4.4 Article

Evaluation of management factors affecting the relative success of a brook trout eradication program using YY male fish and electrofishing suppression

期刊

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/cjfas-2020-0433

关键词

-

资金

  1. Seattle City Light

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the effectiveness of different management approaches in eradicating non-native brook trout by mechanical removal and Trojan Y chromosome programs. Results showed that stocking YY fingerling males (around 137 mm) was more effective than stocking catchable-sized YY males (around 230 mm), and increasing the proportion of mature YY fingerling males reduced treatment time. Maximizing the spatial distribution of YY male releases was crucial to program success.
Removal of non-native fish populations can be crucial to the conservation of native species, but often presents a complex challenge for managers. The goal of Trojan Y chromosome (TYC) programs is to skew the non-native sex ratio until only males remain, leading to eradication. We present results from a simulation model used to explore effects of alternative management approaches on an in-progress mechanical removal and TYC program to eradicate non-native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Simulation results indicated that stocking fingerling YY males (similar to 137 mm) was more effective than stocking catchable-sized YY males (similar to 230 mm), although questions about intercohort competition warrant further investigation. Increasing the proportion of mature fingerling YY males reduced treatment time by increasing the number of YY male spawners and increasing density-dependent mortality on young, mature wild brook trout. Maximizing the spatial distribution of YY male releases may be crucial to program success but is also dependent upon immediate dispersal movements. Principles derived from our results can be broadly applied to the management of other aquatic invaded systems using TYC programs to eradicate non-native species.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据