A study of the genetic relationships within and among wolf packs using DNA fingerprinting and mitochondrial DNA

Abstract

DNA fingerprinting and mitochondrial DNA analyses have not been used in combination to study relatedness in natural populations. We present an approach that involves defining the mean fingerprint similarities among individuals thought to be unrelated because they have different mtDNA genotypes. Two classes of related individuals are identified by their distance in standard errors above this mean value. The number of standard errors is determined by analysis of the association between fingerprint similarity and relatedness in a population with a known genealogy. We apply this approach to gray wolf packs from Minnesota, Alaska, and the Northwest Territories. Our results show that:(1) wolf packs consist primarily of individuals that are closely related genetically, but some packs contain unrelated, non-reproducing individuals; (2) dispersal among packs within the same area is common; and (3) shortrange dispersal appears more common for female than male wolves. The first two of these genetically-based observations are consistent with behavioral data on pack structure and dispersal in wolves, while the apparent sex bias in dispersal was not expected.

Mating system and genetic variance in a polygynous mustelid, the European polecat.

“…The strong inbreeding as revealed by the F IS index may result from mating strategy. The overall relatedness averaging 17% in polecat was lower than that observed in carnivores living in social groups such as wolves (Relat >25%, Lehman et al, 1992). From relatedness analysis, our results suggest that males were the dispersing sex in polecats.…”

Genetic nature of eastern wolves: Past, present and future

“…Light gray areas indicate gray wolf occurrence, dark gray area indicates eastern wolf occurrence, dotted area indicates coyote occurrence sympatric with gray wolves. It should also be noted that Grewal (2001) suggests the distribution of C. lycaon extends into Manitoba as well; (e) Hypothetical pre-European settlement geographic distribution of wolves and coyotes in North America showing the two species evolutionary model suggested by Moore and Parker (1992) and maintained by subsequent authors (e.g., Lehman et al 1992, Wayne and. Light gray areas indicate gray wolf distribution, dark gray area indicates coyote distribution.…”

“…In either event, the eastern wolf was viewed as morphologically distinct from both gray wolves and western coyotes. The taxonomic debate surrounding the eastern wolf was rekindled when molecular markers were used to investigate their genetic make-up (e.g., Lehman et al 1991Lehman et al , 1992Roy et al 1994;Wilson et al 2000). Currently, there are three main hypotheses regarding the taxonomic status of this animal:…”

Fragmentation, dispersal and metapopulation function in remnant populations of endangered mountain caribou

“…Although some subpopulations are gradually expanding their range (Schwartz et al, 2006), limited dispersal, particularly by females, (McLellan & Hovey, 2001;Proctor et al, 2002Proctor et al, , 2005, has prevented them from recolonizing any of 30 patches that contained bears a century ago (Merriam, 1922), despite complete protection in the US since 1975. Wolves, on the other hand, disperse widely (Fritts, 1983;Lehman et al 1992;Forbes & Boyd, 1997), possibly an adaptation to avoid inbreeding as unlike bears or caribou, wolves are territorial. This dispersal ability has allowed wolves to recolonize many patches of suitable habitat across western North America where they had been eliminated by predator control (Hayes & Gunson, 1995;Oakleaf et al, 2006).…”