Landscape Influence on <em>Canis</em> Morphological and Ecological Variation in a Coyote-Wolf <em>C. lupus</em> × <em>latrans</em> Hybrid Zone, Southeastern Ontario

Abstract

. 2003. Landscape influence on Canis morphological and ecological variation in a Coyote-Wolf C. lupus × latrans hybrid zone, southeastern Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 117(4): 591-600.The ecology of Coyote-Wolf (Canis latrans × C. lupus) hybrids has never fully been typified. We studied morphological and ecological variation in Canis within a region of Coyote-Wolf hybridization in southeastern Ontario. We assessed Canis morphology from standard body measurements and ten skull measurements of adult specimens and found that Canis in this region are morphologically intermediate between Algonquin Provincial Park Wolves (C. lupus lycaon) and Coyotes, indicating a latrans × lycaon hybrid origin; however, there is a closer morphological affinity to latrans than lycaon. Analysis of 846 scats indicated dietary habits also intermediate between lycaon and Coyotes. We used a geographic information system (GIS) to assess spatial landscape features (road density, land cover and fragmentation) for six study sites representing three landscape types. We found noticeable variation in Canis morphology and diet in different landscape types. In general, canids from landscape type A (lowest road density, more total forest cover, less fragmentation) displayed more Wolf-like body morphology and consumed a greater proportion of larger prey (Beaver [Castor canadensis] and White-tailed Deer [Odocoileus virginianus]). In comparison, canids from landscape types B and C (higher road density and/or less total forest cover, more fragmentation) were generally more Coyote-like in body and skull morphology and made greater use of medium to small-sized prey (Groundhog [Marmota monax], Muskrat [Ondatra zibethicus] and lagomorphs). These landscape trends in Canis types suggest selection against Wolf-like traits in fragmented forests with high road density. The range of lycaon southeast of Algonquin Provincial Park appears to be limited primarily due to human access and consequent exploitation. We suggest that road density is the best landscape indicator of Canis types in this region of sympatric, hybridizing and unprotected Canis populations.

Genetic differentiation of eastern wolves in Algonquin Park despite bridging gene flow between coyotes and grey wolves

“…Based on assignment tests conducted with the software program Structure 2.2 (Pritchard et al, 2000; http://pritch.bsd.uchicago.edu/structure.html), only 3 of the 109 samples in a source NEON data set were highly assigned as eastern coyotes (Q40.8), one was identified as an eastern wolf-coyote hybrid (Q ¼ 0.453; 0.477) and none were identified as a grey wolf-eastern coyote (NEON-FRAX) hybrid (based on eastern coyote QX0.2) (Wheeldon TJ, unpublished data). Animals from FRAX were randomly selected from a larger data set described in Sears et al (2003). In APP, samples were chosen from a larger data set based on pack affiliations and pedigrees such that only unrelated individuals within a pack and animals not affiliated with a pack were included.…”

“…Body size is notably different among the different regions with an increase in size along a latitudinal gradient, where animals in southern regions of Ontario are smaller than the intermediate-sized animals in Algonquin Provincial Park (APP), which in turn are smaller than those found in northern Ontario (Kolenosky and Standfield, 1975;Sears et al, 2003;Holloway, 2010; Figure 1). Presumably, selection is influenced by differences in prey availability (Carmichael et al, 2001;Muñ oz-Fuentes et al, 2009) in the different regions, with larger ungulates such as moose (Alces alces) and woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus) predominant in northern regions, intermediate-sized prey such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianusvirginianus) and beaver (Castor canadensis) being common along with moose in APP, and smaller prey in southern Ontario such as cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), groundhog (Marmota monax) and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), which exist sympatrically with abundant white-tailed deer populations.…”

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

“…But female Wolves also dispersed to this area. In summer-fall 1986 radio-collared female Wolf 035 dispersed from Douglas County, Wisconsin (46°15'N, 92°00'W) 277 km to Iron County, Michigan (46°20'N, 88°59'W) and settled into a 174 km 2 home range, becoming the first known Wolf to reach upper Michigan since their demise in the late 1950s (Thiel 1988 Sears et al 2003;and Theberge and Theberge 2004), and likely occur in areas of exceedingly low Wolf densities where access to female Coyotes by single male Wolves far exceeds access to female Wolves. Under such circumstances, hybridization is at least possible, and then depends on the behavioral nuances of these canids as individuals.…”

“…Confounding these findings, recent DNA studies among Canis in eastern Ontario and northeastern United States hypothesize the existence of a unique and putative Eastern (Timber) Wolf (Canis lycaon (Wilson et al 2000(Wilson et al , 2003 while other researchers argue the possibility that the Eastern Wolf is the Red Wolf (Canis rufus), or some type of a Wolf (Canis lupus) × Coyote hybrid (Schmitz and Kolenosky 1985a;Wayne et al 1995;Nowak 2003;Wayne and Vila 2003;Phillips et al 2003;Sears et al 2003;among others).…”

“…Forest fragmentation and heavy exploitation of Canis populations are believed responsible for current hybridization between various Canis communities in southeastern Ontario (Sears et al 2003;Theberge and Theberge 2004 …”