Skip to main navigation Skip to main content

Frequently Asked Questions about Florida Bass

The Kentucky Department of Fish Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) is often asked about Florida Bass and whether they would be a good fit for stocking in Kentucky waters. The Department has considered this proposition for many years, and at this time we have no plans to stock Florida Bass or their hybrids into Kentucky waters. This position is based on decades of research in other states, and with both Kentucky bass anglers and our native bass populations in mind. Although the research does suggest there is a small chance of growing some larger bass initially, the best available evidence suggests that Florida Bass and their hybrids would grow more slowly than our native northern Largemouth Bass in our Kentucky climate. In fact, a small pilot study conducted at our Minor Clark Fish Hatchery showed that northern Largemouth Bass grew faster than the Florida Bass when placed in the same ponds. Furthermore, Florida Bass will readily hybridize with northern Largemouth Bass and the large body of research conducted in other states suggests that mixing the genetics of our bass with non-native Florida Bass would negatively and irreversibly affect the growth, survival, and reproductive ability of our bass populations in the long run.

There are always new revelations in science so the KDFWR’s position on Florida Bass will be continuously reevaluated as new research is conducted both in our state and in other states. Currently, the department is conducting studies to more precisely determine the genetics of the Largemouth Bass in our public waters, and we have a team of biologists set up and reviewing that information as it becomes available. Stocking of new or different genes into Kentucky waters is a topic the Department takes very seriously as stewards of the Commonwealth’s fish and wildlife resources. Once non-native fish species that will hybridize with native species are released, the results are irreversible. Based on research to date, the risk outweighs any potential benefit.

KDFWR compiled the following frequently asked questions with answers about Florida Bass for those wishing to learn more about the biological background on this topic. At the end of many of the questions and answers, there is a link to expand a "Scientific Basis" section that references peer-reviewed studies (research projects that followed standard scientific protocols and whose results were reviewed and approved by outside experts) summarizing the biological basis for the answer. This information was researched and produced by a team of KDFWR fisheries biologists with expertise in biology and management of black bass. If you have further questions about Florida Bass, please contact your local fisheries district biologist. This document is also available as a PDF. (Florida Bass FAQ PDF)

Thank you for your interest in bass fishing and conservation. We wish you great fishing!

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is a “Florida Bass”? Is it a separate species from northern Largemouth Bass?
2. Do we have Florida Bass in Kentucky?
3. How do I know if I have caught a Florida Bass?
4. Do Florida Bass grow bigger and faster than our native northern Largemouth Bass?
5. How quickly do Florida Bass grow?
6. Are Florida Bass harder to catch than northern Largemouth Bass?
7. Will Florida Bass hybridize with native northern Largemouth Bass in Kentucky?
8. What is an “F1”? What does “hybrid” mean? What are “tiger bass”?
9. Are Florida Bass x northern Largemouth Bass hybrids better than the two parent species?
10. What is outbreeding depression, and is there evidence that it occurs when you stock Florida Bass where northern Largemouth Bass already occur?
11. Does a higher percentage of Florida Bass genetics in a population mean it is going to grow bigger bass?
12. Can Florida Bass survive in Kentucky? What about the F1's?
13. Is Kentucky stocking Florida Bass or F1's into any of its lakes?
14. Have stockings of Florida Bass or F1's by other states been successful?
15. How are Tennessee and other states deciding where to stock Florida Bass?
16. Why not stock Florida Bass or F1's in Kentucky? What have we got to lose?
17. Does Kentucky already have a low percentage of Florida Bass genetics in some of its lakes, and if so doesn’t that mean it wouldn’t hurt to stock more Florida Bass in those lakes?
18. Did the low levels of Florida Bass genetics already in some Kentucky waters get here naturally?
19. Is the percentage of Florida Bass genetics in Kentucky’s lakes known?
20. Is it legal for private individuals to stock public waters (lakes, rivers, and streams)? What about stocking Florida Bass or F1's in private water bodies?
21. Are there any other species of bass we can stock to improve our fishing in Kentucky?

1. What is a “Florida Bass”? Is it a separate species from northern Largemouth Bass?

Answer:
Yes. Florida Bass are a distinct species. While there has been some disagreement in the past about whether Florida Bass are separate from northern Largemouth Bass, ichthyologists (biologists who study fish genetics and taxonomy) now recognize them as two distinct species. Florida Bass are native to peninsular Florida and some areas of the coastal plain in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina.

Click here for Scientific Basis:

Though some recent fish identification books list Florida Bass as a subspecies of northern Largemouth Bass (Page and Burr 2011, Robins et al. 2018, Robison and Buchanan 2020), these publications simply repeat the accepted science at the time of publication. In more recent studies, ichthyologists who are specifically researching the genus Micropterus have concluded that they are two distinct species.

Kassler et al. (2002) concluded that they are separate species and suggested Micropterus floridanus to refer to the Florida Bass, and Micropterus salmoides to refer to the northern Largemouth Bass. Their genetic analysis comparing these 2 species showed fixed allelic differences on several different loci, differences in haplotypes and the mitochondrial DNA showed a greater divergence than has been observed between Smallmouth Bass (M. dolomieu) and Spotted Bass (M. punctulatus; Kassler et al., 2002). The study by Kassler et al. examined 5 Florida water bodies as Florida Bass are generally considered to be native to peninsular Florida with the mouth of the St. Johns River forming its northern-most range.

More recently, Kim et al. (2022) conducted a large-scale genetic analysis of the black bass species (Micropterus genus) using modern collections as well as museum specimens and concluded that 19 distinct black bass species exist, including Florida Bass and Largemouth Bass. The study authors also investigated the historical origins of their scientific names and sugested that the most appropriate nomenclature would be Micropterus salmoides to refer to the Florida Bass and Micropterus nigricans to refer to the northern Largemouth Bass. They described the native range of Florida Bass to extend from peninsular Florida to the Atlantic coastal plain in Georgia, South Carolina, and part of North Carolina, with intergrade zones (natural or introduced) the the north and west.

An American Fisheries Society (AFS) and American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (ASIH) Joint Committee on Names of Fishes recognizes Florida Bass and Largemouth Bass as two distinct species and have adopted the nomenclature as suggested by Kim et al. (2022). The two species will be included in the forthcoming 8th edition of the list of common and scientific names of fishes (Page et al., in press), which the authoritative reference for all described and taxonomically valid fish species in North America.

Return to Top

2. Do we have Florida Bass in Kentucky?

Answer:
Generally, no, we do not have any pure Florida Bass in Kentucky; however, some genetics from Florida Bass are present in bass populations here. In recent years, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) has been stocking pure Florida Bass in several locations throughout the Tennessee River system (including Kentucky Lake), so it is highly likely that some individuals (or their offspring) have crossed into Kentucky waters and hybridized with our native northern Largemouth Bass. Also, it is possible that individuals have unlawfully put Florida Bass or Florida Bass hybrids in other waterbodies in Kentucky.

Click here for Scientific Basis:

Return to Top

3. How do I know if I have caught a Florida bass?

Answer:
The only way to know for sure is with a genetic analysis. Physical features like coloration, size, or other features are unreliable indicators. This is particularly true if it is a hybrid between a northern Largemouth Bass and a Florida Bass.

Click here for Scientific Basis:

Return to Top

4. Do Florida Bass grow bigger and faster than our native northern Largemouth Bass?

Answer:
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. This has been evaluated in several scientific studies over the years and the results have been mixed. The general conclusion is that it depends on the geographic location and is strongly influenced by prey availability. Generally speaking, Florida Bass tend to grow better in the southern U.S., while northern Largemouth Bass tend to grow better in the northern U.S.

Click here for Scientific Basis:

Return to Top

5. How quickly do Florida Bass grow?

Answer:
There is no standard or reliable average growth rate for Florida Bass. The most important factors are prey availability and water temperature. It is common to hear claims of two pounds or more of growth per year when discussing Florida Bass. In many cases, these are unique examples designed for marketing purposes where the bass were raised in unrealistically ideal situations, such as ponds with a super-abundance of prey fish or ponds with only female bass, which have been shown to reach larger sizes than males and will grow even faster when the female can’t reproduce. In reality, growth rates of Florida Bass in natural systems will vary based upon location, water temperature and prey availability.

Click here for Scientific Basis:

Return to Top

6. Are Florida Bass harder to catch than northern Largemouth Bass?

Answer:
Yes, this has been demonstrated in many studies.

Click here for Scientific Basis:

Return to Top

7. Will Florida Bass hybridize with native northern Largemouth Bass in Kentucky?

Answer:
Yes, the two species will readily interbreed in the wild. There are some differences in the timing of their spawns (Isely et al 1987; Rogers et al. 2006) which might influence the extent to which they will hybridize, but if they are in the same body of water, some of them will naturally interbreed and produce offspring.

Click here for Scientific Basis:

Return to Top

8. What is an F1? What does a “hybrid” mean? What are “tiger bass”?

Answer:
An F1 is the first generation resulting from the cross of two different parent species. For instance, when a pure northern Largemouth Bass breeds with a pure Florida Bass, the offspring will be considered F1's. If those F1's then breed, their offspring will be considered F2, then the F2 offspring would be F3, and so on. After many generations of breeding and backcrossing, the exact generation number is often unknown.

A “Tiger bass” is simply a trademark name for the Florida Bass x northern Largemouth Bass F1's developed by a specific private hatchery in Alabama.

A “hybrid” is a less specific term and could refer to any mix of two or more species, such as a Florida Bass x northern Largemouth Bass hybrid, or a “meanmouth” Largemouth Bass x Smallmouth Bass hybrid. A hybrid could even be a mix of two stocks of the same species from two different geographic areas, such as the offspring of a northern Largemouth Bass from Illinois and northern Largemouth Bass from Wisconsin. A hybrid could be an F1 with an even mix of both species or stocks, or it could be a later generation with much more mixed genetics.

Return to Top

9. Are the Florida Bass x northern Largemouth Bass hybrids better than the two parent species?

Answer:
In some cases, yes, in others no. It depends on where the fish is located and whether it is an F1 or the later generations of back crosses. F1’s have been shown to perform better in some locations, but in most studies the later generations lose that advantage and exhibit much slower growth, survival, or reproduction. In lakes with existing populations of Florida Bass or northern Largemouth Bass, this creates a situation where short-term advantages from stocking F1 hybrids turn into long-term disadvantages when they breed with the existing population and create inferior offspring in later generations.

Click here for Scientific Basis:

Studies showing hybrids perform better:
There is some evidence suggesting that the first generation or F1 hybrids experience what is called “hybrid vigor” and will experience faster growth rates in some situations. Two-year-old F1 hybrids were shown to grow faster than pure Florida Bass or pure northern Largemouth Bass in test ponds in Texas (Kleinsasser et al. 1990).

Studies showing hybrids perform worse:
Negative effects have also been shown from hybridizing Florida Bass and northern Largemouth Bass, as well as, simply mixing stocks of northern Largemouth Bass from different geographical areas. This evidence suggests that mixing any bass from different states results in a wide variety of negative effects known as outbreeding depression (see Question 10). Researchers in Illinois tested this by collecting northern Largemouth Bass from Wisconsin, Illinois, and Texas, as well as Florida Bass from Florida. They then placed equal numbers from all states into test ponds in Wisconsin, Illinois, Texas, and Florida to see how well the each of those stocks of fish would do when stocked together in different areas of the country. In each location, the native fish stock had superior rates of growth, survival, and reproductive fitness (Philipp et al 2002). In other words, in Florida, the Florida Bass outperformed the fish from the other three states. In Texas, the Texas northern Largemouth Bass outperformed the bass from the other three states. In Wisconsin, the bass from the other 3 states didn’t even survive long enough for growth to be estimated. In the Illinois ponds, they were also able to monitor the results of the bass from all 4 states after interbreeding. The resulting “interbred” population had a more than 50% reduction in reproductive fitness compared to the pure Illinois sourced northern Largemouth Bass. In other words, the locally adapted bass, even if they were technically the same species as bass from other areas, performed the best because they were the most adapted to the local conditions.

In test ponds in Champaign, Illinois, the native northern Largemouth Bass were shown to survive better and exhibited faster second and third year growth than pure Florida Bass and F1 hybrids (Philipp and Whitt 1991).

In another study, the hybrid offspring of northern Largemouth Bass from two different geographic locations were found to have a higher susceptibility to Largemouth Bass Virus than the two parent populations, suggesting that the mixing of those two bass stocks compromised the immune system of their offspring (Goldberg et al. 2005).

A similar study, by Cooke and Philipp 2005, found that the offspring of northern Largemouth Bass transplanted from Wisconsin which interbred with an Illinois northern Largemouth Bass required longer times to recovery after cardiovascular activity.

Studies showing mixed results:
While some studies have shown better growth in the first generation F1 crosses, once those F1’s breed and produce F2 or later generations, the growth benefits seem to disappear. An extensive study of reservoirs previously stocked with Florida Bass in Arkansas was able to compare the ages and sizes of pure Florida Bass and their hybrids within Lake Monticello. They found evidence that the pure Florida Bass reached the largest sizes, and that F1 female bass grew larger and lived longer, but the later generation crosses did not grow as large or live as long. They speculated that the smaller sizes seen in the later backcrossed generations could be caused by outbreeding depression (Lamothe et al. 2016). This supports the idea that the F1’s can grow faster when in a suitable climate, but the short-lived gains seem to go away or reverse with the later generational backcrosses. Unfortunately, there is no way to prevent the natural creation of these later generational back crosses if two species or stocks of bass are living in the same water body.

Return to Top

10. What is outbreeding depression, and is there evidence that outbreeding depression occurs when you stock Florida Bass with northern Largemouth Bass?

Answer:
While it is common to hear that increasing genetic diversity is a good thing, that is not always the case. Outbreeding depression is when cross-breeding of two genetically distant groups or populations (such as northern Largemouth Bass and Florida Bass) results in a reduction of fitness among offspring. Basically, if two individuals are too distantly related, their offspring may be poorly adapted to their immediate environment. There are several studies that have shown outbreeding depression occurs when different bass species or geographically distant strains of the same bass species are crossed, resulting in offspring that grow slower, have lower survival, compromised immune systems, and reduced reproductive ability. Typically these negative effects are most obvious in the second or later generations of offspring.

Click here for Scientific Basis:

Outbreeding depression occurs in one of two ways 1) either through loss of adaptive capability or 2) the disruption of coadapted gene complexes (Cooke and Philipp 2006; Hallerman 2003; Philipp et al. 2002; Templeton 1986; Thornhill 1993). For example, when non-native Florida Bass were stocked along with native northern Largemouth Bass in Illinois, their offspring showed reduced growth rates and a 50% drop in reproduction compared to the pure native northern Largemouth Bass (Phillip et al. 2002). Outbreeding depressions can cause loss of genomes that assist the stock into adapting to local conditions (Fields et al. 1987; Philipp and Claussen 1995; Koppelman et al. 1988 cited by Philipp et al. 2002), and increased susceptibility to infectious diseases (Goldberg et al. 2005). Outbreeding depression is the opposite of “hybrid vigor” or increased fitness resulting from hybridization. Predicting which crosses will be successful has proven difficult and is considered a “hit or miss proposition” (Edmands and Timmerman 2003; Tave 1992).

In general, translocated populations of a species (such as Florida bass in Kentucky) perform more poorly than native populations. Illinois tried to introduce Florida bass in the late 1980s into the early 1990s which did provide a short-term boost to their populations, but over time there has been documentation that the local adaptations and fitness levels are reduced compared to stocks of largemouth bass that are geographically close, but which have no introduced Florida genomes (Phillip and Claussen 1995). Similar results were found in Texas and Minnesota. When crossed, the hybridized individuals typically show impaired performance at the F2 generation (Templeton 1986; Burke and Arnold 2001).

Outbreeding depression has also been observed in other freshwater species. Black crappie and white crappie often hybridize naturally, buth their offspring have been shown to have much lower reproductive ability (Hooe et al. 1994). Hybrids of sunfishes have also shown very strong outbreeding depression. Redear sunfish x green sunfish hybrid offspring have been shown to be 99% male, which results in extremely reduced reproduction in the F2 generation (Heidinger and Lewis 1972).

Return to Top

11. Does a higher percentage of Florida Bass genetics in a population mean it is going to grow bigger bass?

Answer:
The overall percentage of Florida genetics within a population of bass can be determined by testing a large sample size of bass in a water body. This has become a popular way of determining the survival and contribution of Florida Bass stocked into northern water bodies. The percentage of Florida Bass genetics in a water body is commonly expressed as the “average percentage of Florida Bass alleles” (Hargrove et al. 2019). A higher percentage of Florida alleles in a population doesn’t necessarily lead to bigger bass in that water body. There are many lakes with more than 50% Florida Bass alleles that have never produced big bass, whereas other lakes with a relatively high percentage of Florida Bass alleles have shown an increase in the number of trophy bass after supplemental stockings of Florida Bass. Furthermore, stockings in some water bodies fail to show any results at all. However, most studies have indicated that only the pure Florida Bass or first-generation hybrids contribute to higher numbers of trophy bass and only when they are stocked in suitable climates and with adequate prey populations (food availbility). Also, the F2 and later-generation hybrids do not grow as quickly and may grow slower than either parent species.

Click here for Scientific Basis:

Return to Top

12. Can Florida Bass survive in Kentucky? What about the F1's?

Answer:
It is likely that if pure Florida Bass or F1's were to be stocked in Kentucky, then some percentage would survive, based on studies in other states like Illinois (Philipp et al 2002), Oklahoma (Gilliland 1992), and Virginia (Dan Wilson, personal communication). However, based on those same studies, it is also likely that they would have lower survival and reproductive potential than our locally adapted northern Largemouth Bass. The evidence also suggests that they might grow slower than our native strains. Survive? Yes. Thrive? Not likely.

Return to Top

13. Is Kentucky stocking Florida Bass into any of its lakes?

Answer:
No, KDFWR has not intentionally stocked Florida Bass or F1 hybrids nor does the department have plans to stock Florida Bass (or any other non-native black bass species) into Kentucky waters.

Return to Top

14. Have stockings of Florida bass by other states been successful?

Answer:
Yes and no. Successes have been limited to lower latitudes (southern states) and results have varied greatly between water bodies. Short-term success has been linked with climate as well as the productivity and prey resources of the water body. The evidence for long term success is sorely lacking, with several studies suggesting diminishing returns or even possible negative long-term effects on native bass populations.

Click here for Scientific Basis:

Return to Top

15. How are Tennessee and other states deciding where to stock Florida Bass?

Answer:
Stocking decisions are often based on some combination of science, and constituent desires with each state and even each water body being somewhat unique. Generally speaking, bass stocking sites are chosen based on existing trophy fish potential, meaning lakes with poor bass growth potential are not targeted for stocking (Tibbs 2008), and/or new or newly renovated lakes are usually given priority (Hughes and Wood 1995). Climate is also an important factor fisheries biologists use in prioritizing stocking locations. Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have focused stockings in portions of their states with suitable climates for Florida Bass. More northern states like Missouri, Illinois, and Ohio have all stated that they will not be stocking Florida Bass into public waters (personal communication). While high trophy potential is the primary reason for most stocking site selections, there are likely some biologically unsuitable waterbodies that have been stocked mainly due to pressure from constituents.

Click here for Scientific Basis:

In the early days of Florida Bass stockings, they were done experimentally without much knowledge of whether they would succeed or about the potentially harmful genetic impacts, but as the years have gone by, biologists have learned much about the conditions that can lead to successful Florida Bass stockings. The best experimental work was done in Oklahoma by Gene Gilliland in 1992, and what he found was that the Florida Bass stockings worked well in the southern portion of Oklahoma but not in the northern portion. The climate metric he recommended for determining future stockings was the cumulative number of heating-degree days in a year. If a lake experienced an average cumulative number of heating degree-days less than 3400, then the climate was likely warm enough to see good survival and growth of Florida Bass. If a lake often has more than 3400 cumulative heating degree days (meaning a colder climate), then the Florida Bass are less likely to survive or grow faster. He also found that young-of-the-year Florida Bass were thinner than the northern Largemouth Bass and speculated that a brief harsh period in winter could be a significant source of mortality even if the winters were otherwise mild. This same climate threshold of 3400 heating degree-days or a minimum water temperature of 41°F is also still used by Arkansas which is why they do not stock Florida Bass in the northern half of their state unless it’s a power plant lake with a thermal discharge (Lamothe et al. 2016).

Below is a map of Kentucky with the average number of heating degree days across the state. No portion of the state is below that 3400 heating degree day metric. According to the best available data, our entire state is too cold for optimal Florida Bass growth and survival.

Figure 2: Map of the average number of heating degree days across the state of Kentucky.
(Created from data collected between 1990 and 2020 at 571 weather stations; source: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/.)

Tennessee also uses this 3400 heating degree days metric to guide their stockings. You can learn more about Tennessee’s reasoning on their website. Note, this policy apparently changed recently despite no changes in the science. In recent years, Tennessee has allowed a private entity to stock Florida Bass into Kentucky Lake in areas well north of the 3400 heating degree day line. KDFWR strongly opposes these stockings. TWRA is also conducting their own stockings of Florida Bass in the southern end of Kentucky Lake at sites below the 3400 heating degree day line. Although the official TWRA stocking sites in Kentucky Lake are theoretically within the appropriate climate zone, KDFWR remains opposed to any Florida Bass stockings in Kentucky Lake because it is likely that those introduced Florida Bass genetics will spread north to the Kentucky end of Kentucky Lake over time as fish move naturally or are transported by anglers.

Return to Top

16. Why not stock Florida Bass in Kentucky? What have we got to lose?

Answer:
Based on the evidence, stocking Florida Bass or F1 hybrids would be a bad idea for Kentucky. Each fisheries management decision involves estimating the risk versus reward. In the case of stocking Florida Bass or F1's, the risks greatly outweigh the rewards.

Click here for Scientific Basis:

Return to Top

17. Does Kentucky already have a low percentage of Florida Bass genetics in some of its lakes, and if so doesn’t that mean it wouldn’t hurt to stock more Florida Bass in those lakes?

Answer:
Based on some very early studies, we know that some water bodies in the state contain low levels of Florida Bass genetics. However, even if Florida Bass genetics are already present does not mean that stocking more Florida Bass would not have any effects. If the stocked fish are capable of surviving in a particular water body, then it is likely that they will further dilute our native northern Largemouth Bass population’s gene pool resulting in greater levels of outbreeding depression.

Click here for Scientific Basis:

Return to Top

18. Did the low levels of Florida Bass genetics already in Kentucky waters get here naturally?

Answer:
The exact origins of the low levels of Florida Bass genetics are unknown but based on the available evidence it is highly unlikely to be a natural phenomenon. There is a part of the country where the natural ranges of Florida Bass and northern Largemouth Bass meet and overlap, but that natural overlap region does not extend into Kentucky.

Click here for Scientific Basis:

Return to Top

19. Is the percentage of Florida Bass genetics in Kentucky’s lakes known?

Answer:
Although some very early studies have been conducted here, there have been major advances in the accuracy of modern genetic testing for black bass species. The department is in the process of conducting a more modern assessment of the levels of Florida Bass genetics in waterbodies across the state. However, we do know that there are some Florida Bass genetics in our water bodies and likely some amount of a newly identified strain of bass known as the delta strain (Silliman et al. 2021).

Return to Top

20. Is it legal for private individuals to stock public waterbodies (lakes, rivers, and streams)? What about stocking Florida Bass in private water bodies?

Answer:
No. It is illegal for private individuals or groups to stock public waterbodies. It is also now illegal to stock Florida Bass or F1 hybrids into private water bodies now that the Florida bass has been recognized by ichthyologists as a distinct species. Pursuant to KRS 150.180 (Section 7) “No person may at any time stock any species of fish secured from any source into the public waters of the Commonwealth without first securing a permit from the commissioner.” Pursuant to 301 KAR 1:122 Section 1 “A person shall not buy, sell, possess, import, or release any aquatic species not native or established in Kentucky waters...”.

Click here for Scientific Basis:

Return to Top

21. Are there any other species of bass we can stock to improve our fishing in Kentucky?

Answer:
No, it is illegal, and the current evidence suggests that stocking non-native bass of any species would be a bad idea.

Click here for Scientific Basis:

Return to Top

References

Acy, Christopher. 2017. The roles of stocking rates and lake characteristics in the success of the Florida largemouth bass stocking program in Oklahoma. Master’s thesis, University of Oklahoma.

Burke J. M. and M. L. Arnold. 2001. Genetics and the fitness of hybrids. Annual Review of Genetics 35:31–52.

Buynak G. L., and B. Mitchell. 1998. Relationship between fall length of age-0 largemouth bass and recruitment. Journal of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science 72(1):7-10.

Cooke, S. J. and D. P. Philipp. 2006. Hybridization among divergent stocks of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) results in altered cardiovascular performance: the influence of genetic and geographic distance. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 79: 400-412.

Edmands S. and C. C. Timmerman. 2003. Modeling factors affecting the severity of outbreeding depression. Conservation Biology 17:883–892.

Fields, R., S. S. Lowe, C. Kaminski, G. S. Whitt, and D. P. Philipp. 1987. Critical and chronic thermal maxima of northern and Florida largemouth bass and their reciprocal F1 and F2 hybrids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 166:856-863.

Forshage, A. A., P.P. Durocher, M. A. Webb, and D.G. Lewis. 1989. Management application of angler recognition program data. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 43:36-40.

Gilliland E. R. 1992. Experimental stocking of Florida largemouth bass into small Oklahoma reservoirs. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 46:487-494.

Goldberg T. L., E.C. Grant, K. R. Inendino, T. W. Kassler, J.E. Claussen, and D.P. Philipp. 2005. Increased infectious disease susceptibility resulting from outbreeding depression. Conservation Biology, 19(2) 455-462.

Hallerman E.M. 2003. Coadaptation and outbreeding depression. Pp. 239–259 in E.M. Hallerman, ed. Population Genetics: Principles and Practices for Fisheries Scientists. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Hargrove J.S., M.W. Rogers., P.T. Kacmur., and P. Black. 2019. A statewide evaluation of Florida bass genetic introgression in Tennessee. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 39:637-651.

Heidinger R. C., and W. M. Lewis. 1972 Potentials of the Redear Sunfish x Green Sunfish hybrid in pond management. The Progressive Fish-Culturalist. 34: 107-109.

Hooe, M. L., D. H. Buck., and D. H. Wahl. 1994. Growth, survival, and recruitment of hybrid crappies stocked in small impoundments. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 14:137-142.

Horton R. A., and E.R. Gilliland. 1993. Monitoring trophy largemouth bass in Oklahoma using a taxidermist network. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 47:679-685.

Hughes, J.S., and M.G. Wood. 1995. Development of a trophy largemouth bass fishery in Louisiana. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 49:58-68.

Isely J. J., R. L. Noble, J.B. Koppelman, and D.P. Phillip. 1987. Spawning period and first-year growth of northern, Florida, and intergrade stocks of largemouth bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116:757-762.

Kassler, T.W., J.B. Koppelman, T.J. Near, C.B. Dillman, J. Levengood, D.L. Swofford, J.L. Vanorman, J.E. Claussen, and D.P. Philipp. 2002. Molecular and morphological analyses of the black basses: implications for taxonomy and conservation. Black Bass: Ecology, Conservation and Management, Symposium 21:291-332.

Khosa D., J. South, R. R. Cuthbert, R. J. Wasserman, and O.L.F. Weyl. 2020. Temperature regime drives differential predatory performance in largemouth bass and Florida bass. Environmental Biology of Fishes 103(1):67-76.

Kim, D., A.T. Taylor, T.J. Near. 2022 Phylogenomics and species delimitation of the economically important Black Basses (Micropterus). Scientific Reports 12: 9113

Kimmel, B.L., and A.W. Groeger. 1986. Limnological and ecological changes associated with reservoir aging. Reservoir Fisheries Management: Strategies for the 80’s: 103-109.

Kleinsasser L.J., J.H. Williamson, and B.G. Whiteside. 1990. Growth and catchability of Northern, Florida, and F1 hybrid largemouth bass in Texas ponds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 10:462-468.

Koppelman, J. B., G. S, Whitt, and D. P. Philipp. 1988. Thermal preferenda of northern, Florida, and reciprocal F1 hybrid largemouth bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117:238-244.

Lamothe K.A., R.M. Allen, C Cato. K Winningham, C. Dennis, and R.L. Johnson. 2012 Shifting genetic composition of Largemouth Bass populations in dendritic arms of two large Arkansas reservoirs through stocking of Florida Largemouth Bass. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 66:82-87.

Lamothe K.A., and R. L. Johnson 2013. Microsatellite analysis of trophy largemouth bass from Arkansas reservoirs. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science. 67:71-80.

Lamothe K. A., R.M. Allen, K. Winningham, C. Dennis, and R.L. Johnson. 2016. Stocking for a trophy bass fishery: searching for size differences among largemouth bass and hybrids in southern Arkansas reservoirs. Lake and Reservoir Management 32(2):194-207.

Leitner J., and J. Bulak. 2008. Performance differences between two endemic stocks of largemouth bass in South Carolina. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 28:516-522.

Leitner J., J. Bulak, and R. Dunham. 2002. A comparison of first and third year growth of two strains of largemouth bass in South Carolina. Black bass: Ecology, Conservation and Management, Symposium 21:365-370.

Long, J.M., Allen, M. S., Porak, W. F., and Suski, C. D. 2015. A historical perspective of black bass management in the United States. In M. D. Tringali, J. M. Long, T. W. Birdsong, and M. S. Allen (Eds) Black bass diversity: multidisciplinary science for conservation. (pp 99-122). Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society.

Lutz-Carrillo, D. J., and S. Dumont. 2012. Subspecies composition of angled and electrofished largemouth bass in Texas reservoirs. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 66:75-81.

Maceina M. J., B. R. Murphy, and J.J. Isely. 1988. Factors regulating Florida largemouth bass stocking success and hybridization with northern largemouth bass in Aquilla Lake, Texas. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117: 221-231.

Maceina, M. J., B.R. Murphy, and D.P Philipp. 1992. Stocking Florida largemouth bass outside its native range. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121:686-691.

Maceina, M. J., and V.J. DiCenzo. 1995. Long term genetic changes and growth of largemouth bass populations in Alabama public reservoirs. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Final Report Project F-40.

Miranda, L. E., W. D. Hubbard. 1994a. Winter survival of age-0 largemouth bass relative to size, predators, and shelter. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:790-796.

Miranda, L. E., W. D. Hubbard. 1994b. Length-dependent winter survival and lipid composition of age-0 largemouth bass in Bay Springs Reservoir, Mississippi. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123:80-87.

Myers R. A. and M.S. Allen. 2005. Factors related to angler catch of trophy largemouth bass in Texas reservoirs. Lake and Reservoir Management 21(3):309-315.

O'Bara, C. J., T. A. Hibner, and S. B. Rudzinski. 1991. The indirect establishment of an introgressed Largemouth Bass population: the fallacy of the closed system concept. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-207:73–78.

Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 2011. Peterson field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. 2nd edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston, MA.

Philipp D. P., J.E. Claussen. 1995. Fitness and performance differences between two stocks of largemouth bass from different river drainages within Illinois. Pages 236-243 in H. Schramm, editor. Uses and effects of cultered fishes in aquatic ecosystems. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 15, Bethesda, Maryland.

Philipp D. P., J.E. Claussen, Kassler T.W. and Epifanio J.M. 2002 Mixing stocks of largemouth bass reduces fitness through outbreeding depression. Pages 349-363 Black Bass: Ecology, Conservation and Management. Symposium 21:349-363.

Philipp D. P., and G. S. Whitt. 1991. Survival and growth of northern, Florida, and reciprocal F1 hybrid largemouth bass in central Illinois. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:52-64.

Philipp D. P., W.F. Childers., and G.S. Whitt. 1983. A biochemical evaluation of the northern and Florida subspecies of largemouth bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 112:1-20.

Robins R.H., Page L.M., Williams J.D., Randall Z.S., and G.E. Sheehy. 2018. Fishes in the Fresh Waters of Florida: An Identification Guide and Atlas. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida, 467 pp.

Robison H.W. and T.M. Buchanan. 2020. Fishes of Arkansas, 2nd ed. University of Arkansas Press (Fayetteville). 959 p.

Rogers M.W., M.S. Allen., W.F. Porak. 2006 Separating genetic and environmental influences on temporal spawning distributions of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 63:2391-2399.

Silliman, K., H. Zhao, M. Justice, W. Thongda, B. Bowen, and E. Peatman. 2021. Complex introgression among three diverged largemouth bass lineages. Evolutionary Applications 14:2815-2830.

Slaughter IV, J.E., R.A. Wright., and D. R. DeVries. 2008. Latitudinal influence on first year growth and survival of largemouth bass. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28:993-1000.

Tave D. 1992. Genetics for fish hatchery managers second ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (USA), 415 p.

Taylor A.T., J. M. Long, M.D. Tringali, and B.L. Barthel. 2019. Conservation of black bass diversity: An emerging management paradigm. Fisheries 44(1):20-36.

Templeton, A. R. 1986. Coadaptation and outbreeding depression. Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity 105-116.

Thornhill N.W., ed. 1993. The Natural History of Inbreeding and Outbreeding: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Tibbs, J. E. 2008. Factors related to the genetic composition and fishing quality of largemouth bass fisheries in Texas reservoirs. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 62:104-108.

Zolczynski, S. J., and W.D. Davies 1976. Growth characteristics of the northern and Florida subspecies of largemouth bass and their hybrid, a comparison of catchability between the subspecies. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 105:240-243.

Return to Top

Contributors

Adam Martin – Chair, KDFWR Black Bass Management Team; District Biologist, Western Fisheries District
David Baker – Co-chair, KDFWR Black Bass Management Team; Assistant District Biologist, Central Fisheries District
Tom Timmermann – KDFWR Black Bass Management Team; District Biologist, Northeastern Fisheries District
Maddy Ruble – KDFWR Black Bass Management Team; Assistant District Biologist, Northwestern Fisheries District
Noah Nelson – KDFWR Black Bass Management Team; Fish Hatchery Manager, Peter W. Pfeiffer Fish Hatchery
Jason Russell – District Biologist, Eastern Fisheries District
Matt Thomas – Program Coordinator, Ichthyology Branch
Jeff Ross – Assistant Director, Fisheries Division

Don Bunnell – Program Coordinator, Fisheries Division

Dave Dreves – Director, Fisheries Division

Return to Top

Frequently Asked Questions about Florida Bass

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is a “Florida Bass”? Is it a separate species from northern Largemouth Bass?

2. Do we have Florida Bass in Kentucky?

3. How do I know if I have caught a Florida bass?

4. Do Florida Bass grow bigger and faster than our native northern Largemouth Bass?

5. How quickly do Florida Bass grow?

6. Are Florida Bass harder to catch than northern Largemouth Bass?

7. Will Florida Bass hybridize with native northern Largemouth Bass in Kentucky?

8. What is an F1? What does a “hybrid” mean? What are “tiger bass”?

9. Are the Florida Bass x northern Largemouth Bass hybrids better than the two parent species?

10. What is outbreeding depression, and is there evidence that outbreeding depression occurs when you stock Florida Bass with northern Largemouth Bass?​

11. Does a higher percentage of Florida Bass genetics in a population mean it is going to grow bigger bass?

12. Can Florida Bass survive in Kentucky? What about the F1's?

13. Is Kentucky stocking Florida Bass into any of its lakes?

14. Have stockings of Florida bass by other states been successful?

15. How are Tennessee and other states deciding where to stock Florida Bass?

16. Why not stock Florida Bass in Kentucky? What have we got to lose?

17. Does Kentucky already have a low percentage of Florida Bass genetics in some of its lakes, and if so doesn’t that mean it wouldn’t hurt to stock more Florida Bass in those lakes?

18. Did the low levels of Florida Bass genetics already in Kentucky waters get here naturally?

19. Is the percentage of Florida Bass genetics in Kentucky’s lakes known?

20. Is it legal for private individuals to stock public waterbodies (lakes, rivers, and streams)? What about stocking Florida Bass in private water bodies?

21. Are there any other species of bass we can stock to improve our fishing in Kentucky?

Translate Page

10. What is outbreeding depression, and is there evidence that outbreeding depression occurs when you stock Florida Bass with northern Largemouth Bass?