Conditions for Sexual Interactions Between Wild Grey Wolves, &lt;em&gt;Canis lupus&lt;/em&gt;, and Coyotes, &lt;em&gt;Canis latrans&lt;/em&gt;

Thiel, Richard P.

doi:10.22621/cfn.v120i1.241

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The one exception is a report of wolves and coyotes traveling together, although no hybrids were known to have resulted from them (Thiel 2006).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the taxonomic identity of Minnesota wolves?

Mech

2010

Can. J. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The taxonomic identity of the historical and current wolf (Canis lupus L., 1758 or Canis lycaon Schreber, 1775 or their hybrids) population in Minnesota (MN) and the Great Lakes region has been, and continues to be, controversial. So too does its legal status under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. This review summarizes the morphological and genetic information about that population and concludes that historically the MN population consisted of a gray wolf (C. lupus) in the west and an eastern type (Canis lupus lycaon or C. lycaon) in the east with intergrades or hybrids between the two in most of the state. After extirpation in much of its original MN range, the now-recovered population was infused with gray wolves from Ontario but still consists of hybrid lycaon Â gray wolves, probably with higher content gray wolves in the west and higher content lycaon in the east but with most wolves morphologically appearing to be gray wolves. Because the current Wisconsin and Michigan wolf population was derived from MN wolves, they would be primarily hybrids as well. Future research should seek to relate genetic data with morphological measurements in MN wolves. In addition, attempts to breed coyotes (Canis latrans Say, 1823) with gray wolves in captivity would shed considerable light on the controversy over the origin and taxonomic identity of the newly proposed C. lycaon.Résumé : L'identité taxonomique des populations passée et actuelle de loups (Canis lupus L., 1758 ou Canis lycaon Schreber, 1775 ou leurs hybrides) au Minnesota (MN) et dans la région des Grands Lacs a été et continue d'être controversée. Il en va de même de leur statut légal vis-à-vis la loi américaine sur les espèces menacées. La présente rétrospective résume les renseignements morphologiques et génétiques sur la population du MN et conclut que la population historique de loups comprenait des loups gris (C. lupus) dans l'ouest et un forme différente (Canis lupus lycaon ou C. lycaon) dans l'est avec des formes de transition ou des hybrides entre les deux sur la majeure partie de l'état. Après son extirpation sur une grande proportion de son aire de répartition originale au MN, la population maintenant restaurée a été infiltrée par des loups gris en provenance de l'Ontario, mais est toujours constituée d'hybrides des loups lycaon Â gris, probablement avec une prédominance de loups gris dans l'ouest et de lycaon dans l'est, bien que la plupart des loups ressemblent morphologiquement à des loups gris. Parce que les populations actuelles de loups du Wisconsin et du Michigan sont dérivées des loups du MN, elles sont aussi probablement en majorité des hybrides. Les recherches futures devraient viser à relier les données génétiques aux mesures morphologiques chez les loups du MN. De plus, des tentatives pour accoupler des coyotes (Canis latrans Say, 1823) avec des loups gris en captivité devraient apporter un important éclairage sur la controverse au sujet de l'origine et de l'identité taxonomique du taxon nouvellement proposé C. lycaon.[Traduit par la Rédact...

show abstract

“…The one exception is a report of wolves and coyotes traveling together, although no hybrids were known to have resulted from them (Thiel 2006).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the taxonomic identity of Minnesota wolves?

Mech

2010

Can. J. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Aggressive interactions between wolves and coyotes have been reported in Wisconsin, including the killing of coyotes by wolves (Thiel 2006), but reports also exist of genial behavioural interactions between wolves and coyotes in Wisconsin (Thiel 2006), presenting the possibility for sexual interaction between them. Maternal and paternal genetic markers indicate the low‐level introgression of wolf (or dog; Y chromosome only) genes in coyotes in the WGLR, but this may reflect past hybridization and is not consistent with ongoing gene flow, which appears minimal (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sympatric wolf and coyote populations of the western Great Lakes region are reproductively isolated

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interpretation of the genetic composition and taxonomic history of wolves in the western Great Lakes region (WGLR) of the United States has long been debated and has become more important to their conservation given the recent changes in their status under the Endangered Species Act. Currently, the two competing hypotheses on WGLR wolves are that they resulted from hybridization between (i) grey wolves (Canis lupus) and western coyotes (C. latrans) or (ii) between grey wolves and eastern wolves (C. lycaon). We performed a genetic analysis of sympatric wolves and coyotes from the region to assess the degree of reproductive isolation between them and to clarify the taxonomic status of WGLR wolves. Based on data from maternal, paternal and bi-parental genetic markers, we demonstrate a clear genetic distinction between sympatric wolves and coyotes and conclude that they are reproductively isolated and that wolf-coyote hybridization in the WGLR is uncommon. The data reject the hypothesis that wolves in the WGLR derive from hybridization between grey wolves and western coyotes, and we conclude that the extant WGLR wolf population is derived from hybridization between grey wolves and eastern wolves. Grey-eastern wolf hybrids (C. lupus × lycaon) comprise a substantial population that extends across Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and western Ontario. These findings have important implications for the conservation and management of wolves in North America, specifically concerning the overestimation of grey wolf numbers in the United States and the need to address policies for hybrids.

show abstract

“…For example, studies routinely report that gray wolves ( Canis lupus ) and coyotes are reproductively isolated in the wild (García‐Moreno, Matocq, Roy, Geffen, & Wayne, ; Hohenlohe et al., ; Kyle et al., ; Pilgrim, Boyd, & Forbes, ; Rutledge, Wilson et al., ; Wheeldon, Patterson, & White, ), although it has been suggested that the two species do hybridize (vonHoldt et al., , ; vonHoldt, Cahill et al., ). Gray wolf and coyote interactions are well documented throughout North America and, despite routinely interacting ecologically as sympatric species (Arjo, Pletscher, & Ream, ; Atwood & Gese, ; Switalski, ), amicable consorting behavior between them is extremely rare (Hohenlohe et al., ; Thiel, ). To our knowledge, congeneric pairings between gray wolves and coyotes have not been confirmed in field studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Size‐assortative choice and mate availability influences hybridization between red wolves (Canis rufus) and coyotes (Canis latrans)

Hinton

Gittleman

Manen

et al. 2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropogenic hybridization of historically isolated taxa has become a primary conservation challenge for many imperiled species. Indeed, hybridization between red wolves (Canis rufus) and coyotes (Canis latrans) poses a significant challenge to red wolf recovery. We considered seven hypotheses to assess factors influencing hybridization between red wolves and coyotes via pair‐bonding between the two species. Because long‐term monogamy and defense of all‐purpose territories are core characteristics of both species, mate choice has long‐term consequences. Therefore, red wolves may choose similar‐sized mates to acquire partners that behave similarly to themselves in the use of space and diet. We observed multiple factors influencing breeding pair formation by red wolves and found that most wolves paired with similar‐sized conspecifics and wolves that formed congeneric pairs with nonwolves (coyotes and hybrids) were mostly female wolves, the smaller of the two sexes. Additionally, we observed that lower red wolf abundance relative to nonwolves and the absence of helpers increased the probability that wolves consorted with nonwolves. However, successful pairings between red wolves and nonwolves were associated with wolves that maintained small home ranges. Behaviors associated with territoriality are energetically demanding and behaviors (e.g., aggressive interactions, foraging, and space use) involved in maintaining territories are influenced by body size. Consequently, we propose the hypothesis that size disparities between consorting red wolves and coyotes influence positive assortative mating and may represent a reproductive barrier between the two species. We offer that it may be possible to maintain wild populations of red wolves in the presence of coyotes if management strategies increase red wolf abundance on the landscape by mitigating key threats, such as human‐caused mortality and hybridization with coyotes. Increasing red wolf abundance would likely restore selection pressures that increase mean body and home‐range sizes of red wolves and decrease hybridization rates via reduced occurrence of congeneric pairs.

show abstract

Conditions for Sexual Interactions Between Wild Grey Wolves, <em>Canis lupus</em>, and Coyotes, <em>Canis latrans</em>

Cited by 5 publications

References 14 publications

What is the taxonomic identity of Minnesota wolves?

What is the taxonomic identity of Minnesota wolves?

Sympatric wolf and coyote populations of the western Great Lakes region are reproductively isolated

Size‐assortative choice and mate availability influences hybridization between red wolves (Canis rufus) and coyotes (Canis latrans)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About