Chapter 9: Invasive Species

Consider Hawaiian plants: more than 1/3 are introduced; American Plains about 11%.

San Francisco Bay: About 150 introduced species in 150 years; increase is exponential.

Similar situation for Laurentian lakes.

9.1 Accumulation of established estuarine and marine invaders in San Francisco Bay

Case 9.2 (A) Reported invasion rate for invasive species in the Laurentian Great Lakes

Disease-causing organisms may also be introduced; this includes HIV, smallpox etc. (i.e., not just non-human parasites).

Case 9.4 (A) Invasive species are often those that escape their herbivores from their native habitat

Brown tree snake in Guam: several species of birds extinct; similar for giant African land snail in Hawaii for plants.

Partly a case of “novelty”: the introduced species fills an empty niche (e.g., predator).

9.3 Map of Guam showing the spread of Boiga and the loss of forest bird species

9.2 Annual electrical outages caused by the invading brown tree snake on Guam

Giant land snail: brought in predatory snail, but it preferred other species (and was resistant to a native parasite).

Drove 75% of native snails extinct; spread to other Polynesian islands and wiped out over 80% of species of one snail genus.

This also directly affected the economy based on decorative snail shells.

U.S.: a predatory snail is marketed that switches to plants when prey run out.

Sometimes, multiple introductions may bring things back to “normal” -- but hard to predict.

e.g., jellyfish that eats fish eggs and larvae (Black Sea), then jellyfish that eats jellyfish seems (?) to have helped solve the problem.

9.6 Change in the abundance of (A) fish eggs and (B) fish larvae following the bloom of thectenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi in 1988, then arrival of Beroe (which eats Mnemiopsis)

Often easiest to see effects of predators, but may be other effects too: zebra mussel from Europe is problematic in many ways.

One is that they colonize shells of native unionid mussels; this is one reason (besides pollution, habitat alteration etc. that most species are now extinct).

9.4 Native unionid mussels recently dead vs. weight of introduced mussels attached to their shells

Introductions can cause complex ecological effects:

Gulf of Maine: huge beds of kelp and various algae until 1970s.

Then: Overfishing of sea urchin predators; urchins ate the kelp.

Sea urchin harvesting began in 1990s, but kelp didn’t bounce back.

Because: A bryozoan and an alga had been introduced; bryozoan grows on kelp and chokes off light etc; the other alga takes over.

9.5 Impacts of introduced Asian alga and European bryozoan on the survival of native subtidal kelp

Introduction of marsh cordgrass to W. coast of North America: grows fast, takes over; more sediment deposited; water level rises.

System changes from mudflat to saltmarsh.

Native invertebrates, fishes etc. affected; even migratory birds.

African tree (Myrica) introduced to Hawaii: established on volcanic soils.

The tree has nitrogen-fixing bacteria; enriches soil with N.

But -- native plants are adapted to low-N soils; poisoned by high levels.

Another case:

Introduced plants may be more attractive to pollinators than native.

9.7 Bumblebee visits to (A) and seed set of (B) the native marsh woundwort Stachys palustris

Genetic effects: Introduced mallard ducks interbreed with native species; “dilute” gene pool.

Salmon farming: escapees hybridize with native strains/species.

Introductions can change the evolutionary fates of native species in unpredictable ways.

Checkerspot butterfly in W. North America prefers to lay eggs on an introduced plant species.

This has a genetic basis: selection occurs for butterflies with heritable preference for non-native plant.

Butterflies rely more and more on disturbed habitat with introduced species; native ecosystem changes.

9.8 Percent of Euphydryas editha preferring to oviposit on the native plant Collinsia parviflora vs. the introduced Plantago lanceolata

Susceptibility of communities to invasions:

Elton (1958): Biotic Resistance Hypothesis:

In species-rich communities, most niches are already occupied, situation is stable so less susceptible to invaders.

Some experiments support this; some show the opposite.

Maybe introduced species just do well where many other species do too (e.g., more nutrients) -- opposes hypothesis.

Consider three introduced plant species:do well on a broad scale in species-rich

plant communities, but seeds germinate poorly when introduced to some species-rich communities.

As usual, no general rule, and may vary with different aspects of life cycle etc.

9.12 Invader incidence and successful germinations vs. species richness (Part 1)

9.12 Invader incidence and successful germinations vs. species richness (Part 2)

9.12 Invader incidence and successful germinations vs. species richness (Part 3)

Disturbance may increase susceptibility of a community to invasion: reduces number of native species; resources now available to invaders; new types of disturbance (e.g., human induced) may affect native species that aren’t adapted to this.

Invaders may even make conditions better for themselves: change nutrient availability, fire cycles, soil stability, moisture, shade, etc.

Connections between the Biotic Resistance Hypothesis and the Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis:

Suppose the community is species-rich; lots of competition.

Disturbance knocks back some species: opens up opportunity for invader.

e.g., Hawaiian N-fixer: not good for native plants (a disturbance), but creates opportunity for non-natives.

9.14 The conceptual theory that increased resource availability increases a plant community’s susceptibility to invasion

And -- humans may also increase resource availability -- e.g., nutrient runoff, reduced shade, etc.

Introduced Pacific sea squirts: larvae settle and grow; fewer individuals the more native species are present.

Mainly a consequence of less physical space; also analogous to “niche space”.

9.15 (A) Survival of introduced Pacific ascidians vs. number of resident species

9.15 (B) Available free space vs. number of resident species

Species invade in many ways; may be physically carried by humans, or get in naturally (e.g., seeds, windborne insects), but human activities allow them to become established.

And -- may be deliberate (especially historically), either for specific purpose or just because people like them (e.g., American Acclimatization Society (1800s) tried to introduce all birds mentioned by Shakespeare (e.g., starlings).

Many approaches to control/removal; those that involve introducing predators, diseases, etc. can be very risky -- create yet another problem species.

Or disease: e.g., myxomatosis and Australian introduced rabbits: initially successful, then virus evolved to become attenuated (weaker), and resistance evolved in rabbits; still works as a control if mortality due to predation or removal is also high.

A safer approach: release sterile males (e.g. mosquitoes, medfly, screwworm fly): can be very effective.

Or: RIDL (Release of Insects with Dominant Lethals): introduce dominant lethal allele that has antidote in lab but not nature.

Another recombinant DNA method: daughterless carp.

9.17 The process faced by policymakers who must decide which nonindigenous species to eradicate or prevent

Chapter 10: Climate Change

Broad consensus that climate change is real AND due to human activities.

Mainly the result of “greenhouse” gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.

Since early 20th Century, average temperature of Earth has risen 0.6o C,the most in at least 10,000 years.

Trend is accelerating; likely to affect the entire Earth and almost all ecosystems.

Solar energy enters Earth’s atmosphere as UV and visible light; transformed to infrared radiation on contact with surface: heat generated.

Trapped by gases, plus water vapor: normally keeps surface temperatures stable.

Without greenhouse gases (at normal levels), Earth would be about 15o C cooler.

But as more gases added to atmosphere (especially carbon dioxide and methane), creates “enhanced greenhouse effect”.

Amounts of these gases have increased about 30% since start of Industrial Revolution.

10.1 The greenhouse effect (Part 1)

10.1 The greenhouse effect (Part 2)

Big question (and source of controversy): How much of global temperature change is due to advanced greenhouse effect versus natural fluctuations?

Note: “Weather” is a limited event (e.g., rain); “climate” represents average of some long-term phenomenon (e.g., average rainfall per season).

What changes in climate (and weather as a result) are natural versus man-made?

Since early Tertiary (approx. 60 MYA), temperature of Earth has dropped about 10 C.

Pleistocene (starting about 1.8 MYA, until end of last ice age about 12,000 YA): major fluctuations in temperature and precipitation.

Caused by Milankovitch Cycles (tilt of Earth and orbit affects amount of sloar energy absorbed) -- but in any case, greenhouse gases play major role.

10.2 Average global temperature over the last 65 million years

Ice cores have been used back to about 740,000 YA to measure amounts of gases; isotopic data go back much further; strong correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature.

Mid Cretaceous (about 140 MYA): high levels of carbon dioxide, partly due to organic decomposition; then other climate change compensated, plus much organic matter was buried under high pressure -- carbon store, fossil fuels

End of Cretaceous (about 65 MYA) onward: asteroid collision caused loss of most species on Earth, but an explosion of plant diversity and biomass occurred.

Removed C from atmosphere, plus conditions favored shallow oceans: sequestered carbon dioxide as reefs etc., then preserved as limestones.

Pleistocene: glacials (cold and dry) and interglacials (warmer, wetter) -- currently we’re in an interglacial, and estimates are that temperature will increase to highest in 10 MY.

Last 10,000 years (until just recently): temperatures fairly stable; CO2 did rise, but only up to about 10% before Industrial Revolution.

Since early 20th Century, CO2 levels have risen at least 36% (plus rises in other gases such as methane).

Almost certainly due to human activities.

CO2 is the biggest problem. from burning fossil fuels, decomposition of uncovered/killed organic matter etc. -- and lasts for decades.

10.3 The relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide over the past 160,000 years

10.4 Relationship between twentieth century levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

Methane (from grazing animals and other types of farming, mining etc.) actually has a stronger effect but only lasts about 10 years in atmosphere.

Also -- nitrous oxides and CFCs from industry have effects, plus some low-level ozone.

Local causes of warming: loss of trees decreases evapotranspiration and decreases shade.

Some human activities produce aerosols and particulates that reflect solar energy (as does volcanic ash).

Ice/snow also reflects heat (but ice cover is being lost); exposed soils absorb radiation -- and, this increases decomposition and CO2 release.

Radiative forcing exceeds cooling; balance is lost.

Many factors still not fully understood, but warming trend is clear.

10.5 Estimates of strengths of radiative forces on global energy budget

Global climate models (GCMs): many variations, but nearly all share key elements.

Expect greatest change toward poles, less toward equator; see this for e.g. in Canada (up to 4o temperature increase); less effect in S. US but definitely happening.

One prediction: greater variance in local temperatures; greater summer/winter extremes.

Not all areas of the US are warming, but over the last century, the average increase has been about 0.7o.

Also changes in rainfall patterns: overall, more rain and snow -- leads to flooding (but a lot of local variation).

10.6 Temperature trends in the lower United States from 1901 to 1998

1901-1998: black = warming, gray = cooling

10.7 Precipitation trends from 1901 to 1998

1901-1998: black = increasing precipitation, gray = decreasing

Predictions of anywhere from 1.4 - 5.8o average increase in next century.

More rain, but also more evaporation; again, greater variance in wet vs. dry -- obviously impacts humans and ecosystems.

Ocean currents and sea levels: considerable change, with general trend in last 200 years of rise in sea levels.

Ice melts, and as water temperatures increase, water expands; feedback effects in terms of polar ice melt; major effects on coastal communities, and on local climate patterns (more evaporation etc.).

10.8 Sea level rise over the past 300 years in three European cities

Loss of polar ice caps and montane snow caps is dramatic: e.g., Glacier Nat’l Park (Montana): over 70% of glacier gone.

Affects drinking water, flooding, agriculture, stream and river flow (consider salmon migrations etc.); even tourism.

Oceanic changes can trigger major changes: coral bleaching, disease, community composition.

And -- may be more extreme large-scale events like bigger hurricanes etc.

Model “climate envelopes” for various species and ecosystems based on fossils, lab studies of thermal tolerances, range shifts, etc.

Range shifts are not new; consider glacials and interglacials -- BUT can species keep pace given rates of change (and other factors such as barriers)?

Pre-human history: major changes in communities in response to climate change; now accelerated.

Tolerance to change varies with species; can dramatically change community structure. Some species may be lost or move, and others may be added.

10.12 Species of kelp forest fish that were northern (open circles) or southern (closed circles) off of southern California

Often there are threshold effects: temperate and boreal trees may survive large temperature fluctuations, whereas tropical trees may be sensitive to small temperature drops.

Armadillos: Need >38 mm annual precipitation, fewer than 20-24 annual sub-freezing days, and no more than nine consecutive below-freezing days.

Consider how even short-term changes in weather patterns can have major evolutionary effects (e.g., finch beaks in Galapagos) -- extrapolate to major, long-term change.

Some species (e.g., some reptiles like turtles) have temperature-dependent sex determination; a small change in temperature can have huge demographic effect.

Also consider growth rates, generation time

Even if the statistical distribution of climate factors stays the same, but shifts, this may push species beyond their thermal limits (along with all the other limits induced by climate change).

And, if variance of the distribution increases, greater chance of dangerous extremes.

May trigger directional selection, IF species can adapt fast enough.

10.10 Increases in mean temperature and temperature variability will affectthe probability that an individual experiences extreme events (Part 1)

10.10 Increases in mean temperature and temperature variability will affect the probability that an individual experiences extreme events (Part 2)

Effects may be most pronounced at range edges, where conditions may be marginal to start with.

Range contractions, less gene flow, reduced population size, etc.

Can affect reserve structure too.

10.16 Changing relationships between reserve boundaries and a species’ range as climate changes

Major issue: We see the effects of climate change, but don’t want to confuse correlation with causation.

Try to distinguish current trends from natural fluctuation; and data often incomplete, patchy.

Detection (of change) and attribution (causes): See an apparent effect -- can it be attributed to climate change, or are there other human factors (or natural)?

In a developed area, may be able to tease apart the effects of climate change on species and ecosystem health versus fragmentation, pollution, etc.

Or -- look at relatively undisturbed areas, where other factors may be less likely to confound analyses.

Plus: Indirect studies of other organisms may suggest what could happen with climate change.

e.g., Huey tracked an introduced species of fruitfly: in natural habitat, wing length cline north to south; same cline developed on west coast after introduction.

Same with chromosomal inversion clines. So, rapid adaptation may be possible -- if the genetic variation is present.

Grasshoppers: Species at N end of range have longest wings, are better dispersers to cooler areas.

Suggestions of rapid change in body size in rodents in warming areas -- but unclear if this is genetically based, or phenotypic plasticity.

And -- plasticity may be key to survival for many species.

Changes in phenology: timing of events such as spring blooms: often controlled by factors such as temperature and day length, so may be thrown off by change.

And -- may get out of sync with phenologies of other species, such as pollinators (e.g., hummingbird migrations across Gulf of Mexico and the plants they feed on/pollinate).

Breeding times have shifted for various birds, and may get “phenological clashes”: e.g., species of flycatcher lays eggs according to photoperiod, but migrates south according to number of days above a certain temperature; forces young to migrate at a small size.

Marine species in Monterey Bay: since 1930s, abundance of species from south has increased, and that of northern species has decreased.

Major, rapid shift in marine community.

10.11 (A) Mean annual ocean surface temperatures at Scripps Pier

10.11 (B) Mean annual ocean surface temperatures at Santa Barbara, CA

10.12 Species of kelp forest fish that were northern (open circles) or southern (closed circles) off of southern California

Increased temperature, rainfall and carbon dioxide seem to promote shifts toward woody species in grassland areas.

Here, synergistic and connected effects cause a fundamental change in ecosystem structure.

Lots of examples of range shifts: e.g., 2/3 of 58 species of European and North America species have moved N up to 100 km/decade (and to higher elevations); more extinctions at S ends of ranges.

Again, correlational, but tracks warming trends closely.

A “natural experiment” (although due to anthropogenic effects).

10.13 Patterns of population extinctions of Euphydryas editha from 1860 to 1996 (gray = extinction).

10.14 The overwintering range of the sachem skipper butterfly

The previous examples are indicative of detection of biological phenomena, and attribution to global warming.

Parmesan and Yohe (2003) looked at hundreds of studies of organisms, terrestrial, freshwater, and marine (a meta-analysis) and tested whether changes in range, life history etc. matched those predicted as responses to warming. Overwhelmingly YES.

Other effects:

Nutrient cycling: More carbon dioxide, many plants grow faster.

More carbon dioxide increases the C:N ratio --affects insects that eat plants, some positively, some not.

And -- more carbon dioxide, bigger, earlier flowers, less nectar, different chemical composition of nectar.

Arctic: C sink has become C source with longer growing seasons, buildup/breakdown of new organic matter AND exposure of ancient organic matter to decomposition deeper and deeper into permafrost and for longer and longer periods.

Photosynthesizer biomass will only increase to a point with increased carbon dioxide; then other nutrients (P, K, etc.) become limiting.

So, we can’t simply count on plants and other photosynthesizers to keep pace and “fix” the problem of increased carbon dioxide (plus, they don’t take care of the other greenhouse gases).

There is no longer any reasonable doubt that humans are causing global warming, and that this is having huge biological effects.

Realization is growing, and attempts to reduce the trend are expanding, but this is urgent. Even if all human causes were stopped tomorrow, reversal could take hundreds to thousands of years.

10.18 Projected rise in global mean temperature over the next 100 years

You don’t need to know the following details, but I included them to give an overview of approaches to the problem (through 2006).

Chapter 11: Genetics and conservation biology

Why is genetic diversity critical to conservation?

1)Evolutionary change cannot occur without genetic variation, and the rate of evolution by natural selection is proportional to the amount of genetic variation (Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection).

So: Adaptation can only occur if genetic variation is present, and evolutionary response to environmental change occurs more rapidly the more variation there is (assuming that the “right” alleles have arisen by chance mutation).

Natural selection acts on individuals, but the results are seen across generations at the population (and species) level.

2) Genetic variation within individuals may confer fitness benefits in terms of “flexibility” to cope with variable environments.

e.g., an individual is heterozygous for two alleles of an enzyme-coding gene; one form of the enzyme works better at high temperature, the other at low temperature.

3) Genetic markers are extremely important for assessing parentage, relationships at many levels, gene flow, population size, fragmentation, and many other factors.

4) Genetic variation represents information that may be of more than just academic interest; may be of huge value to humans.

Note: We often think of genes (regions of DNA that code for specific RNAs) when we consider genetic variation, but most of the DNA in eukaryotic genomes doesn’t code for anything.

The coding parts are critical with respect to evolution by natural selection, but for many applications, neutrally evolving markers (or neutral changes in coding regions) may be most valuable.

ALL genetic variation in ALL organisms that have ever lived ultimately traces back to mutation (random change in nucleotide sequence).

In almost all organisms, there is further “shuffling” of alleles of genes via recombination -- in eukaryotes, usually sexual reproduction.

11.1 A species’ pool of genetic diversity exists at three fundamental levels

The next table is somewhat out of date, and also inaccurate in many ways -- but it gives a very general view of some applications of molecular markers at a variety of scales.

Box 11.1 Table A

Next table shows variation in allele (NOT gene) frequencies of five genes (“loci”) coding for different enzymes in populations of clubmoss.

Here the alleles were determined by allozyme electrophoresis -- detection of different protein variants that reflect underlying differences in the DNA.

Some populations exhibit more alleles per locus than others (and in some populations all individuals are homozygous for a given allele).

Usually, the proportion of variable loci (and number of alleles per locus) is highly correlated with average individual heterozygosity (Hp in text -- signifying within-population mean heterozygosity).

Note: the data here can only be used to calculate expected Hp, not actual).

Average heterozygosity is often viewed as a measure of the “genetic health” of a population relative to others (i.e., degree of average individual fitness, and also potential for evolutionary change over generations).

May reflect many characteristics of the organisms and populations, most related to population size, degree of gene flow, level of inbreeding versus outbreeding, etc.

Most species are not single panmictic (freely interbreeding) populations -- usually there is geographic structuring (and sometimes structuring within units in terms of non-random mating).

With any substantial degree of geographic population structuring (and limits to gene flow), total genetic diversity with all pooled (HT) will exceed any given Hp.

So: Consider the component DPT of total genetic variation -- the proportion of the variation due to average divergence among populations. Here, Hp reflects the “average of the average” of within-population genetic diversity.

HT = Hp + DPT

This can provide the basis for prioritization of units (e.g., populations) for conservation.

Red-cockaded woodpeckers: highly site-specific; very particular habitat requirements. Mean heterozygosity across all populations = 7.8%; of this, 86% was due to variation within populations (Hp) and 14% due to differentiation among populations (DPT).

So (very simplistically) it’s especially important to protect multiple populations to protect a broad range of genetic diversity.

Mean heterozygosity is often thought to be positively correlated with fitness, but this varies a lot.

However, rapid loss of genetic variation in a population (so, low average heterozygosity) is usually thought to be problematic.

Among-population variation may be very important from a conservation perspective:

Coadapted gene complexes: combinations of alleles of multiple genes that work well under a certain set of conditions.

So -- protecting a range of these may be safest for protecting at least some populations of the species (and mixing them, e.g., by translocation, could be a problem).

What affects genetic variation within populations?

1)Effective population size (Ne), also called genetically effective population size.

Census size (Nc) is a count of total number of individuals -- but how many are actually breeding, and how much?

Ne is almost always lower than Nc, often a lot (e.g., due to sex ratio, territoriality, sexual selection, etc.).

2) Genetic drift: Chance factors may change allele frequencies (even for alleles that are selectively advantageous).

Eventually, a single allele should become fixed (reach 100% frequency).

This effect is strongest in small populations (e.g., fragmented ones; no gene flow = no new variation beyond new mutations).

So, especially in small populations, genetic variation is lost.

11.3 Average percentage of genetic variance remaining over10 generations

Drift is especially a problem if a population is bottlenecked (reduced to a small size -- which could include captive populations) AND the population stays small for multiple generations.

Much of the variation (in terms of heterozygosity) can bounce back if population size can grow quickly and a fair number of individuals were left after the bottleneck.

11.4 Frequency distribution of predicted percent loss of heterozygosity for 80 mammal species

11.5 After a bottleneck, genetic variation very slowly recovers. r = intrinsic rate of population growth

But -- rare alleles (those at low frequency) are especially vulnerable to loss.

These may be of little consequence under current conditions, but may have major selective benefits under others (e.g., some rare alleles may be present because at one time they protected against disease; if the disease appears again, could make a huge difference to whether the population survives).

11.6 Rare alleles are lost from small, isolated populations of an endangered daisy in Australia. Black = rare White =common

2) Genetic drift: Chance factors may change allele frequencies (even for alleles that are selectively advantageous).

Eventually, a single allele should become fixed (reach 100% frequency).

This effect is strongest in small populations (e.g., fragmented ones; no gene flow = no new variation beyond new mutations).

So, especially in small populations, genetic variation is lost (and drift may overwhelm selection, even for favorable alleles).

3) Gene flow: Introduces new variation; reduces drift and inbreeding.

Surprisingly little gene flow is necessary to maintain population cohesion and variation -- but with fragmentation, populations may spiral down in terms of loss of genetic variation.

4) Inbreeding depression: Mating between close relatives reduces genetic variation; especially strong in small, isolated populations -- over time, everyone is closely related.

Problems: Loss of heterozygosity itself may be harmful (less flexibility), and increased homozygosity “exposes” deleterious recessive alleles that usually would be in heterozygous combination.

11.8 Inbred white-footed mice (open circles) had lower survivorship than outbred individuals (solid circles) after release into the wild

Outbreeding (mating among distant relatives) increases heterozygosity; heterosis is a situation in which heterozygotes are fitter than homozygotes.

May be a combination of increased flexibility and masking of deleterious recessives.

BUT -- If too distantly related, can get outbreeding depression.

Hybridization among, say populations with coadapted gene complexes that evolved in different environments may produce offspring that don’t do well anywhere.

A concern with translocations, and captive breeding programs that mix individuals from multiple, distant populations.

11.9 Offspring fitness is influenced by the degree of relatedness of parents

Conservation prioritization based on genetic information:

- level of differentiation

- genetic hierarchies- contribution to total genetic diversity- geographic population structuring

- phylogenetic placement

11.10 Evolution of mitochondrial haplotype frequencies within and among two populations over time. The trees represent relationships among the haplotypes (not the populations). Each population starts with three haplotypes (A, B, and C) ; the populations become increasingly separated, frequencies diverge, and eventually a new haplotype (D) arises.

Next slide: a mitochondrial haplotype network that shows relationships among haplotypes and degrees of haplotype divergence in bowfin fishes.

We assume that the patterns of mitochondrial relationship and divergence reflect what’s happened in the organisms overall.

Here, we could focus on conservation of representatives of the most deeply diverged lineages.

11.11 Phylogenetic relationships among mitochondrial DNA haplotypes observed in the bowfin fish reflect deep evolutionary divisions

Echelle examined multiple species of North American fishes and partitioned total genetic variation into within-population, among-population-within-drainage, and among-drainage components.

Varies greatly depending on taxon, but in some cases, such approaches could allow prioritization of drainages for protection based on multi-species patterns (plus these species could indicate what’s happening for inverts etc).

Phylogenetic placement: prioritization.

Possibilities: “basal” taxa (focus on deepest splits -- greatest genetic diversity?)

Or -- select taxa from within the tree to get best “genetic coverage”.

Or -- focus on species-rich groups that are likely to be most “evolutionarily active”; give rise to more new species.

11.12 Alternative criteria for prioritizing conservation based on phylogenetic status

(Deeply diverged)

Could be a dot here too

Genetic information can also be used to track gene flow and, in the following case (salmon) origins of individuals, linking these to life history characteristics and streams from which they originated.

(Life history modes are “mapped” onto the tree).

Case 11.2 (A) 118 salmon populations from British Columbia to California; squares and pie charts show life history features.

“Forensic” conservation:

Use of molecular markers to identify origins of organisms or products -- e.g., whale meat, elephants (ivory trade).

Can determine if samples are from protected species or populations.

11.13 Forensic identification using mtDNA of “dolphin or minke whale meat” samples legally sold in Japanese markets

Case 11.3 (A) Estimated locations of elephant tissue and fecal samples from across Africa