003 SMB 2 2 88 160 3 0 - - -
a Oldest fish aged with a confidence rating of 1 to 3.b Correlation coefficient for logarithmic trendline.c “S” represents “slow” growth, “A” represents “average” growth, and “F” represents “fast” growth. See Table 8 for age at quality size categories. d Age at quality size values not ascertained due to insufficient data.e Age at quality size values should be interpreted with caution.f 13 fish aged at age 1, 5 fish aged at age 5, and 2 fish aged at age 7.
11
Table 3. New Hampshire statewide average of Fraser-Lee back-calculated length at age (mm)for largemouth bass from 1997-2005 (n = 81) and Connecticut statewide average of Fraser-Lee back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass in exploited lakes (allow fishing) from1988-1995 (n = 72).
AGE1 2 3 4 5 6
n ave std n ave std n ave std n ave std n ave std n ave std
NH 80 83 13 80 185 29 79 265 29 79 320 31 72 357 33 52 387 36CT 94 192 267 322 364 399
Table 4. Statewide average of back-calculated length at age (mm) for smallmouth bass from1997-2005 (n = 27) and Connecticut statewide average of Fraser-Lee back-calculated lengthat age for smallmouth bass in exploited lakes (allow fishing) from 1988-1995 (n = 30).
AGE1 2 3 4 5 6
n ave std n ave std n ave std n ave std n ave std n ave stdNH 28 85 8 28 148 16 27 217 29 25 277 38 20 322 43 14 364 44CT 92 158 222 280 318 360
12
Table 5. Largemouth bass growth categorization based on 25th and 75th percentiles ofmean age at quality size (300 mm) for waterbodies using maximum back-calculations offish aged to 5 and 6 years old. Number of waterbodies used in analysis was 72.
Growth Category Mean Age at LengthFast < 3.33
Average 3.33 - 4.08Slow > 4.08
Table 6. Smallmouth bass growth categorization based on 25th and 75th percentiles ofmean age at quality size (280 mm) for waterbodies using maximum age back-calculationsof fish aged to 5 and 6 years old. Number of waterbodies used in analysis was 20.
Growth Category Mean Age at LengthFast < 3.47
Average 3.47–5.31Slow > 5.31
13
Angle Pond 2002LMB length at age
y = 154.43Ln(x) + 95.569R2 = 0.9877
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5
Angle Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Angle Pond)
Figure 1. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Angle Pond(Sandown) sampled in 2002 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
Ashuelot Lake 2005LMB length at age
y = 184.17Ln(x) + 91.579R2 = 0.9916
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Ashuelot Pond1997-2005 AverageLog. (Ashuelot Pond)
Figure 2. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Ashuelot Lake(Washington) sampled in 2005 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
14
Beaver Pond 2001LMB length at age
y = 189.76Ln(x) + 50.388R2 = 0.98
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Beaver Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Beaver Pond)
Figure 3. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Beaver Pond(Derry) sampled in 2001 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation, andstatewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
Bellamy Reservoir 2000LMB length at age
y = 169.86Ln(x) + 69.414R2 = 0.9691
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Bellamy Reservoir1997-2005 AveLog. (Bellamy Reservoir)
Figure 4. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from BellamyReservoir (Madbury) sampled in 2000 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
15
Bolster Pond 2004LMB length at age
y = 186.91Ln(x) + 104.61R2 = 0.999
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1 2 3 4 5 6
Bolster Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Bolster Pond)
Figure 5. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Bolster Pond(Sullivan) sampled in 2004 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
Bow Lake 1997LMB length at age
y = 213.54Ln(x) + 75.856R2 = 0.9759
050
100150200250300350400450
1 2 3 4
Bow Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Bow Lake)
Figure 6. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Bow Lake(Strafford) sampled in 1997 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
16
Brindle Pond 2001LMB length at age
y = 193.12Ln(x) + 77.269R2 = 0.9987
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5
Brindle Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Brindle Pond)
Figure 7. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Brindle Pond(Barnstead) sampled in 2001 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
Center Pond 2004LMB length at age
y = 171.93Ln(x) + 95.465R2 = 0.9976
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Center Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Center Pond)
Figure 8. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Center Pond(Stoddard) sampled in 2004 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
17
Contoocook Lake 1997LMB length at age
y = 168.33Ln(x) + 71.973R2 = 0.9982
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5
Contoocook Lake
1997-2005 Ave
Log. (Contoocook Lake)
Figure 9. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from ContoocookLake (Jaffrey) sampled in 1997 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Country Pond 2001LMB length at age
y = 168.04Ln(x) + 73.414R2 = 0.9884
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5
Country Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Country Pond)
Figure 10. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from CountryPond (Kingston/Newton) sampled in 2001 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendlineand equation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bassfrom 1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
18
Crescent Lake 2003LMB length at age
y = 150.2Ln(x) + 96.877R2 = 0.9975
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Crescent Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Crescent Lake)
Figure 11. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from CrescentLake (Acworth) sampled in 2003 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Crooked Pond 2000LMB length at age
y = 146.01Ln(x) + 71.092R2 = 0.9947
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5
Crooked Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Crooked Pond)
Figure 12. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from CrookedPond (Loudon) sampled in 2000 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
19
Crystal Lake 2001LMB length at age
y = 172.17Ln(x) + 79.118R2 = 0.9878
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Cyrstal Lake1997-2005Log. (Cyrstal Lake)
Figure 13. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Crystal Lake(Manchester) sampled in 2001 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Crystal Lake 2005LMB length at age
y = 207.05Ln(x) + 94.348
R2 = 0.9825
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1 2 3 4 5
Crystal Lake1997-2005 AverageLog. (Crystal Lake)
Figure 14. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Crystal Lake(Gilmanton) sampled in 2005 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
20
Ct River Setbacks - Hindsdale(1998 & 2002)LMB length at age
y = 166.59Ln(x) + 77.482R2 = 0.9774
050
100150200250300350400450500
1 2 3 4 5 6
CT R., Hindsdale1997-2005Log. (CT R., Hindsdale)
Figure 15. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from ConnecticutRiver (Hindsdale) sampled in 1998 & 2002 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendlineand equation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bassfrom 1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Cunningham Pond 1997LMB length at age
y = 197.97Ln(x) + 50.459R2 = 0.9808
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Cunningham Pond
1997-2005 Ave
Log. (Cunningham Pond)
Figure 16. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from CunninghamPond (Peterborough) sampled in 1997 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
21
Deering Lake 1997LMB length at age
y = 160.9Ln(x) + 82.421R2 = 0.9959
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 2 3 4
Deering Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Deering Lake)
Figure 17. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Deering Lake(Deering) sampled in 1997 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
Dodge Pond 2004LMB length at age
y = 171.6Ln(x) + 76.83R2 = 0.9969
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Dodge Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Dodge Pond)
Figure 18. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Dodge Pond(Lempster) sampled in 2004 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
22
Dorrs Pond 2001LMB length at age
y = 141.93Ln(x) + 95.149R2 = 0.9847
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Dorrs Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Dorrs Pond)
Figure 19. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Dorrs Pond(Manchester) sampled in 2001 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Edward McDowell Lake 2002LMB length at age
y = 180.24Ln(x) + 73.883R2 = 0.9819
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5
Edward MacDowell Lake
1997-2005 AveLog. (Edward MacDowell Lake)
Figure 20. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from EdwardMcDowell Lake (Peterborough) sampled in 2002 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmictrendline and equation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age forlargemouth bass from 1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
23
Elm Brook Pool 1998LMB length at age
y = 197.75Ln(x) + 69.225R2 = 0.9984
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1 2 3 4 5 6
Elm Brook Pool1997-2005 AveLog. (Elm Brook Pool)
Figure 21. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Elm BrookPool (Hopkinton) sampled in 1998 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Flints Pond 2001LMB length at age
y = 157.78Ln(x) + 68.826R2 = 0.9712
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5
Flints Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Flints Pond)
Figure 22. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Flints Pond(Hollis) sampled in 2001 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation, andstatewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
24
Forest Lake 2002LMB length at age
y = 200.68Ln(x) + 63.853R2 = 0.9762
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Forest Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Forest Lake)
Figure 23. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Forest Lake(Winchester) sampled in 2002 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Goose Pond 2004LMB length at age
y = 170.14Ln(x) + 90.436R2 = 0.9838
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5
Goose Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Goose Pond)
Figure 24. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Goose Pond(Canaan) sampled in 2004 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
25
Gorham Pond 2002LMB length at age
y = 157.38Ln(x) + 82.774R2 = 0.9975
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Gorham Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Gorham Pond)
Figure 25. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from GorhamPond (Dunbarton) sampled in 2002 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Great Pond 2001LMB length at age
y = 174.1Ln(x) + 64.242R2 = 0.99
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Great Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Great Pond)
Figure 26. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Great Pond(Kingston) sampled in 2001 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
26
Greenwood Pond 2001LMB length at age
y = 133.53Ln(x) + 85.698R2 = 0.9913
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Greenwood Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Greenwood Pond)
Figure 27. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from GreenwoodPond (Kingston) sampled in 2001 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Gregg Lake 2004LMB length at age
y = 180.25Ln(x) + 69.542R2 = 0.9851
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Gregg Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Gregg Lake)
Figure 28. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Gregg Lake(Antrim) sampled in 2004 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
27
Halfmoon Pond 2005LMB length at age
y = 191.48Ln(x) + 75.344R2 = 0.9977
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Halfmoon Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Halfmoon Pond)
Figure 29. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from HalfmoonPond (Barnstead) sampled in 2005 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Harrisville Pond 2005LMB length at age
y = 169.62Ln(x) + 75.527R2 = 0.9859
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Harrisville Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Harrisville Pond)
Figure 30. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from HarrisvillePond (Harrisville) sampled in 2005 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
28
Harvey Lake 2001LMB length at age
y = 181.44Ln(x) + 54.722R2 = 0.9568
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Harvey Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Harvey Lake)
Figure 31. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Harvey Lake(Northwood) sampled in 2001 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Heads Pond 2001LMB length at age
y = 197.34Ln(x) + 51.613R2 = 0.9817
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Heads Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Heads Pond)
Figure 32. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Heads Pond(Hooksett) sampled in 2001 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
29
Highland Lake 1997 & 2005LMB length at age
y = 165.06Ln(x) + 79.747R2 = 0.9971
050
100150200250300350400450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Highland Lake
1997-2005 Ave
Log. (Highland Lake)
Figure 33. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from HighlandLake (Stoddard) sampled in 1997 and 2005 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendlineand equation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bassfrom 1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Hopkinton Lake 2005LMB length at age
y = 169.94Ln(x) + 78.936R2 = 0.9785
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1 2 3 4 5 6
Hopkinton Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Hopkinton Lake)
Figure 34. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from HopkintonLake (Hopkinton) sampled in 2005 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
30
Kimball Lake 2005LMB length at age
y = 244.34Ln(x) + 128.48R2 = 1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 2
Kimball Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Kimball Pond)
Figure 35. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from KimballLake (Hopkinton) sampled in 2005 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Laurel Lake 2003LMB length at age
y = 168.21Ln(x) + 49.342R2 = 0.9821
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Laurel Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Laurel Lake)
Figure 36. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Laurel Lake(Fitzwilliam) sampled in 2003 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
31
Little Island Pond 2003LMB length at age
y = 155.08Ln(x) + 60.585R2 = 0.9687
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5
Little Island Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Little Island Pond)
Figure 37. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Little IslandPond (Pelham) sampled in 2003 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Long Pond 2001LMB length at age
y = 158.51Ln(x) + 75.558R2 = 0.9869
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Long Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Long Pond)
Figure 38. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Long Pond(Danville/Kingston) sampled in 2001 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
32
Massabesic Lake 1997 & 1999LMB length at age
y = 187.72Ln(x) + 59.058R2 = 0.9925
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Massabesic Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Massabesic Lake)
Figure 39. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from MassabesicLake (Auburn) sampled in 1997 and 1999 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendlineand equation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bassfrom 1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Massasecum Lake 1997LMB length at age
y = 202.87Ln(x) + 52.45R2 = 0.9909
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1 2 3 4 5 6
Massassecum Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Massassecum Lake)
Figure 40. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from MassasecumLake (Bradford) sampled in 1997 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
33
Merrimack River 1997LMB length at age
y = 212.53Ln(x) + 40.999R2 = 0.978
050
100150200250300350400450500
1 2 3 4 5 6
Merrimack River1997-2005 AveLog. (Merrimack River)
Figure 41. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from MerrimackRiver sampled in 1997 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation, andstatewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
Monomonac Lake 2005LMB length at age
y = 169.33Ln(x) + 110.07R2 = 0.9913
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5
Monomonac Lake
1997-2005 Ave
Log. (Monomonac Lake)
Figure 42. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from MonomonacLake (Rindge) sampled in 2005 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
34
Mountain Brook Reservoir 2004LMB length at age
y = 195.98Ln(x) + 69.32R2 = 0.9911
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5
Mtn Bk Res1997-2005Log. (Mtn Bk Res)
Figure 43. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from MountainBrook Reservoir (Jaffrey) sampled in 2004 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendlineand equation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bassfrom 1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Nashua River 2003LMB length at age
y = 163.05Ln(x) + 59.191R2 = 0.9389
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5
Nashua River1997-2005Log. (Nashua River)
Figure 44. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Nashua Riversampled in 2003 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation, andstatewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
35
Naticook Lake 2004LMB length at age
y = 126.69Ln(x) + 84.505R2 = 0.9805
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5
Naticook Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Naticook Lake)
Figure 45. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from NaticookLake (Merrimack) sampled in 2004 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Northwood Lake 1997 & 1999LMB length at age
y = 206.79Ln(x) + 65.363R2 = 0.9816
0
50100
150200
250
300350
400450
500
1 2 3 4 5
Northwood Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Northwood Lake)
Figure 46. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from NorthwoodLake (Northwood) sampled in 1997 and 1999 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmictrendline and equation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age forlargemouth bass from 1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
36
Norway Pond 2005LMB length at age
y = 165.96Ln(x) + 79.589R2 = 0.9925
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Norway Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Norway Pond)
Figure 47. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from NorwayPond (Hancock) sampled in 2005 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Nutts Pond 2001LMB length at age
y = 142.98Ln(x) + 81.339R2 = 0.9975
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Nutts Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Nutts Pond)
Figure 48. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Nutts Pond(Manchester) sampled in 2001 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
37
Onway Lake 2004LMB length at age
y = 165.33Ln(x) + 101.83R2 = 0.9853
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Onway lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Onway lake)
Figure 49. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Onway Lake(Raymond) sampled in 2004 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
Otter Lake 2005LMB length at age
y = 157.76Ln(x) + 63.115R2 = 0.9919
050
100150200250300350400450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Otter Lake1997-2005Log. (Otter Lake)
Figure 50. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Otter Lake(Greenfield) sampled in 2005 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
38
Otternick Pond 2003LMB length at age
y = 140.79Ln(x) + 73.801R2 = 0.9832
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 2 3 4
Otternick Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Otternick Pond)
Figure 51. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from OtternickPond (Hudson) sampled in 2003 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Pawtuckaway Lake 1997LMB length at age
y = 204.76Ln(x) + 70.795R2 = 0.9798
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1 2 3 4 5 6
Patuckaway Lake
1997-2005 AveLog. (Patuckaway Lake)
Figure 52. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass fromPawtuckaway Lake (Nottingham) sampled in 1997 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmictrendline and equation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age forlargemouth bass from 1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
39
Phillips Pond 2002LMB length at age
y = 153.66Ln(x) + 78.174R2 = 0.9934
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
450.0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Philips Pond1997-2005Log. (Philips Pond)
Figure 53. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Philips Pond(Sandown) sampled in 2002 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
Pine Island Pond 2001LMB length at age
y = 199.15Ln(x) + 60.764R2 = 0.9674
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1 2 3 4 5 6
Pine Island Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Pine Island Pond)
Figure 54. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Pine IslandPond (Manchester) sampled in 2001 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
40
Pleasant Lake 1999LMB length at age
y = 177.95Ln(x) + 38.221R2 = 0.9185
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 2 3 4
Pleasant Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Pleasant Lake)
Figure 55. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from PleasantLake (Deerfield) sampled in 1999 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Pleasant Pond 2002LMB length at age
y = 200.95Ln(x) + 107.83R2 = 0.9898
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4
Pleasant Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Pleasant Pond)
Figure 56. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from PleasantPond (Francestown) sampled in 2002 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
41
Pool Pond 2005LMB length at age
y = 176.02Ln(x) + 77.373R2 = 0.9968
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5
Pool Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Pool Pond)
Figure 57. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Pool Pond(Rindge) sampled in 2005 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
Potanipo Lake 2005LMB length at age
y = 145.16Ln(x) + 72.585R2 = 0.9917
0
50100
150
200250
300
350400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Potanipo Lake1997-2005Log. (Potanipo Lake)
Figure 58. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from PotanipoLake (Brookline) sampled in 2005 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
42
Rainbow Lake 2001LMB length at age
y = 195.9Ln(x) + 103.84R2 = 0.9898
0
50100
150
200250
300
350
400450
500
1 2 3 4 5 6
Rainbow Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Rainbow Lake)
Figure 59. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from RainbowLake (Derry) sampled in 2001 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Robinson Pond 2003LMB length at age
y = 163.45Ln(x) + 76.542R2 = 0.997
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5
Robinson Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Robinson Pond)
Figure 60. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from RobinsonPond (Hudson) sampled in 2003 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
43
Sandy Pond 2002LMB length at age
y = 145.66Ln(x) + 59.311R2 = 0.9613
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Sandy Pond1997-2005Log. (Sandy Pond)
Figure 61. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Sandy Pond(Richmond) sampled in 2002 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
Scobie Pond 2001LMB length at age
y = 156.41Ln(x) + 73.811R2 = 0.988
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Scobie Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Scobie Pond)
Figure 62. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Scobie Pond(Londonderry) sampled in 2001 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
44
Scott Pond 2003LMB length at age
y = 162.43Ln(x) + 76.757R2 = 0.9869
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5
Scott Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Scott Pond)
Figure 63. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Scott Pond(Fitzwilliam) sampled in 2003 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Sip Pond 2003LMB length at age
y = 158.76Ln(x) + 83.64R2 = 0.9963
050
100150200250300350400450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Sip Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Sip Pond)
Figure 64. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Sip Pond(Fitzwilliam) sampled in 2003 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
45
Skatutakee Lake 1997LMB length at age
y = 206.14Ln(x) + 68.372R2 = 0.9968
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4
Skatutakee Lake
1997-2005 Ave
Log. (Skatutakee Lake)
Figure 65. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from SkatutakeeLake (Harrisville) sampled in 1997 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Spofford Lake 1998LMB length at age
y = 185.22Ln(x) + 58.802R2 = 0.9899
050
100
150200250300
350400450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Spofford Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Spofford Lake)
Figure 66. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from SpoffordLake (Spofford) sampled in 1998 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
46
Sportsman Pond 2002LMB length at age
y = 193.69Ln(x) + 86.269R2 = 0.998
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5
Sportman's Pond1997-2005Log. (Sportman's Pond)
Figure 67. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from SportsmanPond (Fitzwilliam) sampled in 2002 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Spruce Pond 2001LMB length at age
y = 183.53Ln(x) + 57.203R2 = 0.9736
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Spruce Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Spruce Pond)
Figure 68. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Spruce Pond(Deerfield) sampled in 2001 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
47
Stevens Pond 2000LMB length at age
y = 134.04Ln(x) + 106.17R2 = 0.9882
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Stevens Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Stevens Pond)
Figure 69. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Stevens Pond(Manchester) sampled in 2000 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Stone Pond 2004LMB length at age
y = 175.79Ln(x) + 84.211R2 = 0.9916
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5
Stone Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Stone Pond)
Figure 70. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Stone Pond(Marlow) sampled in 2004 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
48
Suncook Lake 1997LMB length at age
y = 191.76Ln(x) + 67.453R2 = 0.9927
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Suncook Lake1997-2005Log. (Suncook Lake)
Figure 71. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from SuncookLake (Barnstead) sampled in 1997 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Swains Lake 1997LMB length at age
y = 205.76Ln(x) + 56.936R2 = 0.99
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1 2 3 4 5 6
Swains Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Swains Lake)
Figure 72. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Swains Lake(Barrington) sampled in 1997 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
49
Turee Pond 2000LMB length at age
y = 181.02Ln(x) + 56.706R2 = 0.9803
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Turee Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Turee Pond)
Figure 73. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Turee Pond(Bow) sampled in 2000 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation, andstatewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
Turkey Pond 2000LMB length at age
y = 187.69Ln(x) + 134.62R2 = 0.9948
0
50
100
150
200250
300
350
400
450
500
1 2 3 4 5 6
Turkey Pond1997-2005Log. (Turkey Pond)
Figure 74. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Turkey Pond(Concord) sampled in 2000 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
50
Turtletown Pond 1997, 1999-2002LMB length at age
y = 179.48Ln(x) + 76.917R2 = 0.9988
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1 2 3 4 5 6
Turtletown Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Turtletown Pond)
Figure 75. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from TurtletownPond (Concord) sampled in 1997 and 1999-2002 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmictrendline and equation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age forlargemouth bass from 1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Walker Pond 2002LMB length at age
y = 167.5Ln(x) + 54.945R2 = 0.9839
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Walker Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Walker Pond)
Figure 76. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Walker Pond(Webster) sampled in 2002 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 111).
51
Warren Lake 1997 & 2003LMB length at age
y = 152.91Ln(x) + 94.657R2 = 0.9882
0
50
100150
200
250
300350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Warren 1997, 2003
1997-2005 Trend
Log. (Warren 1997, 2003)
Figure 77. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Warren Lake(Alstead) sampled in 1997 and 2003 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Wash Pond 2002LMB length at age
y = 179.36Ln(x) + 68.353R2 = 0.9965
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5
Wash Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Wash Pond)
Figure 78. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Wash Pond(Hampstead) sampled in 2002 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
52
Willand Pond 2000LMB length at age
y = 145.43Ln(x) + 67.663R2 = 0.9948
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Willand Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Willand Pond)
Figure 79. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from WillandPond (Somersworth) sampled in 2000 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
Lees Mills, Winnipesaukee Lake 2004LMB length at age
y = 188.85Ln(x) + 77.641R2 = 0.991
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4
Lees Mills, Winni1997-2005 AveLog. (Lees Mills, Winni)
Figure 80. Average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass from Lees Mills,Winnipesaukee Lake (Moultonborough) sampled in 2004 (+ 1 SD), correspondinglogarithmic trendline and equation, and statewide average back-calculated length at agefor largemouth bass from 1997-2005 (from Figure 111).
53
Angle Pond 2002SMB length at age
y = 169.1Ln(x) + 62.725R2 = 0.9618
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Angle Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Angle Pond)
Figure 81. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from Angle Pond(Sandown) sampled in 2002 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 112).
Bow Lake 1997SMB length at age
y = 141.54Ln(x) + 65.042R2 = 0.8984
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5
Bow Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Bow Lake)
Figure 82. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from Bow Lake(Strafford) sampled in 1997 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 112).
54
Center Pond 2004SMB length at age
y = 153.35Ln(x) + 65.851R2 = 0.9748
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5
Center Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Center Pond)
Figure 83. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from Center Pond(Stoddard) sampled in 2004 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 112).
Clement Pond 2001SMB length at age
y = 196.21Ln(x) + 64.152R2 = 0.9723
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1 2 3 4 5 6
Clement Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Clement Pond)
Figure 84. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from ClementPond (Hopkinton) sampled in 2001 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 112).
55
Crescent Lake 2003SMB length at age
y = 147.67Ln(x) + 70.63R2 = 0.9881
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5 6
Crescent Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Crescent Lake)
Figure 85. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from CrescentLake (Acworth) sampled in 2003 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 112).
Crystal Lake 2005SMB length at age
y = 169.87Ln(x) + 60.333R2 = 0.9128
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5
Crystal Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Crystal Lake)
Figure 86. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from Crystal Lake(Gilmanton) sampled in 2005 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 112).
56
Ct River, Claremont 1998 & 2005SMB length at age
y = 176.23Ln(x) + 63.471R2 = 0.9819
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
CT River, Claremont
1997-2005 Ave
Log. (CT River, Claremont)
Figure 87. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from ConnecticutRiver (Claremont) sampled in 1998 and 2005 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmictrendline and equation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age forsmallmouth bass from 1997-2005 (from Figure 112).
Cunningham Pond 1997SMB length at age
y = 169.79Ln(x) + 78.271R2 = 0.9409
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Cunningham Pond
1997-2005 Ave
Log. (Cunningham Pond)
Figure 88. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from CunninghamPond (Peterborough) sampled in 1997 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 112).
57
Goose Pond 2004SMB length at age
y = 79.489Ln(x) + 91.088R2 = 0.9874
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 2 3 4 5
Goose Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Goose Pond)
Figure 89. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from Goose Pond(Canaan) sampled in 2004 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 112).
Gregg Lake 2004SMB length at age
y = 163.47Ln(x) + 73.061R2 = 0.9423
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 2 3 4
Gregg Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Gregg Lake)
Figure 90. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from Gregg Lake(Antrim) sampled in 2004 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline and equation,and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from 1997-2005(from Figure 112).
58
Halfmoon Pond 2005SMB length at age
y = 172.23Ln(x) + 53.056R2 = 0.9324
0
50
100150
200
250
300350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Halfmoon Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Halfmoon Pond)
Figure 91. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from HalfmoonPond (Barnstead) sampled in 2005 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 112).
Highland Lake 1997SMB length at age
y = 127.05Ln(x) + 61.076R2 = 0.9537
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5 6
Highland Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Highland Lake)
Figure 92. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from HighlandLake (Stoddard) sampled in 1997 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 112).
59
Island Pond 2002SMB length at age
y = 143.17Ln(x) + 59.474R2 = 0.8864
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 2 3 4
Island Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Island Pond)
Figure 93. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from Island Pond(Washington) sampled in 2002 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 112).
Laurel Lake 2003SMB length at age
y = 101.27Ln(x) + 78.616
R2 = 0.9673
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 2 3 4 5
Laurel Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Laurel Lake)
Figure 94. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from Laurel Lake(Fitzwilliam) sampled in 2003 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 112).
60
Little Island Pond 2003SMB length at age
y = 135.87Ln(x) + 61.103R2 = 0.9712
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5 6
Little Island Pond1997-2005 AveLog. (Little Island Pond)
Figure 95. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from Little IslandPond (Pelham) sampled in 2003 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 112).
Massabesic Lake 1997 & 1999SMB length at age
y = 153.35Ln(x) + 54.453R2 = 0.926
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Massabesic Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Massabesic Lake)
Figure 96. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from MassabesicLake (Auburn) sampled in 1997 and 1999 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendlineand equation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bassfrom 1997-2005 (from Figure 112).
61
Massasecum Lake 1997SMB length at age
y = 136.43Ln(x) + 66.446R2 = 0.9902
0
50
100
150
200
250
1 2 3
Massesecum Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Massesecum Lake)
Figure 97. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from MassasecumLake (Bradford) sampled in 1997 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 112).
Merrimack River 1997 & 1999SMB length at age
y = 155.14Ln(x) + 68.369R2 = 0.9752
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5 6
Merrimack River1997-2005 AveLog. (Merrimack River)
Figure 98. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from MerrimackRiver sampled in 1997 and 1999 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 112).
62
Monomonac Lake 2005SMB length at age
y = 158.17Ln(x) + 81.112R2 = 0.9697
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 2 3
Monomonac Lake
1997-2005 Ave
Log. (Monomonac Lake)
Figure 99. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from MonomonacLake (Rindge) sampled in 2005 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 112).
Northwood Lake 1997 & 1999SMB length at age
y = 168.69Ln(x) + 58.364R2 = 0.9225
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4
Northwood Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Northwood Lake)
Figure 100. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from NorthwoodLake (Northwood) sampled in 1997 and 1999 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmictrendline and equation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age forsmallmouth bass from 1997-2005 (from Figure 112).
63
Otter Lake 2005SMB length at age
y = 158.16Ln(x) + 59.349R2 = 0.9528
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 2 3 4
Otter Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Otter Lake)
Figure 101. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from Otter Lake(Greenfield) sampled in 2005 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 112).
Pawtuckaway Lake 1997SMB length at age
y = 171.03Ln(x) + 71.574
R2 = 0.9538
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 2 3 4
Pawtuckaway Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Pawtuckaway Lake)
Figure 102. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass fromPawtuckaway Lake (Nottingham) sampled in 1997 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmictrendline and equation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age forsmallmouth bass from 1997-2005 (from Figure 112).
64
Pleasant Lake 1998 & 1999SMB length at age
y = 174.56Ln(x) + 67.688
R2 = 0.9393
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Pleasant Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Pleasant Lake)
Figure 103. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from PleasantLake (Deerfield) sampled in 1998 and 1999 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmictrendline and equation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age forsmallmouth bass from 1997-2005 (from Figure 112).
Skatutakee Lake 1997SMB length at age
y = 124.63Ln(x) + 63.46R2 = 0.9698
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5 6
Skatutakee1997-2005 AveLog. (Skatutakee)
Figure 104. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from SkatutakeeLake (Harrisville) sampled in 1997 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 112).
65
Spofford Lake 1998 & 2000SMB length at age
y = 130.72Ln(x) + 59.313R2 = 0.954
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5 6
Spofford Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Spofford Lake)
Figure 105. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from SpoffordLake (Spofford) sampled in 1998 & 2000 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendlineand equation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bassfrom 1997-2005 (from Figure 112).
Suncook Lake 1997SMB length at age
y = 189.15Ln(x) + 26.506R2 = 0.9267
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Suncook Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Suncook Lake)
Figure 106. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from SuncookLake (Barnstead) sampled in 1997 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 112).
66
Swains Lake 1997SMB length at age
y = 174.02Ln(x) + 80.948
R2 = 0.9851
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5
Swains Lake1997-2005Log. (Swains Lake)
Figure 107. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from SwainsLake (Barrington) sampled in 1997 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 112).
Warren Lake 2003SMB length at age
y = 103.22Ln(x) + 88.043
R2 = 1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1 2
Warren Lake1997-2005 AveLog. (Warren Lake)
Figure 108. Average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from WarrenLake (Alstead) sampled in 2003 (+ 1 SD), corresponding logarithmic trendline andequation, and statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass from1997-2005 (from Figure 112).
67
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Maximum Age
Nu
mb
erMaximum Age w ith CR < 4
Maximum Age used for back-calculations
Figure 109. Length frequency histogram of water bodies having maximum agedlargemouth bass with a confidence rating less than 4 and maximum age used for back-calculations (n = 80).
0
4
8
12
16
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Maximum Age
Nu
mb
er
Maximum Age w ith CR < 4
Maximum Age used for back-calculations
Figure 110. Length frequency histogram of water bodies having maximum agedsmallmouth bass with a confidence rating < 4 and maximum age used for back-calculations (n = 28).
68
logarithmic trendliney = 173Ln(x) + 76.388
R2 = 0.997
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Age
Tl(
mm
)
Statewide Average
Log. (Statewide Average)
Figure 111. Statewide average back-calculated length at age for largemouth bass forwater bodies sampled from 1997 through 2005 (+ 1 SD). Number of water bodies usedin analysis was 81.
logarithmic trendliney = 157.59Ln(x) + 62.741
R2 = 0.9674
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Age
Tl(
mm
)
Statewide Average
Log. (Statewide Average)
Figure 112. Statewide average back-calculated length at age for smallmouth bass forwater bodies sampled from 1997 through 2005 (+ 1 SD). Number of water bodies usedin analysis was 27.
69
0
3
6
9
12
15
2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6
Age at Quality Size (Years)
Nu
mb
erC
aptu
red
Figure 113. The length-frequency distribution of age at quality size largemouth basspopulations sampled during 1997–2005. n = 79.
0
3
6
9
12
15
2.6 2.8 3.2 3.6 4 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6 6 6.4 6.8 7.2 7.6 8 8.4 8.8 9.2 9.6 10 10.4
10.8
Age at Quality Size (Years)
Nu
mb
erC
aptu
red
Figure 114. The length-frequency distribution of age at quality size smallmouth basspopulations sampled during 1997–2005. n = 25.
70
Acknowledgements
Travis Drudi, Stephanie Westcott, and Andy Schaefermeyer provided assistance in thefield and laboratory. Gratitude is also expressed to Steve Wheeler for his aging efforts. Iwould also like to express my appreciation to the dozens of volunteers who assisted inour warmwater sampling efforts.
