ALBERT

Description: Salmon were among the first nonmodel species for which systematic population genetic studies of natural populations were conducted, often to support management and conservation. The genomics revolution has improved our understanding of the evolutionary ecology of salmon in two major ways: ( a) Large increases in the numbers of genetic markers (from dozens to 104–106) provide greater power for traditional analyses, such as the delineation of population structure, hybridization, and population assignment, and ( b) qualitatively new insights that were not possible with traditional genetic methods can be achieved by leveraging detailed information about the structure and function of the genome. Studies of the first type have been more common to date, largely because it has taken time for the necessary tools to be developed to fully understand the complex salmon genome. We expect that the next decade will witness many new studies that take full advantage of salmonid genomic resources.

Description: How much of your scientific career has unfolded as you planned, and how much has been shaped by blind luck? I suspect the latter has been more important than many of us realize, or at least acknowledge, but as Louis Pasteur said, “Chance favors only the prepared mind”—implying that we have at least some control over how random events affect our lives. Here, I discuss how large and small chance events have affected the trajectory of my scientific career.

Description: For purposes ofthe Endangered Species Act (ESA), a "species" is defined to include "any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. "Federal agencies charged with carrying out the provisions of the ESA have struggled for over a decade to develop a consistent approach for interpreting the term "distinct population segment." This paper outlines such an approach and explains in some detail how it can be applied to ESA evaluations of anadromous Pacific salmonids.The following definition is proposed: A population (or group of populations) will be considered "distinct" (and hence a "species ")for purposes of the ESA if it represents an evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) of the biological species. A population must satisfy two criteria to be considered an ESU:1) It must be substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific population units, and2) It must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species.Isolation does not have to be absolute, but it must be strong enough to permit evolutionarily important differences to accrue in different population units. The second criterion would be met if the population contributes substantially to the ecological/genetic diversity of the species as a whole.Insights into the extent of reproductive isolation can be provided by movements of tagged fish, natural recolonization rates observed in other populations, measurements of genetic differences between populations, and evaluations of the efficacy of natural barriers. Each of these methods has its limitations. Identification of physical barriers to genetic exchange can help define the geographic extent of distinct populations, but reliance on physical features alone can be misleading in the absence of supporting biological information. Physical tags provide information about the movements of individual fish but not the genetic consequences of migration. Furthermore, measurements ofc urrent straying or recolonization rates provide no direct information about the magnitude or consistency of such rates in the past. In this respect, data from protein electrophoresis or DNA analyses can be very useful because they reflect levels of gene flow that have occurred over evolutionary time scales. The best strategy is to use all available lines of evidence for or against reproductive isolation, recognizing the limitations of each and taking advantage of the often complementary nature of the different types of information.If available evidence indicates significant reproductive isolation, the next step is to determine whether the population in question is of substantial ecological/genetic importance to the species as a whole. In other words, if the population became extinct, would this event represent a significant loss to the ecological/genetic diversity of thes pecies? In making this determination, the following questions are relevant:1) Is the population genetically distinct from other conspecific populations?2) Does the population occupy unusual or distinctive habitat?3) Does the population show evidence of unusual or distinctive adaptation to its environment?Several types of information are useful in addressing these questions. Again, the strengths and limitations of each should be kept in mind in making the evaluation. Phenotypic/life-history traits such as size, fecundity, and age and time of spawning may reflect local adaptations of evolutionary importance, but interpretation of these traits is complicated by their sensitivity to environmental conditions. Data from protein electrophoresis or DNA analyses provide valuable insight into theprocessofgenetic differentiation among populations but little direct information regarding the extent of adaptive genetic differences. Habitat differences suggest the possibility for local adaptations but do not prove that such adaptations exist.The framework suggested here provides a focal point for accomplishing the majorgoal of the Act-to conserve the genetic diversity of species and the ecosystems they inhabit. At the same time, it allows discretion in the listing of populations by requiring that they represent units of real evolutionary significance to the species. Further, this framework provides a means of addressing several issues of particular concern for Pacific salmon, including anadromous/nonanadromous population segments, differences in run-timing, groups of populations, introduced populations, and the role of hatchery fish.