<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>Colleen A. Caldwell</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Michael E. Ruhl</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Justin H. Bohling</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>Benjamin A. W. Armstrong</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2022</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;Brook Trout&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;Salvelinus fontinalis&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;have been introduced across the western USA, where the species competes with and often replaces native salmonids. Nonnative Brook Trout are difficult to eradicate; thus, new removal strategies are needed. One novel methodology couples the partial suppression of wild Brook Trout with the replacement of M&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;YY&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;Brook Trout (males with two Y chromosomes). If M&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;YY&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;fish survive to reproduce with wild female Brook Trout, their progeny will be 100% male, which eventually shifts the sex ratio and theoretically extirpates the population. However, the effectiveness of this approach depends on survival and reproduction of M&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;YY&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;fish relative to the surviving wild conspecifics. From 2018 to 2020, we annually removed an estimated 45.7% of wild Brook Trout from three streams in New Mexico and stocked fingerling M&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;YY&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;Brook Trout (mean TL = 94 mm; range = 61–123 mm) targeting 50.0% of wild annual abundance estimates. Annual survival for M&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;YY&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;and wild Brook Trout was similar in Leandro Creek (M&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;YY&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt; = 0.63 and wild = 0.63) and Rito de los Piños (M&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;YY&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt; = 0.37 and wild = 0.46) but differed in Placer Creek (M&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;YY&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt; = 0.28 and wild = 0.75). During spawning, we evaluated the reproductive potential of M&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;YY&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;Brook Trout by comparing the percentage of sexually mature male Brook Trout comprised of M&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;YY&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;fish to the percentage of hybrid (M&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;YY&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt; × wild) F&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;progeny. By the second spawning season (2019), M&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;YY&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;fish comprised 59.8, 50.4, and 34.5% of milt-producing Brook Trout, which resulted in 55.1, 33.3, and 0% hybrid progeny in Leandro Creek, Rito de los Piños, and Placer Creek, respectively. We demonstrated that M&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;YY&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;fish exhibit similar vital rates compared with wild conspecifics in two of three streams; however, differences among streams highlights unforeseen variables that influence M&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;YY&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;survival and reproduction. The study offers promising results of the M&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;YY&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;approach for potentially eradicating unwanted Brook Trout populations.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1002/nafm.10844</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>American Fisheries Society</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Streamwide evaluation of survival and reproduction of MYY and wild Brook Trout populations</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>