observations on the movements of tiansferied long- 

 eai sunfish, Lepomis megalotis (Rafinesque), with 

 those of smallmouths. Twenty-four longears were 

 trucked upstream 0.66 mile along with the small- 

 mouth bass in Experiment A. Of these longears, 

 two were recaptured 2 weeks later in their home 

 pool. Three weeks after the transfer, four were 

 still present in the upstream pool. One was 

 caught the following spring. May 17, 1951, halfway 

 between the two pools. Eleven longear sunfish 

 were moved downstream with the bass in Experiment 

 C. Four weeks later, three of the longears were 

 found back in their home pool and one was found 

 in the pool in which it had been released. Later, 

 15 longears were transferred upstream with the 

 bass in Experiment C; 2 weeks after the transfer, 

 4 of the longears were found in their home pool 

 and 4 in the upstream pool. 



The lower capacity of the longear to find its 

 way back to a home pool, as compared with that 

 of the smallmouth, may be due to a less highly 

 developed homing tendency in the longear or to 

 other differences in the physical and physiological 

 characteristics of these two species. The longear 

 and the smallmouth are quite different both in 

 body form and in general behavior. The small- 

 mouth is a strong and active swimmer, whereas the 

 longear appears to be relatively sedentary. Gerking 

 (1950) recognized this difference. He found that 

 the longear sunfish showed a strong tendency to 

 remain in the same place, but that the smallmouth 

 bass moved around more than any other species 

 under consideration. Even though the longears of 

 Jordan Creek displayed some homing ability, their 

 return to a home pool was slower than that of the 

 bass. This slow return may account for the low 

 percentage of sunfish recaptures in home pools. If 

 the sunfish, in exhibiting homing tendencies, moved 

 slowly, these fish might have been between the 

 points of release and the home pools when the 

 home pools were being inventoried and might thus 

 have escaped being collected. The conclusion 

 suggested here is that, even though both species 

 have homing tendencies, the swimming strength of 

 the smallmouth may account for its more prompt 

 return to a home pool. 



Low Water Levels as a Barrier to Movement 



Low water levels may create a barrier to the 

 homing movements of fish in a small stream such 

 as Jordan Creek. Evidence supporting this as- 

 sumption was obtained in the summer of 1951 when, 

 on August 10, seven smallmouths were taken from 



pool V, 5, and transferred 0.60 mile upstream to 

 pool VI, 8. At this time the water level in the 

 stream was low, and many of the riffles were 

 covered by less than 2 inches of water. On August 

 24, after 2 weeks of continued low water, the home 

 pool of the seven smallmouths was examined. 

 None of the transferred bass was recaptured. On 

 August 29, local rains raised the water level in 

 the creek a few inches and this rise held for a 

 24-hour period, when the water again dropped to the 

 former low level and remained low for 7 more weeks. 



On September 28, 7 weeks after the fish were 

 moved upstream, the home pool was reworked; ap- 

 parently only one bass had returned. About the 

 same time, September 27, the pool that had received 

 the transferred bass also was examined; two of the 

 seven bass were recaptured there, and they were 

 still there on October 17. Both of these fish had 

 been marked in their home pool the year previous 

 to their transfer. 



Because the movements of these seven trans- 

 ferred smallmouths are still being followed, only 

 tentative conclusions about them can be drawn now. 

 From these tentative conclusions, which are quite 

 different from those of Experiments A, B, and C 

 cited above, three statements can be made at this 

 time: There was no return to the home pool prior 

 to a temporary rise of the stream; after the rise, 

 occurring 19 days after transfer, the percentage of 

 returns was low (one of seven fish); there was a 

 greater tendency for the bass to remain at the new 

 place of release (two of seven fish) than in the 

 earlier experiments. 



The extended period of low water was the 

 only apparent influence that upset the return of 

 these bass to their home pool. Shallow riffles 

 would have been difficult and dangerous for them 

 to pass. After having been confined to a new 

 area by low water, their drive to return to the home 

 pool may have been lost or reduced to such a level 

 that they were satisfied to remain in anew territory. 



Discussion 



In the Jordan Creek homing experiments with 

 smallmouth bass, certain important limitations 

 should be recognized. 



1. The calculated rate of return of smallmouth 

 bass to their home pools may have been lower than 

 the actual rate of return for the following reasons: 

 a. As determined by repeated tests, under 

 average conditions the efficiency of the electric 

 seine in collecting smallmouth bass in Jordan 

 Creek ranged from 65 to 80 per cent in individual 



