Himalayan wolf distribution and admixture based on multiple genetic markers

Werhahn, Geraldine; Liu, Yanjiang; Yao, Meng; Cheng, C. H.; Lü, Zhi; Atzeni, Luciano; Deng, Zhixiong; Shi, Kun; Shao, Xinning; Lu, Qingshan; Joshi, Jyoti; Sherchan, Adarsh M.; Karmacharya, Dibesh; Chaudhary, Hemanta Kumari; Kusi, Naresh; Weckworth, Byron V.; Kachel, Shannon; Rosen, Tatjana; Kubanychbekov, Zairbek; Karimov, Khalil; Kaden, Jennifer; Ghazālī, Muḥammad; Macdonald, David W.; Sillero‐Zubiri, Claudio; Senn, Helen

doi:10.1111/jbi.13824

Cited by 26 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Species identity was determined based on the sequences with the highest similarity scores (98%-100%). Wolves in the study areas belong to the Himalayan wolf lineage, 58 whose sequences differ from those of the dog and other gray wolf sequences by 7-8 nucleotides within the 16S fragment and can be readily distinguished by sequence alignment and clustering on the phylogenetic tree (Figure S1; Data S1). The identified carnivore species and associated sample size from each sampling area are shown in Table S3.…”

Section: Carnivore Species Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prey partitioning and livestock consumption in the world’s richest large carnivore assemblage

Shao¹,

Lu²,

Xiong³

et al. 2021

Current Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large mammalian carnivores have undergone catastrophic declines during the Anthropocene across the world. Despite their pivotal roles as apex predators in food webs and ecosystem dynamics, few detailed dietary datasets of large carnivores exist, prohibiting deep understanding of their coexistence and persistence in human-dominated landscapes. Here, we present fine-scaled, quantitative trophic interactions among sympatric carnivores from three assemblages in the Mountains of Southwest China, a global biodiversity hotspot harboring the world's richest large-carnivore diversity, derived from DNA metabarcoding of 1,097 fecal samples. These assemblages comprise a large-carnivore guild ranging from zero to five species along with two mesocarnivore species. We constructed predator-prey food webs for each assemblage and identified 95 vertebrate prey taxa and 260 feeding interactions in sum. Each carnivore species consumed 6-39 prey taxa, and dietary diversity decreased with increased carnivore body mass across guilds. Dietary partitioning was more evident between large-carnivore and mesocarnivore guilds, yet different large carnivores showed divergent proportional utilization of different-sized prey correlating with their own body masses. Large carnivores particularly selected livestock in Tibetan-dominated regions, where the indigenous people show high tolerance toward wild predators. Our results suggest that dietary niche partitioning and livestock subsidies facilitate large-carnivore sympatry and persistence and have key implications for sustainable conservation promoting human-carnivore coexistence.

show abstract

Section: Carnivore Species Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prey partitioning and livestock consumption in the world’s richest large carnivore assemblage

Shao¹,

Lu²,

Xiong³

et al. 2021

Current Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Strong consideration must be given to the complex evolutionary history of canids and assumptions about domestication status should be critically evaluated. When considering canids there is support for unique evolutionary lineages, like the dingo, Himalayan wolf or red wolf to be considered separate species from wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs, while acknowledging that they all occupy the same species complex more broadly (Gopalakrishnan et al 2018;Murphy et al 2018;vonHoldt et al 2018;National Academies of Sciences and Medicine 2019;vonHoldt and Aardema 2020;Werhahn et al 2020).…”

Section: Cairnsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is a dingo – origins, hybridisation and identity

Cairns

2021

Australian Zoologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Controversy about the nomenclature and taxonomy of dingoes has sparked interest in their complex identity. At the root of taxonomy debates are differences in the species concepts employed, differing opinions about the domestication status of dingoes (and their ancestors) and a simplistic handling of the complex evolutionary relationship between wolves, dingoes and domestic dogs. I explore the relationship of dingoes to village dogs, modern breed dogs and wolves using genome-wide SNP data and discuss the implications of these findings to the ongoing debate about dingo identity and nomenclature. Importantly, despite controversy about what to call dingoes and whether they are a full species, these animals represent an important, distinct and unique evolutionary unit worthy of high conservation priority, as a native species. There is growing concern about the spread of domestic dog genes into dingo populations, particularly in southeastern Australia, and the impact this has on conservation goals. However, the discovery of biogeographic subdivision within dingoes raises questions about the accuracy of the current methods used for estimating dog vs dingo ancestry. I caution scientists and wildlife managers to carefully consider the limitations of current ancestry estimate methods when assessing DNA test results. Future work using genome-wide DNA technology to improve dingo ancestry estimates will be fundamental to ongoing debate about what dingoes are, how to identify dingoes and how to conserve them.

show abstract

“…1e) has long been confused, owing to uncertainty over their geographical distribution, disparate nomenclature and morphological similarity to neighbouring populations of grey wolves. Based on current analyses of mitochondrial DNA sequences (D‐loop and cytochrome b ), whole mitogenomes, nuclear microsatellites, sex‐linked markers, SNPs within regions of the genome responsible for hypoxia adaptation and comprehensive whole‐genome data, the Himalayan wolf is one of the two most evolutionarily distinct lineages (the other being the Indian wolf, C. lupus pallipes ; see below) basal to Holarctic grey wolves, spanning Europe to North America (Aggarwal et al., 2007; Ersmark et al., 2016; Hennelly et al., 2021; Joshi et al., 2020; Koepfli et al., 2015; Loog et al., 2020; Rueness et al., 2011; Sharma et al., 2004; Shrotriya et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2020; Werhahn et al., 2017b, 2018, 2020) also see phylogenies in Koepfli et al., 2015 and Rueness et al., 2011. However, genomic study using four samples by Fan et al.…”

Section: Himalayan/tibetan Wolvesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards resolving taxonomic uncertainties in wolf, dog and jackal lineages of Africa, Eurasia and Australasia

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Successful conservation depends on accurate taxonomy. Currently, the taxonomy of canids in Africa, Eurasia and Australasia is unstable as recent molecular and morphological studies have questioned earlier phenetic classifications. We review available information on several taxa of Old World and Australasian Canis with phylogenetic uncertainties (namely, African jackals, Asian wolves and Australasian dogs), in order to assess the validity of suggested scientific names and provide a scientific basis for reaching a taxonomic consensus primarily based on molecular data, but also including morphology, biogeography and behavioural ecology. We identify major knowledge gaps, provide recommendations for future research and discuss conservation implications of an updated taxonomic framework. Recent molecular studies indicate that the former Afro‐Eurasian ‘golden jackal’ represents two distinct lineages, the golden jackal (Canis aureus) from Eurasia and the African wolf (C. lupaster) from Africa. Phylogenetic research also indicates that the side‐striped and black‐backed jackals form a monophyletic group that branched earlier than Canis, Cuon and Lycaon, which should be reassigned to the genus Lupulella as L. adusta and L. mesomelas, respectively. The Himalayan/Tibetan and Indian wolf lineages appear to have diverged earlier and are distinct from all other grey wolves (C. lupus) based on mitochondrial and nuclear genome data. However, until genome‐wide data from multiple individuals across the range clarify relationships with other taxa, we suggest referring to the Himalayan/Tibetan wolf lineage as Canis lupus chanco. We support the currently accepted nomenclature for the Indian wolf Canis lupus pallipes for the wolf populations found on the Indian subcontinent and possibly also in south‐western Asia (exact geographical boundary pending). The information presented here provides a current and consistent taxonomic framework for use by conservationists and other practitioners, but it is also intended to stimulate further research to resolve current uncertainties affecting the taxonomy of Old World canids.

show abstract

Himalayan wolf distribution and admixture based on multiple genetic markers

Cited by 26 publications

References 77 publications

Prey partitioning and livestock consumption in the world’s richest large carnivore assemblage

Prey partitioning and livestock consumption in the world’s richest large carnivore assemblage

What is a dingo – origins, hybridisation and identity

Towards resolving taxonomic uncertainties in wolf, dog and jackal lineages of Africa, Eurasia and Australasia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About