4.7 Article

Spatial assessment of wolf-dog hybridization in a single breeding period

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep42475

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Portuguese funds through the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) [PTDC/BIA-EVF/2460/2014]
  2. FCT
  3. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [IF/00564/2012, JCI-2012-13066]
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/BIA-EVF/2460/2014] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Understanding the dynamics of wolf-dog hybridization and delineating evidence-based conservation strategies requires information on the spatial extent of wolf-dog hybridization in real-time, which remains largely unknown. We collected 332 wolf-like scats over ca. 5,000km2 in the NW Iberian Peninsula to evaluate wolf-dog hybridization at population level in a single breeding/pup-rearing season. Mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA) and 18 ancestry informative markers were used for species and individual identification, and to detect wolf-dog hybrids. Genetic relatedness was assessed between hybrids and wolves. We identified 130 genotypes, including 67 wolves and 7 hybrids. Three of the hybrids were backcrosses to dog whereas the others were backcrosses to wolf, the latter accounting for a 5.6% rate of introgression into the wolf population. Our results show a previously undocumented scenario of multiple and widespread wolf-dog hybridization events at the population level. However, there is a clear maintenance of wolf genetic identity, as evidenced by the sharp genetic identification of pure individuals, suggesting the resilience of wolf populations to a small amount of hybridization. We consider that real-time population level assessments of hybridization provide a new perspective into the debate on wolf conservation, with particular focus on current management guidelines applied in wolf-dog hybridization events.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available