What is wrong with ESUs?: The gap between evolutionary theory and conservation principles

Journal of Shellfish Research

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 1998, Pages 1355-1358

  Bowen, Brian W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Conservation genetics; Evolution; Speciation; Wildlife management

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032442738     PISSN: 07308000     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (56)

1. Avise, J. C. 1989. A role for molecular genetics in the recognition and conservation of endangered species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 4:279-281.
2. Avise, J. C. 1994. Molecular Markers, Natural History, and Evolution. Chapman and Hall, New York, New York.
3. Avise, J. C. & R. M. Ball, Jr. 1990. Principles of genealogical concordance in species concepts and biological taxonomy. Oxford Survey Evol. Biol. 7:45-67.
4. Balon, E. K. 1993. Dynamics of biodiversity and mechanisms for change: a plea for balanced attention to form creation and extinction. Biol. Conserv. 66:5-16.
5. Barlow, G. W. 1995. The relevance of behavior and natural history to evolutionary significant units. pp. 169-175. In: J. L. Nielsen (ed.). Evolution and the aquatic ecosystem: defining unique units in population conservation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
6. Barton, N. H. & B. Charlesworth. 1984. Genetic revolutions, founder effects, and speciation. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15:133-164.
7. Bernatchez, L. 1995. A role for molecular systematics in defining evolutionary significant units in fishes. pp. 114-132. In: J. L. Nielsen (ed.). Evolution and the aquatic ecosystem: defining unique units in population conservation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
8. Bernatchez, L. & C. C. Wilson. 1998. Comparative phylogeography of Nearctic and Palearctic fishes. Molec. Ecol. 7:431-452.
9. Britten, R. J. & E. H. Davidson. 1969. Gene regulation for higher cells: a theory. Science 165:349-357.
10. Carson, H. L. & A. R. Templeton. 1984. Genetic revolutions in relation to speciation phenomena: the founding of new populations. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15:97-131.
11. Cracraft, J. (1983) Species concepts and speciation analysis. pp. 159-187. In: R. F. Johnson (ed.). Current Ornithology. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
12. Davis, G. M. 1983. Relative roles of molecular genetics, anatomy, morphometrics and ecology in assessing relationships among North American Unionidae (Bivalvia). pp. 193-222. In: G. S. Oxford and D. Rollinson (eds.). Systematic Association Special vol. 24, Protein Polymorphisms: Adaptive and Taxonomic Significance. Academic Press, New York.
13. Dizon, A. E., B. L. Taylor & G. M. O'Corry-Crowe. 1995. Why statistical power is necessary to link analyses of molecular variation to decisions about population structure. In: J. L. Nielsen (ed.). Evolution and the aquatic ecosystem: defining unique units in population conservation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. pp. 288-294.
14. Eldredge, N. & S. J. Gould. 1972. Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. pp. 82-115. In: T. J. M. Schopf (ed.). Models in Paleobiology. Freeman, Cooper & Co., San Francisco, California.
15. Erwin, T. L. 1991. An evolutionary basis for conservation strategies. Science 253:750-752.
16. Fisher, R. A. 1930. The Genetic Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.
17. Frankel, O. H. 1974. Genetic conservation: our evolutionary responsibility. Genetics 78:53-65.
18. Giddings, L. V., K. Y. Kaneshiro & W. W. Anderson (eds.). 1989. Genetics, Speciation, and the Founder Principle. Oxford University Press, New York, New York.
19. Hoeh, W. R. 1990. Phylogenetic relationships among eastern North American Anodonta (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Malacol. Rev. 23:63-82.
20. Johnson, R. I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of the southern Atlantic slope region. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 140:263-450.
21. Karl, S. A. & B. W. Bowen. (In press). Evolutionary significant units versus geopolitical taxonomy: molecular systematics of an endangered sea turtle (genus Chelonia). Conserv. Biol.
22. Kimura, M. 1964. Diffusion Models in Population Genetics. Methuen, London, UK.
23. Klicka, J. & R. M. Zink. 1997. The importance of recent ice ages in speciation: a failed paradigm. Science 277:1666-1669.
24. Knowleton, N., L. A. Weigt, L. A. Solorzano, D. K. Mills & E. Bermingham. 1993. Divergence in proteins, mitochondrial DNA, and reproductive compatibility across the Isthmus of Panama. Science 260:1629-1632.
25. Krieber, M. & M. R. Rose. 1986. Molecular aspects of the species barrier. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 17:465-485.
26. Lande, R. & S. Shannon. 1996. The role of genetic variation in adaptation and population persistence in a changing environment. Evolution 50: 434-437.
27. Lessios, H. A. 1981. Divergence in allopatry: molecular and morphological differentiation between sea urchins separated by the isthmus of Panama. Evolution 35:618-634.
28. Lewis, W. 1980. Polyploidy: Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York, New York.
29. Lydeard, C., M. Mulvey & G. M. Davis. 1996. Molecular systematics and evolution of reproductive traits of North American freshwater unionacean mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia) as inferred from 16S rRNA gene sequences. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 351:1593-1603.
30. Lynch, M. 1996. A quantitative-genetic perspective on conservation issues. In: J. C. Avise and J. L Hamrick (eds.). Conservation Genetics: Case Histories From Nature. Chapman and Hall, New York, New York. pp. 471-501.
31. Mayr, E. 1982. Speciation and macroevolution. Evolution 36:1119-1132.
32. McDonald, J. F. 1990. Macroevolution and retroviral elements. BioScience 40:183-191.
33. Moritz, C. 1994. Defining 'evolutionary significant units' for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9:373-375.
34. Moritz, C., S. Lavery & R. Slade. 1995. Using allele frequency and phylogeny to define units for conservation and management. In: J. L. Nielsen (ed.). Evolution and the aquatic ecosystem: defining unique units in population conservation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 249-262.
35. Mulvey, M., C. Lydeard, D. L. Pyer, K. M. Hicks, J. Brim-Box, J. D. Williams & R. S. Butler. 1997. Conservation genetics of North American freshwater mussels Amblema and Megalonaias. Conserv. Biol. 11: 868-878.
36. Nelson, G. & N. I. Platnick. 1981. Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and Vicariance. Columbia University Press, New York, New York.
37. Otte, D. & J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and Its Consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
38. Palumbi, S. R. 1994. Genetic divergence, reproductive isolation, and marine speciation. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 25:547-572.
39. Park, G.-M. & J. B. Burch. 1995. Karyotype analyses of six species of North American freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Malacol. Rev. 28:43-61.
40. Pennock, D. S. & W. W. Dimmick. 1997. Critique of the evolutionary significant unit as a definition for "distinct population segments" under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conserv. Biol. 11:611-619.
41. Roe, K. J. & C. Lydeard. 1998. Molecular systematics of the freshwater mussel genus Potamilus (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Malacologia 39:195-205.
42. Ryder, O. A. 1986. Species conservation and systematics: the dilemma of subspecies. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1:9-10.
43. Schluter, D. 1996. Ecological speciation of postglacial fishes. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 351:807-814.
44. Sites, J. W. & C. Moritz. 1987. Chromosomal evolution and speciation revisited. Syst. Zool. 36:153-174.
45. Slatkin, M. 1987. Gene flow and the geographic structure of natural populations. Science 236:787-792.
46. Smith, T. B., R. K. Wayne, D. J. Girman & M. W. Bruford. 1997. A role for ecotones in generating rainforest biodiversity. Science 276:1855-1857.
47. Stauffer, J. R., Jr., N. J. Bowes, K. R. McKaye & T. D. Kocher. 1995. Evolutionary significant units among cichlid fishes: the role of behavioral studies. In: J. L. Nielsen (ed.). Evolution and the aquatic ecosystem: defining unique units in population conservation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. pp. 227-244.
48. Waples, R. S. 1991. Definition of "species" under the Endangered Species Act: application to Pacific salmon. NOAA Tech. Memo. F/NWC-194. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington.
49. Waples, R. S. 1995. Evolutionarily significant units and the conservation of biological diversity under the Endangered Species Act. In: J. L. Nielsen (ed.). Evolution and the aquatic ecosystem: defining unique units in population conservation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. pp. 8-27.
50. Waples, R. S. 1998. Evolutionary significant units, distinct population segments, and the endangered species act: reply to Pennock and Dimmick. Conserv. Biol. 12:718-721.
51. Wayne, R. K. 1992. On the use of molecular genetic characters to investigate species status. Conserv. Biol. 6:590-592.
52. Williams, J. D., M. L. Warren, Jr., K. S. Cummings, J. L. Harris & R. J. Neves. 1993. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9):6-22.
53. Wright, S. 1931. Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16:97-159.
54. Vane-Wright, R. I., C. J. Humphries & P. H. Williams 1991. What to protect: systematics and the agony of choice. Biol. Conserv. 55:235-254.
55. Veron, J. E. N. 1995. Corals in Space and Time. Comstock/Cornell, Ithaca, New York.
56. Vogler, A. P. & R. DeSalle. 1992. Diagnosing units of conservation management. Conserv. Biol. 8:354-363.