Wolf–dog crossbreeding: “Smelling” a hybrid may not be easy

Lorenzini, Rita; Fanelli, Rita; Grifoni, Goffredo; Scholl, Francesco; Fico, Rosario

doi:10.1016/j.mambio.2013.07.080

Cited by 32 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Wolves in Dalmatia live in close proximity to humans , largely depending on human food sources (ŠtrBeNaC et al, 2005), which causes human animosity toward wolves (MAJIĆ and BATH, 2010) and consequent high human-caused mortality rates (kUSak and hUBer, 2010b). Since the chances for wolf-dog hybridization increase when wolves live close to settlements with a high density of dogs (BLANCO et al, 1992), as well as in situations when wolves are heavily victimized (raNDI et al, 2000) or during the expansion phase of the wolf population (LORENZINI et al, 2014;RANDI et al, 2014), it seems that the prevalence of hybrids found in Dalmatia (five out of 85, 5.9%) was surprisingly low, considering that all the listed conditions for hybridization were met. VILÀ and WAYNE (1999) summarized that hybridization between gray wolves and domestic dogs is unusual and even if it happens, the offspring of male dogs and female wolves may rarely survive because male dogs provide limited parental care, rendering such events insignificant for the genetic composition of the gray wolf population.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…these studies are necessary to support sound conservation and management decisions. the prevalence of hybridization in Croatia was found to be lower compared to Italy (2.8 vs. 6.5 percent; LORENZINI et al, 2014), but as LORENZINI et al (2014) warned, the proportion of hybrids, and consequently the perception of how severe the hybridization is, depends on the detection power of the marker set and the threshold selected for assigning genotypes. It is possible that with the use of a larger number of autosomal microsatellites, we would achieve different results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wolf-dog hybridization is considered to be one of the main threats to wolf conservation, since the admixture of domestic genes may disrupt local adaptation (VILÀ and WAYNE, 1999) and thus threaten the long term survival of wild wolf populations (BOITANI, 2003). The chances for wolf-dog hybridization are considered to be higher in areas where wolves live close to settlements with a high density of dogs (BLANCO et al, 1992), in situations when wolves are heavily victimized (raNDI et al, 2000), or during the expansion phase of the wolf population (LORENZINI et al, 2014). One of the first extensive studies of wolf-dog hybridization did not find widespread hybridization in European gray wolf populations in contrast to the rather high prevalence (8-17%) of hybrids in Ethiopian wolves (VILÀ and WaYNe, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sexual asymmetry (the prevalence of female gray wolf over male dog hybrids), and physiological and behavioral differences between gray wolves and dogs have been recognized as reasons for the low detected prevalence of hybrids, particularly when maternally inherited markers (mitochondrial DNA) were analyzed (VILÀ and WaYNe, 1999). the advances in research techniques brought increasing evidence that hybridization between gray wolves and dogs exists in Europe in Bulgaria, Serbia, Latvia and Estonia (RANDI et al, 2000;MILENKOVIĆ et al, 2006;HINDRIKSON et al, 2012) and particularly in Italy LORENZINI et al, 2014;RANDI et al, 2014). Such findings may render wolf-dog hybridization to be one of major wolf conservation challenges, not only in Italy, but also in wolf populations in other countries with a similar history, status and ecological conditions for wolves, such as Croatia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Wolf-dog hybridization in Croatia

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wolf-dog hybridization is considered as one of the main threats for wolf conservation since the admixture and introgression of domestic genes may disrupt local adaptations and threaten the long term survival of wild wolf populations. We investigated the occurrence of wolf-dog hybridization in Croatia by analyzing a panel of 12 autosomal microsatellite markers using Bayesian admixture tests, and assessed its directionality by the use of maternally and paternally inherited markers in combination with morphometric data and morphological features. a systematic analysis of morphologic features and morphometric data was used to rank the studied individuals into either phenotypic wild-type wolves or suspected hybrids. By combining Bayesian assignment results with phenotypic features, we set three thresholds which differentiated wolves from hybrids with maximized hybrid detection and a minimized chance for false positive hybrid identification. On the basis of phenotype, out of 176 wild canids, 157 (89.2%) were categorized as wolves and 19 (10.8%) as suspected hybrids. On the basis of the Bayesian admixture tests and phenotype together, five (2.8 percent) animals were classified as wolf-dog hybrids, four of them as backcrosses with wolves, and one as a backcross with a dog. Mitochondrial DNa suggested that all hybrids originated from the mating of female wolves and male dogs. two male hybrids had Y chromosome haplotypes common to both wolves and dogs, while the other two had wolf private Y chromosome haplotypes. One wolf had a dog Y-haplotype, indicating a past introgression of dog genes. All hybrids were found in Dalmatia, where wolves settled recently, and where they live close to humans, with a high rate of human-caused mortality. these conditions are considered as favorable for wolf-dog hybridization. however, we found a low hybridization prevalence in Croatia, which is nonetheless expected to persist as long as the conditions favoring its occurrence are met. the ecological, sociological, conservation and management implications of hybrid occurrence are yet to be determined.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Wolf-dog hybridization in Croatia

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, management of WDH is difficult for several reasons. First, due to the technical problem of identification of hybrid individuals (VonHoldt et al, 2011;Lorenzini et al, 2014;Randi et al, 2014;Godinho et al, 2015), the scientific debate has lagged behind contemporary management. While hybridization is increasingly detectable through the advent of genetic markers, phenotypic cues of hybridization are less reliable and more difficult to interpret (e.g., Hindrikson et al, 2012;Galaverni et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unravelling the Scientific Debate on How to Address Wolf-Dog Hybridization in Europe

Donfrancesco

Ciucci

Salvatori³

et al. 2019

Front. Ecol. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropogenic hybridization is widely perceived as a threat to the conservation of biodiversity. Nevertheless, to date, relevant policy and management interventions are unresolved and highly convoluted. While this is due to the inherent complexity of the issue, we hereby hypothesize that a lack of agreement concerning management goals and approaches, within the scientific community, may explain the lack of social awareness Donfrancesco et al.Addressing Wolf-Dog Hybridization in Europe on this phenomenon, and the absence of effective pressure on decision-makers. By focusing on wolf x dog hybridization in Europe, we hereby (a) assess the state of the art of issues on wolf x dog hybridization within the scientific community, (b) assess the conceptual bases for different viewpoints, and (c) provide a conceptual framework aiming at reducing the disagreements. We adopted the Delphi technique, involving a three-round iterative survey addressed to a selected sample of experts who published at Web of Science listed journals, in the last 10 years on wolf x dog hybridization and related topics. Consensus was reached that admixed individuals should always be defined according to their genetic profile, and that a reference threshold for admixture (i.e., q-value in assignment tests) should be formally adopted for their identification. To mitigate hybridization, experts agreed on adopting preventive, proactive and, when concerning small and recovering wolf populations, reactive interventions. Overall, experts' consensus waned as the issues addressed became increasingly practical, including the adoption of lethal removal. We suggest three non-mutually exclusive explanations for this trend: (i) value-laden viewpoints increasingly emerge when addressing practical issues, and are particularly diverging between experts with different disciplinary backgrounds (e.g., ecologists, geneticists); (ii) some experts prefer avoiding the risk of potentially giving carte blanche to wolf opponents to (illegally) remove wolves, based on the wolf x dog hybridization issue; (iii) room for subjective interpretation and opinions result from the paucity of data on the effectiveness of different management interventions. These results have management implications and reveal gaps in the knowledge on a wide spectrum of issues related not only to the management of anthropogenic hybridization, but also to the role of ethical values and real-world management concerns in the scientific debate.

show abstract

Estimating Admixture at the Population Scale: Taking Imperfect Detectability and Uncertainty in Hybrid Classification Seriously

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introgressive hybridization between domestic dogs and wolves (Canis lupus) represents an emblematic case of anthropogenic hybridization and is increasingly threatening the genomic integrity of wolf populations expanding into human‐modified landscapes. But studies formally estimating prevalence and accounting for imperfect detectability and uncertainty in hybrid classification are lacking. Our goal was to present an approach to formally estimate the proportion of admixture by using a capture‐recapture (CR) framework applied to individual multilocus genotypes detected from non‐invasive samples collected from a protected wolf population in Italy. We scored individual multilocus genotypes using a panel of 12 microsatellites and assigned genotypes to reference wolf and dog populations through Bayesian clustering procedures. Based on 152 samples, our dataset comprised the capture histories of 39 individuals sampled in 7 wolf packs and was organized in bi‐monthly sampling occasions (Aug 2015−May 2016). We fitted CR models using a multievent formulation to explicitly handle uncertainty in individual classification, and accordingly examined 2 model scenarios: one reflecting a traditional approach to classifying individuals (i.e., minimizing the misclassification of wolves as hybrids; Type 1 error), and the other using a more stringent criterion aimed to balance Type 1 and Type 2 error rates (i.e., the misclassification of hybrids as wolves). Compared to the sample proportion of admixed individuals in the dataset (43.6%), formally estimated prevalence was 50% under the first and 70% under the second scenario, with 71.4% and 85.7% of admixed packs, respectively. At the individual level, the proportion of dog ancestry in the wolf population averaged 7.8% (95% CI = 4.4−11%). Balancing between Type 1 and 2 error rates in assignment tests, our second scenario produced an estimate of prevalence 40% higher compared to the alternative scenario, corresponding to a 65% decrease in Type 2 and no increase in Type 1 error rates. Providing a formal and innovative estimation approach to assess prevalence in admixed wild populations, our study confirms previous population modeling indicating that reproductive barriers between wolves and dogs, or dilution of dog genes through backcrossing, should not be expected per se to prevent the spread of introgression. As anthropogenic hybridization is increasingly affecting animal species globally, our approach is of interest to a broader audience of wildlife conservationists and practitioners. © 2021 The Authors. The Journal of Wildlife Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Wolf–dog crossbreeding: “Smelling” a hybrid may not be easy

Cited by 32 publications

References 41 publications

Wolf-dog hybridization in Croatia

Wolf-dog hybridization in Croatia

Unravelling the Scientific Debate on How to Address Wolf-Dog Hybridization in Europe

Estimating Admixture at the Population Scale: Taking Imperfect Detectability and Uncertainty in Hybrid Classification Seriously

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About