Demographics and landscape features determine intrariver population structure in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.): the case of the River Moy in Ireland

Contemporary genetic structure of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in the River Moy in Ireland is shown here to be strongly related to landscape features and population demographics, with populations being defined largely by their degree of physical isolation and their size. Samples of juvenile salmon were collected from the 17 major spawning areas on the river Moy and from one spawning area in each of five smaller nearby rivers. No temporal allele frequency differences were observed within locations for 12 microsatellite loci, whereas nearly all spatial samples differed significantly, suggesting that each was a separate population. Bayesian clustering and landscape genetic analyses suggest that these populations can be combined hierarchically into five genetically informative larger groupings. Lakes were found to be the single most important determinant of the observed population structure. Spawning area size was also an important factor. The salmon population of the closest nearby river resembled genetically the largest Moy population grouping. In addition, we showed that anthropogenic influences on spawning habitats, in this case arterial drainage, can affect relationships between populations. Our results show that Atlantic salmon biodiversity can be largely defined by geography, and thus, knowledge of landscape features (for example, as characterized within Geographical Information Systems) has the potential to predict population structure in other rivers without an intensive genetic survey, or at least to help direct sampling. This approach of combining genetics and geography, for sampling and in subsequent statistical analyses, has wider application to the investigation of population structure in other freshwater/anadromous fish species and possibly in marine fish and other organisms.

Are rural development programmes socially inclusive? Social inclusion, civic engagement, participation, and social capital: Exploring the differences

Considerable importance is attached to social exclusion/inclusion in recent EU rural development programmes. At the national/regional operation of these programmes groups of people who are not participating are often identified as ‘socially excluded groups’. This article contends that rural development programmes are misinterpreting the social processes of participation and consequently labelling some groups as socially excluded when they are not. This is partly because of the interchangeable and confused use of the concepts social inclusion, social capital and civic engagement, and partly because of the presumption that to participate is the default position. Three groups identified as socially excluded groups in Northern Ireland are considered. It is argued that a more careful analysis of what social inclusion means, what civic engagement means, and why participation is presumed to be the norm, leads to a different conclusion about who is excluded. This has both theoretical and policy relevance for the much used concept of social inclusion.

Growth Coalitions and Rural Development Police in the EU and the US

A recent issue of EuroChoices (7:1) was devoted to a discussion of comparative US-EU rural development policies. This article discusses the concept of growth coalitions, well developed in urban literature but less so in rural literature. Some light is shed on the different positions of rural and environmental issues in EU and US policies. The agricultural lobby is the dominant actor in agricultural growth coalitions because it perceives land in terms of its exchange value. Environmental and rural development actors perceive land in terms of its use value and its contributions to quality of life: they form a rural development coalition, seeing the need to balance growth with quality of life, but they have less political power than the agricultural growth coalition. In the European context, rural and environmental agendas are linked to a multi-functional agricultural agenda allowing common ground between these two coalitions and greater visibility in the policy arena. In the US, rural interests and environmental groups are more often in opposition to agriculture. This reduces their political visibility and clout. The challenge is how to link the power of the agricultural growth coalitions with rural development coalitions to achieve a broader balance of concerns and a more effective rural development policy.