In highly managed reservoir systems, species interactions within novel fish assemblages can be difficult to predict. In high-elevation Scofield Reservoir in Utah the unintentional introduction of Utah Chub Gila atraria and subsequent population expansion prompted a shift from stocking exclusively Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss to include tiger trout (female Brown Trout Salmo trutta £ £ male Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis) and Bonneville Cutthroat Trout O. clarkii utah, which composed a novel suite of top predators and potential competitors. We examined the interspecific interactions among Scofield Reservoir piscivores using a multifaceted approach including gut analyses, stable isotopes, and gape limitation. Large Cutthroat Trout consumed 50-100% Utah Chub and tiger trout consumed 45-80%. In contrast, small and large Rainbow Trout consumed primarily invertebrate prey and exhibited significant overlap with small tiger trout, Cutthroat Trout, and Utah Chub. Large Cutthroat Trout and tiger trout occupy a top piscivore trophic niche and are more littoral, while Rainbow Trout occupy an omnivore niche space and are more pelagic. Both Cutthroat and tiger trout varied in niche space with respect to size-class, demonstrating an ontogenetic shift to piscivory at approximately 350 mm TL. Cutthroat Trout and tiger trout are capable of consuming prey up to 50% of their own size, which is larger than predicted based on their theoretical gape limit. Because it appears food resources (Utah Chub) are not limited, and performance metrics are high, competition is unlikely between Cutthroat Trout and tiger trout. In contrast, apparent survival of Rainbow Trout has recently declined significantly, potentially due to shared food resources with Utah Chub or negative behavioral interactions with other members of the community. Collectively, this research aids in understanding biotic interactions within a top-heavy and novel fish community and assists towards developing and implementing suitable management strategies to control nuisance species.

Maintaining a balance between predator and prey populations can be an ongoing challenge for fisheries managers, especially in managing artificial ecosystems such as reservoirs. In a high‐elevation Utah reservoir, the unintentional introduction of the Utah Chub Gila atraria and its subsequent population expansion prompted managers to experimentally shift from exclusively stocking Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss to also stocking tiger trout (female Brown Trout Salmo trutta × male Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis) and Bonneville Cutthroat Trout O. clarkii utah (hereafter, Cutthroat Trout) as potential biological control agents. We measured a combination of diet, growth, temperature, and abundance and used bioenergetic simulations to quantify predator demand versus prey supply. Utah Chub were the predominant prey type for tiger trout, contributing up to 80% of the diet depending on the season. Utah Chub represented up to 70% of the total diet consumed by Cutthroat Trout. Although Utah Chub dominated the fish biomass in the reservoir, we still estimated abundances of 238,000 tiger trout, 214,000 Cutthroat Trout, and 55,000 Rainbow Trout. Consequently, when expanded to the population level of each predator, tiger trout and Cutthroat Trout consumed large quantities of Utah Chub on an annual basis: tiger trout consumed 508,000 kg (2,660 g/predator) of the standing prey population, and Cutthroat Trout consumed an estimated 322,000 kg (1,820 g/predator). The estimated combined consumption by Cutthroat Trout and tiger trout exceeded the estimate of Utah Chub annual production. As such, our results suggest that the high rates of piscivory exhibited by Cutthroat Trout and tiger trout in artificial lentic ecosystems are likely sufficient to effectively reduce the overall abundance of forage fishes and to prevent forage fishes from dominating fish assemblages. Collectively, this research provides the first documented findings on tiger trout ecology and performance, which will aid managers in designing and implementing the best stocking strategy to optimize sport fish performance, control undesirable forage fish, and enhance and maintain angler satisfaction. Received April 1, 2016; accepted November 8, 2016 Published online March 8, 2017