Centennial Story 7: Andrew Hendry (MS, 1995; PhD, 1998)

In 1991, when I walked out of my last final exam in my final year at the University of Victoria, I cold-called my intended PhD supervisor, Dr. Tom Quinn. I gave a long, reasonably well-prepared spiel about my passion for salmon and my desire to do graduate work in his lab. A modest silence followed my monologue and then a “Well, it sounds like you would make an excellent graduate student but, unfortunately, you missed the application deadline by six months.” Momentarily crushed, my enthusiasm recovered when he suggested that I come work for him over the fall. Thus began a seven-year stint with Tom at the School of Fisheries, starting with a fall working on chum salmon at Kennedy Creek in Washington, then a winter working with sockeye salmon fry exiting the Cedar River in Seattle, then a summer in Alaska working with the Fisheries Research Institute (FRI) camps—Wood River (at that time lead by Dr. Don Rogers), Lake Nerka, and Iliamna.

Andrew in 1992 at Iliamna Alaska

The next year, I met the application deadline, applying at the same time for a graduate scholarship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). In the spring, I received a letter from NSERC denying me the option of taking my MS scholarship to Washington University on the grounds that it didn’t have a very good fisheries program. I wrote back politely—but without much hope—to first agree with NSERC that Washington University indeed was not well known for its fisheries program, but that the University of Washington was—and that it was the latter at which I wished to pursue my studies. All was well regardless as I received an H. Mason Keeler scholarship that enabled Tom to take me as a student and, a few months letter, I received a letter from NSERC saying, effectively, “Oops, sorry, our mistake. Here is your scholarship.”

Having had a formative and inspiring set of field experiences in Washington and Alaska, I suggested to Tom that I do my MS on topics similar to those projects on which I had been working. Tom, as always, listened politely and then suggested I instead work on rapid evolution in Lake Washington sockeye salmon. This suggestion turned out to be exceptional as it started my path to being one of the forerunners—along with my office-mate Mike Kinnison (MS, 1997; PhD, 1999) —in the study of rapid evolution. At the same time, I met the great, and ever enthusiastic, Fred Utter who helped me do my first genetic work with allozymes—and still, sadly, my only hands-on genetic work. Of course, all was not always smooth sailing, especially when the boat, the Nettie H, I had worked on for the FRI test fishery in Bristol Bay, sank a few months later while crab fishing, tragically causing the death of all on board.

Having had my MS project suggested to me by my supervisor, I decided I needed to do a PhD all on my own. I therefore suggested to Tom a project at Pick Creek, Alaska, on the reproductive energetics of Pacific salmon. Then followed two extremely intensive summers of field work at the Lake Nerka camp, not only conducting research, but also having a wonderful time experiencing and photographing nature.

The Lake Neka Camp early 1990’s

The 1995 field season was particularly memorable for probably 50 bear encounters, most of them pleasant and inspiring, but some of them rather scary. I continued to work at Lake Nerka until 2000, even after graduating, making it an even 10 summers of Alaska work with FRI. These years included the first research visits to Lake Nerka by Ray Hilborn and Daniel Schindler, both of whom still work there.

The UW School of Fisheries, now the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, was an outstanding experience for me. I am especially appreciative of my supervisor Tom Quinn, who gave me some great ideas, shaped my manic approach to manuscript editing, encouraged me to explore collaborations with others independent of him, and had a knack for filling his lab with an exceptionally synergistic and energetic group of students. Especially formative for me was having my desk directly beside Mike Kinnison, now a professor at the University of Maine, for seven years. Although we played Doom and Doom II with a serial cable linking our computers between 10 pm and 1 am, we actually did research for at least as many hours before that.


Centennial Story 6: Fred Allendorf (MS, 1973; PhD, Fisheries & Genetics, 1975)

I began graduate school at the College of Fisheries in 1971 after graduating from Penn State. I had worked in the genetics lab of Jim Wright at Penn State, and he recommended that I attend grad school at UW because a former student of his (Bill Hershberger) had recently joined the Fisheries faculty.

Fred on a collecting trip in the San Juan Islands

The College of Fisheries was not a good place to study genetics in the early 1970s. Don Hagen, then Curator of Fishes, was an outstanding ecological geneticist working on sticklebacks. I remember talking with Don when I was a new graduate student. He felt that his basic science was not appreciated by the College. At the time, Don and George Brown were co-supervising the research of another Fisheries graduate student, Mike Johnson (MS, 1970), who studied the genetics of crested blenny in Puget Sound. Mike later received his PhD at Yale, and he went on to an extremely successful career in evolutionary genetics. Mike has been at the University of Western Australia since 1976.

My early studies were frustrating. I remember phoning Jim Wright at Penn State and telling him that things were not going well. He suggested that I pay a visit to Fred Utter at the nearby Montlake Lab of the National Marine Fisheries Service. After talking with Fred for less than an hour, he offered me a space in his lab and a desk. I literally began working with Fred the next day, and, as they say, I never looked back.

I spent a fantastic and fun four years working with Fred. His support and enthusiasm were tremendous. Allozyme electrophoresis had just been developed, and it made it possible to study the genetics of natural populations for the first time. Those were exciting times! In 1971, Allyn Johnson (PhD, 1972) and I were the only grad students in Fred’s lab. We would later be joined by Bernie May (MS, 1975) and Jim Seeb (MS, 1982; PhD, 1987) before I graduated in 1975.

My difficulties with the College of Fisheries persisted because Fred could not be my primary supervisor because he was an affiliate faculty member. Doug Chapman, the Dean of Fisheries, was extremely helpful to me during those difficult times. Eventually, Fred and I obtained funding for my studies of steelhead from the Washington Department of Game. This funding came through the Washington Cooperative Fisheries Unit under the supervision of Dick Whitney. Dick became a member of my committee, and he was extremely helpful to me during my graduate school career.

I received my MS in Fisheries, but I did not want to receive my PhD in Fisheries because I was primarily interested in genetics. Joe Felsenstein in the Department of Genetics suggested that I apply for an Interdisciplinary Individual PhD under his co-supervision. I was successful and received my PhD in Fisheries and Genetics in 1975.

My down-and-up graduate school career at UW worked out very well for me. I did a post-doc at Aarhus University in Denmark in 1975–76, and I have been at the University of Montana since 1976. Today, there are a number of world-class geneticists on the faculty of SAFS. Back in the 1970s, we were excited at being able to detect a few polymorphic gene loci. Today the geneticists at SAFS are studying whole genomes of many species!

 


Centennial Story 5: Standish (Stan) K. Allen, Jr (PhD, 1987)

I admit that my undergraduate experience was underwhelming. However, eventually (and fortunately) I found my way to the University of Maine to study for an MS degree in Zoology. In Maine, there were two seminal developments for my career: I discovered shellfish aquaculture and was fortuitously appointed as research assistant on a project to make triploid salmon. In time, these two paths merged, and I was integrally involved in the creation of the first triploid shellfish—oysters, clams, and scallops.

Stan sampling in Mud Bay with his 1-yr old daughter in tow.

While I was there, the Maine aquaculture industry was being invented. These “downeast” types were conjuring up new ways to grow salmon, oysters, clams, mussels, seaweed, and the like. I was able to experience their growing pains and appreciate the value of practical research on questions of profitability. That appreciation has lasted my whole career.

At that time, the Maine aquaculture industry was not interested in triploids. Creating triploids is a value-added process, and Maine growers were most interested in keeping their oysters alive. I was therefore ready to swear off triploid shellfish. However, one day, standing on the shores of our cottage on the Damariscotta River, I wondered where my future lay, and I realized I needed a research license! I started looking around for a PhD program that combined aquaculture and genetics. I made a grand circuit of potential schools including UW. There were more logical places for me to go, but there was something about UW Fisheries that felt like home. Plus, Ken Chew, the iconic shellfish aquaculture pioneer, was there. UW Fisheries must have had the same effect on other New Englanders. There were four other graduate students also from the Bay State (Massachusetts).

Having sworn off shellfish, I immediately immersed myself in the salmon species of the Pacific Northwest, subjecting several of them to triploid induction. My abstention from shellfish research did not last long. Through fellow grad student Sandra Downing (MS, 1987; PhD, 1993), I learned that there was a large-scale oyster aquaculture industry based on hatchery production in the Pacific Northwest—the exact template needed for integration of a genetic improvement such as triploidy. I wrote a proposal to Washington Sea Grant, and it was funded. What followed for my graduate studies at UW was a brilliant exercise in practical shellfish research, working directly with the oyster industry—Coast Oyster, Taylor Shellfish, Wescott Bay Shellfish—to commercialize polyploid technology. Also overlapping my stay was fellow grad student Ximing Guo (PhD, 1991), doing pioneering research on induction of tetraploidy in oysters.

There was a cadre of grad students in Fisheries who were interested in genetics. We named ourselves the “old gonads,” since several of us were beyond the typical cohort age and took courses in Recombination and Mutation, Molecular Genetics (when the word “molecular” was still novel), Chromosome Behavior (with Larry Sandler), and Population Genetics (with Joe Felsenstein), both renowned in their fields. Better yet, many of us had the benefit of the mentorship of “the founding father of fishery genetics,” Fred Utter, and his extraordinary stable of graduate students and alums, like Fred Allendorf. My first official meeting with Utter was on the back of his 350 Honda motorcycle taking a trip to Goldies for hamburgers, beers, and science.

Stan visiting Ireland

With this background from UW, I was able to land a faculty position with Rutgers University at the Haskin Shellfish Research Lab in the late 1980s, where Ximing joined me after a few years. At Rutgers, Ximing and I invented tetraploid oysters, which have had a worldwide influence on shellfish aquaculture. After 10 years at Rutgers, I moved to the Virginia Institute of Marine Science as the founder and director of the Aquaculture Genetics and Breeding Technology Center (ABC). ABC is arguably the largest oyster breeding program in the world, and we provide broodstock improvement and management for a large segment of the industry on the East Coast. That magical, formative period during my tenure at UW was, hands down, the most influential in my career.


Massive death wave of sea birds was caused by a marine heat wave

A marine heat wave called The Warm Blob parked itself over the North Pacific Ocean in 2014-15, and has now been determined to be responsible for an unusually large mass mortality of Cassin’s Auklets. Volunteers involved in three citizen science projects (COASST, BeachWatch, BeachCOMBERS) scour beaches from California to British Columbia, and reported thousands of dead Cassin’s Auklets at the same time that the Blob was present. A new collaborative study examined a range of possible hypotheses for the mass death, finding that the best explanation was a shift in the marine food available for the auklets, resulting in death by starvation. The work, by SAFS researchers Timothy Jones, Hillary Burgess and Jane Dolliver, SAFS professor Julia Parrish, and a broad array of coauthors, appears in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Beach carcasses of Cassin’s Auklets encountered during 2014-15 at the height of the Warm Blob over the North Pacific Ocean, showing the large increase in dead birds encountered during citizen surveys of these beaches.

Better measures of citizen science

Science can often benefit from broad participation in data collection by the public. For example, people recording their bird sightings in the eBird app has led to multiple scientific papers. Now a new paper provides valuable advice on how to set up and run such citizen science projects, including how to start a citizen science project, how to better collect data, and how to measure the impact of such projects. The review was coauthored by SAFS professor Julia Parrish and appears in the journal BioScience.


Moving from single-species management to ecosystem management

Ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) has become popular in recent years, but there is broad debate about what it means and how to implement it. At its simplest level, EBFM involves improving fisheries management by moving beyond management designed for single species, towards considering interactions that are important for entire ecosystems. Part if the reason this is difficult, says a new paper, is that perceptions of what counts as EBFM differ among stock assessment scientists, conservationists, ecologists, and managers. In addition, key aspects of EBFM, such as considering interactions among species, protecting habitat, reducing bycatch, and using ecosystem models for management, are unlikely to all be implemented in any particular fishery. Instead, it is important to select aspects of EBFM that are tailored to a specific fishery when implementing EBFM. The new research was conducted by four SAFS graduate students (John Trochta, Maite Pons, Merrill Rudd, and Melissa Krigbaum), together with Alexander Tanz (School of Marine and Environmental Affairs) and SAFS professor Ray Hilborn, and appears in the journal PLoS One.


Combining trawl and acoustic surveys to assess the status of the largest U.S. fishery

Many species of fish spend some of the time on the ocean bottom, and some of their time far off the bottom, which makes them hard to survey. Acoustic surveys (that bounce sound off fish schools), can estimate the midwater component of so-called “semipelagic” fish, while trawl surveys can measure the portion on the bottom. Now a new method has been developed that combines data from both types of surveys into a single estimate using information about the environment (bottom light, temperature, sand type, and fish size). The new method has been used to assess the status of walleye pollock, which sustains the largest fishery in the United States, and was developed by Stan Kotwicki, Patrick Ressler, and Jim Ianelli at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, and SAFS Professors André Punt and John Horne, and appears in the journal Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.

 

Surveying for walleye pollock involves both acoustic surveys (which have a blind spot near the ocean bottom) and trawl surveys (which don’t sample midwater fish).

A whole new ocean zone is needed for these fish species

Scientists currently classify groups of reef species by the depths at which they occur, with the so-called “mesophotic” species living at depths of 40-150 meters. Now, though, new data suggests that an additional depth zone is needed for reef species living in the coral reef twilight zone, to be called the “rariphotic” zone, covering the depths of 130-310 meters (400-1000 ft). Species at these depths are far more closely related to shallow-water species than to deep-water species, report the group, which includes SAFS professor Luke Tornabene. The proposal is published in the journal Scientific Reports and also covered by Phys.org.


Stunning footage of bizarre mating anglerfish with glowing cat’s-whiskers fin rays

In a world’s first, a mating pair of anglerfish is observed in the wild, evoking awe in SAFS professor Ted Pietsch, who comments in UW Today on the video footage by researchers Kirsten and Joachim Jakobsen aboard a submersible run by the Rebikoff-Nigeler Foundation. Only 14 females (and no males) of this species have ever been recorded, all collected in jars and none observed alive in the ocean. Anglerfish males are tiny compared to females: females may be 60 times longer and half a million times heavier than males. Males have enormous eyes and huge nostrils to detect the specific chemicals exuded by females. When a male finds a female, they bite onto and fuse with the female, relying entirely on the female to feed them, while supplying sperm in return. The species observed in the video is the Fanfin Seadevil (Caulophryne jordani) which has enormously elongated fin rays that look a bit like an array of tentacles, each laced with blinking lights, perhaps to attract unwary prey closer to the “fishing lure” hanging above the mouth of the female anglerfish.


Old-growth fishes are going missing through fishing

In 2011, National Marine Fisheries Service announced the end of overfishing in the U.S. This achievement was considered an important milestone for fishery management. Six years later, a study in Current Biology by Dr. Lewis Barnett (previous postdoctoral researcher) and Prof. Trevor Branch from School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences revealed a significant decline of old-growth fishes around globe, including the U.S. Their findings revealed some potential risks in marine ecology and sustainable fisheries. Old age is not something fish can avoid, any more than people. In fact, many marine fish species exhibit extremely long-life spans. Just imagine a 100-year-old white sturgeon and a 150-year-old rougheye rockfish swimming through the sea together, beguiling the twilight time of their lives.

Increasing body sizes of many fish species have been associated with lower risks of predation. The size-dependent processes result in decreasing natural mortality as fish grow older and larger. Fishing, however, generally selects for larger, older fish, imposing a selection pressure that works opposite to natural mortality. As Branch explains, “the young fishes are reduced mainly through natural mortality, but the older groups are more likely to be jeopardized under both natural and fishing mortality.” Because of cumulative mortality sources throughout their lives, the number of older fishes may suffer a rapid decrease even at a moderate level of fishing, that would usually be considered to be sustainable.

The study examined 63 fished populations across five ocean regions, and reported that the portion of fish in the oldest age groups has declined significantly. Compared to historical data, almost 80% of the population have lost their old cohorts; the rate went up to 97% in comparison to unfished values. In terms of the magnitude of decline, close to half of the populations suffered a 90% decrease of their old-growth members. As the study pointed out, the widespread removal of old fishes via fishing may put the long-term community stability and sustainable fishery at risk.

  • Reduce productivity

The decrease of old fishes may cause declines in birth rate and offspring survival rate. This is due to the crucial differences in reproductive ability between the old and young spawning females. Larger (and presumably older) fishes can produce higher quality and quantity eggs than their younger counterparts. In addition, their offspring may have a higher survive rate related to the fecundity of their mothers. Finally, because older fishes generally spawn earlier than younger ones, elimination of older age classes through fishing will effectively shorten the spawning season and reduce productivity.

  • Cause sensitivity to environmental variability

The missing old-growth fish will cause the population to be more sensitive to future environmental change. “It’s like an insurance policy,” explains Branch, “the existence of old growth fish allow the population to persist during adverse climate conditions, when regular recruitment is essentially absent.” Also, because the offspring of older fish are more likely to survive, they can compensate the population under bad and extreme environmental conditions. Missing old fishes may destroy both “storage insurance” and “recruitment compensation”, and thereby hurt the stability and persistence of a population in bad or extreme situations.

  • Reduce life-history diversity

Scarcity of old fish would also reduce the life-history diversity, which is often related to the age and size of individual species. For example, there are age-related differences in the timing and location of spawning, movements and migration. These varieties spread the population out so that it can cope with variable environmental conditions, thereby reducing the probability that all individuals in the species encounter unfavorable conditions. Meanwhile, some fish may eat differently as they grow age, and these diet shifts would benefit the stabilization of the food webs. The diversity within the species can decrease their risk of extinction. Missing old fish narrows the range of age structure and will inevitably jeopardize the diversity and stability of the fish community.

Current fisheries management is based on maintaining spawning biomass. But as the study implies, we may need to do more to help save older fishes. One option is to limit harvesting to specific size and weight ranges, so that extremely young and old fishes could be protected from commercial fisheries. But this approach has its limitations in practice. For many fish species living in deep waters, even though fishers can pick them out of each haul and throw back to the sea, they may die when brought up to the ocean surface.

For the species with limited mobility, like oysters and clams, or some fishes that live near coral reefs, rotational harvests are another option. By rotating through a small number of fishing grounds each year, fish will always have the opportunity to grow larger and older. “For some specific species, like geoduck, people bid auctions for the harvesting,” as Branch recalls, “this can also help us better monitor and manage the rotational harvest.”

Another suggestion is to establish marine reserves, preventing fish harvest for certain regions. This may help boost population and bring back old cohorts effectively.

Limits to overfishing are certainly worth celebrating. However, it is also worth noting that the stock assessments might not be adequate to represent the true situation for fishes that exhibit complex age structure. The scarcity of old-growth fishes is not a good sign, and the fight for sustainable fisheries is not over.

This post was written by Zhengxin Lang out of the FISH 507 course on science blogging, instructed by SAFS Professors Julian Olden and Steven Roberts.