Wolves at the crossroad: Fission–fusion range biogeography in the Western Carpathians and Central Europe

Abstract

Aim Population fragmentation represents a leitmotif of conservation biology, but the impact of population reconnection is less well studied. The recent recolonization of large carnivores in Europe is a good model for studying this phenomenon. We aim to show novel data regarding distribution and population genetic structure of the grey wolf in Central Europe, a region considered a frequent crossroad and contact zone of different phylogeographic lineages, in a biogeographic context. Location Western Carpathians, Central Europe. Methods In concordance with the presumption of a highly mobile mammal, individual‐based Bayesian clustering and a posteriori definition of populations were used. Integrating the frameworks of landscape genetics and biogeography enabled the identification of transitions in population architecture. These patterns could be ascribed to isolating factors based on historical knowledge about species demography. Results Genetic differentiation mirrors population isolation and recognized environmental clusters, suggesting ecotypic variation. The east–west split in the Western Carpathians likely represents the signature of range fragmentation during bottlenecks in the 20th century. Mitochondrial variability is more depleted than nuclear variability, indicating founder‐flush demography. Microsatellites show finer‐scale differentiation in the Carpathians compared to the European plain, corresponding to topographic heterogeneity. Long‐range dispersal of a Carpathian wolf (ca. 300 km), the establishment of enclaves originated from the lowland population and admixture with mountain wolves were ascertained, indicating a population fraction producing large‐scale gene flow. Main conclusion Carpathian wolves are characterized by periods of population and range decline due to eradication, facilitating refugial role of alpine habitats and peripatric effects, followed by expansions and fusions probably caused by forest transition, population adaptation and efforts in conservation management. New occurrence and hybridization events predict further contacts between formerly isolated populations, with potential opposing effects of heterosis and outbreeding depression. Population recovery might be hindered due to isolation by environment and anthropogenic impacts.

Efficient summary statistics for detecting lineage fusion from phylogeographic datasets

“…Although founder effects during their initial divergence are likely, genetic evidence for or against this was equivocal. However, bottlenecks were almost certainly coupled with divergence of Western Carpathian grey wolf ( Canis lupus ) populations that have subsequently fused (Hulva et al., 2018). More complex pre‐fusion scenarios, such as contraction (or expansion) affecting just one parental lineage, warrant investigation.…”

Habitat segregation between brown bears and gray wolves in a human‐dominated landscape

“…Survival and partial recovery of wolves and other large carnivores in human‐dominated landscapes seems to be determined by an interaction between environmental and human factors, which reflects on the current distribution (Llaneza, López‐Bao, & Sazatornil, ) and genetic structure of wolf populations (Hulva et al., ). Nevertheless, to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms facilitating coexistence among sympatric apex predators, it will also be important to understand how the habitat selection of each species is influenced by the relative density of the other species and by differences in availability of resources at large (Ordiz et al., ) and finer spatial scales (e.g.…”

A standardized approach to empirically define reliable assignment thresholds and appropriate management categories in deeply introgressed populations

“…Moreover, when gene flow is known to occur between multiple wild populations (e.g. in Northeastern Alps and Carpathian Mountains [88][89][90] ), the number of reference populations and the optimal number of genetic clusters K should be modified accordingly, in order to avoid the identification of false wild x domestic hybrids (type I errors). Nonetheless, we also remind that such complex systems also require large parental populations to be used as reference.…”