Over the last 150 years, large
stretches of salmon habitat have
been eliminated by human activity:
Line mining, livestock grazing, timber
(5) harvesting, and agriculture as well
as recreational and urban devel-
opment. The numerical effect is
obvious: there are fewer salmon
in degraded regions than in pris-
(10) tine ones; however, habitat loss
also has the potential to reduce
genetic diversity. This is most
evident in cases where it results
in the extinction of entire salmon
(15) populations. Indeed, most
analysts believe that some kind
of environmental degradation
underlies the demise of many
extinct salmon populations.
(20) Although some rivers have
been recolonized, the unique
genes of the original populations
have been lost.
Large-scale disturbances in
(25) one locale also have the potential
to alter the genetic structure of
populations in neighboring areas,
even if those areas have pristine
habitats. Why? Although the
(30) homing instinct of salmon to their
natal stream is strong, a fraction
of the fish returning from the sea
(rarely more than 15 percent)
stray and spawn in nearby
(35) streams. Low levels of straying
are crucial, since the process
provides a source of novel
genes and a mechanism
by which a location can be
(40) repopulated should the fish
there disappear. Yet high rates
of straying can be problematic
because misdirected fish may
interbreed with the existing stock
(45) to such a degree that any local
adaptations that are present
become diluted. Straying
rates remain relatively low when
environmental conditions are
(50) stable, but can increase dramati-
cally when streams suffer severe
disturbance. The 1980 volcanic
eruption of Mount Saint Helens,
for example, sent mud and debris
(55) into several tributaries of the
Columbia River. For the next
couple of years, steelhead trout
(a species included among the
salmonids) returning from the
(60) sea to spawn were forced to
find alternative streams. As
a consequence, their rates of
straying, initially 16 percent,
rose to more than 40 percent
(65) overall.
Although no one has quantified
changes in the rate of straying
as a result of the disturbances
caused by humans, there is no
(70) reason to suspect that the effect
would be qualitatively different
than what was seen in the
aftermath of the Mount Saint
Helens eruption. Such a dra-
(75) matic increase in straying from
damaged areas to more pristine
streams results in substantial
gene flow, which can in turn lower
the overall fitness of subsequent
generations.
It can be inferred from the passage that the occasional failure of some salmon to return to their natal streams in order to spawn provides a mechanism by which
a. pristine streams that are near polluted streams become polluted themselves
b. the particular adaptations of a polluted stream’s salmon population can be preserved without dilution
c. the number of salmon in pristine habitats decreases relative to the number in polluted streams
d. an environmentally degraded stream could be recolonized by new salmon populations should the stream recover
e. the extinction of the salmon populations that spawn in polluted streams is accelerated
Why is B wrong? When high straying happens, dilution is the issue. Hence, when low straying happens, dilution is not an issue at all -- what B) says. Also lines (30), " Low levels of straying are crucial, since the process provides a source of novel genes and a mechanism by which a location can be (40) repopulated should the fish there disappear. " --- implies genes are preserved -- and as the next sentence says "dilution happens" in case of high straying. Can't we infer that in case of low straying, no dilution happens and the genes are preserved?
The author's argument that increased straying can "lower the overall fitness of subsequent generation" (see highlighted text) is based on which of the following assumptions?
a) a disturbance of salmonid spawning streams caused by human activtity will increasing the straying rate of affected salmonid populations as much as the aftermath of the Mount Saint Helens eruption did.
b) In the streams in which the straying salmonids spawn, these straying salmonids would amount to no more than 40 percent of total spawning population
c) Salmonids in some streams benefit from particular local adaptations
d) Nonenvironmental factors have no effect
e) At least some of the streams in which straying salmonids would spawn are pristine, affected by neither natural nor artificial disturbances.
Why is E) wrong? Also what support do we have for C) To me, "lowering the overall fitness" implies less likely to pass Darwin's "survival of the fittest" Hence, such adaptations are in fact bad -- 180 to what the OA is
To me, the conclusion is that straying because of human effects causes bad things to Salmon in pristine streams. What's the support? Straying causing the dilution of the gene pool. I couldn't find that answer choice.
Thoughts?
close
