紅狼

Kürən canavar (lat. Canis rufus) — canavar cinsinə aid heyvan növü.

Mənbə

Xarici keçidlər

• Summary of Red Wolf Genetic Analysis
• ARKive – images and movies of the Red wolf (Canis rufus)
• Red Wolf Species Overview at Enature.com
• The Wolves of Algonquin Provincial Park. A Report by the Algonquin Wolf Advisory Group (PDF)
• Red Wolf, International Wolf Center
• The Red Wolf Coalition
• Wolf Source
• Canis lupis rufus

Ar bleiz ruz (Canis lupus rufus, gwechall Canis rufus) eo ar spesad bleizi ralañ.

E gavout a raed gwechall e gevred Stadoù-Unanet Amerika. Astennadur al labourerezh-douar hag an hemolc'h o deus lakaet e boblañs da zigreskiñ ha war-dro 300 hinienn hepken a chomfe (an div drederenn anezho a zo savet hag un drederenn bet adlakaet en natur ma ouennont en-dro).

Krediñ a reer e veve eus Pennsylvania betek Florida ha Teksas. Posupl eo avat ec'h astenne e diriad betek harzoù Kanada. E-pad pell ne voe gwelet diforc'h genetikel ebet etrezañ hag ar bleiz gris pe ar c'hoiot ^{[ 1 ]} ha ganto e c'hell gouennañ. Gallout a reer krediñ e vo beuzet ganto pa gresko adarre e boblañs.^{[ 2 ]}

E 1987 e tilezjod 100 anezho en Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge en un enezenn war aod North Carolina. Un eil poblañs a voe dilezet en Horn Island war aod Mississippi met e ziblasañ e voe ret ober peogwir e c'helle kejañ gant an dud.

Adlakaet eo bet e natur, ha kement-se gant berzh, un 70 hini gouez sur a zo, ha moarvat ouzhpenn (2010).

Isspesadoù

Bez' e oa tri isspesad met daou anezho a zo aet da get en natur.

• Canis rufus floridanus a zo aet da get e 1930
• Canis rufus gregory a zo aet da get en natur 1970
• Canis rufus rufus a zo aet da get en natur e 1980 met adlakaet e oa bet en e endro goude-se

Daveoù

1. ^ Roy, M.S., Geffen, E., Smith, D., Ostrander, E.A. & Wayne, R.K. (1994). "Patterns of differentiation and hybridization in North American wolflike canids, revealed by analysis of microsatellite loci.". Molecular Biology and Evolution 11 : 553–570.
2. ^ Wayne, R.K., Lehman, N., Allard, M.W. & Honeycutt, R.L. (1992). "Mitochondrial DNA variability of the grey wolf - genetic consequences of population decline and habitat fragmentation". Conservation Biology 6 : 559-569.

El llop vermell (Canis rufus) és una espècie de cànid. Antigament es trobava al sud-est dels Estats Units: des de la costa atlàntica fins al centre de Texas i des del Golf de Mèxic fins a Missouri i el sud d'Illinois.^[2]

Descripció

• Fa 38-41 cm d'alçària fins a les espatlles i 140-165 cm de llargària des del nas fins a la cua.
• Pesa entre 17 i 40,5 kg.
• El seu color és, en general, marró amb altres colors barrejats que van des del vermell canyella fins al gairebé negre.^[2]

Ecologia

Caça, al capvespre o a trenc d'alba, galls fers, conills, llebres i d'altres rosegadors, cérvols i óssos rentadors. També es nodreix de carronya i d'animals domèstics, si en troba.^[2]

L'aparellament ocorre al febrer i el març. La gestació dura uns 60 dies i la femella pareix una ventrada de 3-6 cadells a l'abril o el maig. Tant el mascle com la femella s'aparellen per a tota la vida i tots dos participen en la criança de la seva progènie, la qual assolirà la maduresa sexual al cap de 22 mesos.^[2]

Entre 1900 i 1920 les poblacions d'aquesta subespècie foren exterminades de la porció oriental de la seva àrea de distribució mitjançant trampes, verins i la caça. D'aquesta manera, vers el 1980 s'extingí en estat salvatge. Això no obstant, 40 exemplars foren capturats a finals de la dècada de 1970 i, atès que 14 eren genèticament purs, es van emprar per a la seva cria en captivitat. Des del 1987, centenars d'exemplars han estat reintroduïts a la natura. Així i tot, encara són vistos com a intrusos no desitjats per algunes persones i, en conseqüència, perseguits. A més, l'amenaça d'hibridació amb el coiot segueix existint.^[2]

Referències

Bibliografia

• Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M. (editors). Mammal Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, 3a edició (en anglès). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2 volums, (2.142 pàg.), 2005. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0.

Enllaços externs

• ITIS (anglès)

Tento článek potřebuje úpravy.

Můžete Wikipedii pomoci tím, že ho vylepšíte. Jak by měly články vypadat, popisují stránky Vzhled a styl, Encyklopedický styl a Odkazy.

---

Konkrétní problémy: Chybí jakýkoliv taxonomický rozbor - samostatný druh vs. poddruh vlka obecného

Tento článek není dostatečně ozdrojován a může tedy obsahovat informace, které je třeba ověřit.
Jste-li s popisovaným předmětem seznámeni, pomozte doložit uvedená tvrzení doplněním referencí na věrohodné zdroje.

Vlk rudohnědý (Canis rufus, také vlk červený nebo vlk červenohnědý) je vzácná psovitá šelma žijící na jihovýchodě Spojených států.

Ve volné přírodě vlk rudohnědý vymřel do konce sedmdesátých let 20. století. V roce 1988 započala jeho reintrodukce ze zvířat chovaných v ZOO ve státě Severní Karolína. Reintrodukce byla úspěšná a vznikla populace více než padesáti divoce žijících zvířat.

Popis

• Délka: 1–1,2 m
• Ocas: 25–35 cm
• Hmotnost: 18–41 kg
• Zbarvení srsti je žlutohnědé nebo skořicové, smíšené s šedou a černou barvou a na hřbetě je nejtmavší.
• Žije ve smečkách společensky organizovaných jako u vlka obecného.

Vlk rudohnědý v běhu

Potrava

Loví savce, např. králíky, nutrie a mývaly.

Areál rozšíření

Původní areál rozšíření zahrnoval jihovýchod USA, v současnosti žije divoce pouze v Severní Karolíně.

Reference

1. ↑ Červený seznam IUCN 2018.1. 5. července 2018. Dostupné online. [cit. 2018-08-09]

Externí odkazy

• Obrázky, zvuky či videa k tématu vlk rudohnědý ve Wikimedia Commons
• Taxon Canis lupus rufus ve Wikidruzích
• BioLib.cz – Canis rufus (vlk rudohnědý) [online]. BioLib.cz [cit. 2019-01-03]. Dostupné online.

Rødulven (Canis rufus) er et dyr i hundefamilien. Den når en længde på 1-1,2 m med en hale på 25-35 cm og vejer 18-41 kg. Den blev i 1970'erne anset for uddød i naturen. I 1987 blev rødulven genindført i den amerikanske delstat North Carolina. Den vildtlevende bestand er nu på omkring 100 dyr. I alt er verdensbestanden på ca. 270 dyr, de sidste 170 lever i fangenskab. Den er dermed den mest truede hundeart.

Referencer

Der Rotwolf (Canis rufus, oft auch unter dem unrichtigen Namen Canis niger geführt) ist eine nordamerikanische Art der Hunde, die nah mit dem eigentlichen Wolf verwandt ist.

Die Art war einst in weiten Teilen des Südwestens der Vereinigten Staaten verbreitet, starb aber infolge rücksichtsloser Bejagung gegen 1980 in freier Wildbahn aus. 1987 wurde der Rotwolf in North Carolina wieder ausgewildert, doch ist auch dieser Bestand heute fast erloschen und zählte zu Beginn des Jahres 2021 nur noch 10 Tiere. Die in Gefangenschaft gehaltene Population summiert sich auf rund 250 Tiere.^[1]

Merkmale

Rotwölfe sind deutlich kleiner als eigentliche Wölfe (die zur Unterscheidung vom Rotwolf in Nordamerika als Gray Wolf, „Grauwolf“, bezeichnet werden). Sie haben eine Kopf-Rumpf-Länge von etwa 80 cm, der Schwanz ist zusätzlich etwa 35 cm lang. Bis zur Schulter sind sie 75 cm hoch. Das Körpergewicht beträgt etwa 25 kg. Männchen sind im Schnitt zehn Prozent größer als Weibchen.

Die Farbe des Fells ist nicht immer rot, genauso wenig wie der Grauwolf immer grau ist. Neben zimtroten kommen vor allem beigegraue und auch schwärzliche Rotwölfe vor. Das zuverlässigere Unterscheidungsmerkmal zum Grauwolf ist also nicht das Fell, sondern die sehr viel zierlichere Gestalt. Außerdem hat der Rotwolf eine schmalere Schnauze und proportional größere Ohren.

Verbreitungsgebiet und Bestand

Verbreitet war der Rotwolf ursprünglich im Südosten der Vereinigten Staaten, wo er um 1980 ausstarb. Durch intensive Jagd ist er so weit ausgerottet worden, bis Restbestände zuletzt nur noch in Teilen von Texas und Louisiana verblieben.

Rotwolf mit Senderhalsband zur Erforschung seiner Wanderwege

Im Jahr 1973 wurde in den USA der Endangered Species Act ("Gefährdete-Arten-Gesetz") in Kraft gesetzt. Im gleichen Jahr begann der US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ein Zuchtprogramm, wofür 79 wilde Rotwölfe gefangen und 14, die als reine Rotwölfe bestimmt wurden, als Grundstock für die Zuchtpopulation ausgewählt wurden. Der Rotwolf starb danach in freier Wildbahn aus. Ein Aussterben der Art insgesamt konnte durch die Nachzuchten allerdings verhindert werden. Die Nachkommen der in Gefangenschaft gezüchteten Rotwölfe wurden seit 1987 im Nordosten des Staates North Carolina wieder ausgesetzt. Das Gebiet wurde unter anderem deshalb ausgewählt, da es als kojotenfrei galt und somit Kreuzungen zwischen beiden Hundeformen als unwahrscheinlich galten. Seit den 1990er Jahren wanderten jedoch Kojoten in das Gebiet ein und es kam zu Paarungen zwischen den Arten. Dies gilt als größte Bedrohung für die Wildpopulation.^[2] Als potentielle Gefährdung kann sich auch die geringe genetische Diversität erweisen, da die Art einen genetischen Flaschenhals passieren musste.

Das heutige Verbreitungsgebiet im Norden des Staates North Carolina umfasst drei Wildreservate: das Alligator-River-Nationalwildreservat, das Pocosin-Lakes-Nationalwildreservat und das Mattamuskeet-Nationalwildreservat. Die Population stieg nach der Freilassung zunächst rasch an. Die maximale Population wurde mit rund 130 Tieren 2006 erreicht.

In den Folgejahren ging die Populationszahl aufgrund illegaler Abschüsse jedoch allmählich wieder zurück. Das Problem verschärfte sich 2013 mit der Abschussgenehmigung der NC Wildlife Resources Commission auf Kojoten, die leicht mit Rotwölfen verwechselt werden können.^[3] 2014 überdachte die USFWS ihr Schutzprogramm aufgrund von Erkenntnissen, die darauf hinwiesen, dass die gezüchteten Rotwölfe lediglich Hybriden seien, sowie der ablehnenden Haltung der lokalen Bevölkerung.^[4] Daraufhin wurden seit 2015 keine weiteren Rotwölfe mehr freigelassen oder Kojoten im Verbreitungsgebiet sterilisiert.^[1]

2016 schätzte der USFWS den Bestand noch auf 50–75 Tiere, 2019 zählte man nurmehr 14 Rotwölfe in freier Wildbahn.^[5] Stand Februar 2021 waren nur noch 10 mit Senderhalsband freilebende Rotwölfe bekannt. Zudem wurden 2019 und 2020 das erste Mal seit 31 Jahren keine Jungtiere in freier Wildbahn geboren.^[3][1]

Nach einer erfolgreichen Klage mehrerer Umweltorganisationen gegen die USFWS muss diese nach einem Gerichtsbeschluss vom 22. Januar 2021 ihr Schutzprogramm wieder aufnehmen. Zudem wurde das Ausstellen weiterer Abschussgenehmigungen für Rotwölfe untersagt.^[1] Ein weiteres Projekt, die Art in den Great Smoky Mountains wieder anzusiedeln, verlief erfolglos.

Lebensweise

Rotwolf im Galopp

Wegen seiner geringeren Größe jagt der Rotwolf kleinere Tiere als sein Verwandter, der Grauwolf. Waschbären, Hasen und Nagetiere sind seine Hauptbeute. Große Tiere wie Hirsche werden nur angefallen, wenn sie krank und geschwächt sind. Außerdem geht der Rotwolf auch an Aas.

Wie Grauwölfe leben Rotwölfe nachtaktiv in Rudeln. Ein Alpha-Paar führt das Rudel an und zeugt die Nachkommenschaft. In einem Wurf befinden sich normalerweise drei bis sechs, in sehr seltenen Fällen auch bis zu zwölf Welpen. Das Heulen ist weniger laut und tragend als das des Grauwolfes; es soll wie eine Mischung der Lautgebungen von Wölfen und Kojoten klingen.

Durch die Bejagung ist der Rotwolf ein Bewohner unzugänglicher Sümpfe und Bergregionen geworden, denn nur hier hat er überlebt. Ursprünglich hat er aber eine Vielzahl von Habitaten bewohnt und war in Wäldern wie im Grasland heimisch.

Taxonomischer Status

Rotwolf und Kojote

Es herrscht nach wie vor Uneinigkeit, ob der Rotwolf wirklich eine eigenständige Art ist. Er wurde lange als Unterart des Wolfs angesehen. 1968 wurde er erstmals in einem zoologischen Werk als eigenständige Art geführt,^[6] und mehrere Zoologen haben diese Ansicht seither bestätigt.

Genetische Untersuchungen aus dem Jahr 1991 haben zu der Entdeckung geführt, dass alle Rotwölfe Genmaterial von Wölfen (Canis lupus) und Kojoten (Canis latrans) in sich tragen. Hieraus haben manche den Schluss gezogen, dass der Rotwolf ein Hybrid aus Wölfen und Kojoten ist. Unterstützt wird diese These durch die Tatsache, dass im – bisher allerdings nur teilweise entschlüsselten – Genom der Rotwölfe noch keine individuellen Teile gefunden wurden, die sie als eigene Art charakterisieren würden. Um als eigene Art zu gelten, muss nach Ansicht mancher Biologen ein Tier über einzigartige genetische Merkmale verfügen. Das bisher erforschte Genom der Rotwölfe kommt jedoch auch bei Wölfen oder Kojoten vor.^[7][8]

Eine andere These ist, dass der Rotwolf schon seit längerer Zeit, etwa 1930, Paarungen mit Wölfen und besonders Kojoten eingeht, vielleicht sogar noch länger, und dadurch eventuell das eigene genetische Material verschwunden ist. Auf jeden Fall gehen freilebende Rotwölfe Paarungen mit Wölfen und Kojoten ein, weil sie keine arteigenen Paarungspartner finden.

Einzelnachweise

1. ↑ ^{a b c d} Can red wolves come back from the brink of extinction again? The Guardian, abgerufen am 10. März 2021 (englisch).
2. ↑ P. W. Hedrick, R. J. Frederickson: Captive breeding and the reintroduction of Mexican and red wolves. In: Molecular Ecology. Band 17, Nr. 1, Januar 2008, S. 344–350, doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2007.03400.x.
3. ↑ ^{a b} The Endangered Red Wolf. Wolf Conservation Center, abgerufen am 10. März 2021 (englisch).
4. ↑ Ben Crair: What’s a Species, Anyways? In: The New Republic. 6. Dezember 2015, abgerufen am 7. Dezember 2015.
5. ↑ Only 14 red wolves remain in SC wild, and US agency won’t say what they’re doing about it, in The Post and Courier, 16. Oktober 2019
6. ↑ John L. Paradiso: Canids Recently Collected in East Texas, with Comments on the Taxonomy of the Red Wolf. In: American Midland Naturalist. Band 80, Nr. 2, 1. Oktober 1968, S. 529–534, doi:10.2307/2423543.
7. ↑ Niles Lehman, Andrew Eisenhawer, Kimberly Hansen, L. David Mech, Rolf O. Peterson, Peter J. P. Gogan, Robert K. Wayne: Introgression of Coyote Mitochondrial DNA Into Sympatric North American Gray Wolf Populations. In: Evolution. Band 45, Nr. 1, 1. Februar 1991, S. 104–119, doi:10.2307/2409486.
8. ↑ Bridgett M. vonHoldt, John P. Pollinger, Dent A. Earl, James C. Knowles, Adam R. Boyko, Heidi Parker, Eli Geffen, Malgorzata Pilot, Wlodzimierz Jedrzejewski, Bogumila Jedrzejewska, Vadim Sidorovich, Claudia Greco, Ettore Randi, Marco Musiani, Roland Kays, Carlos D. Bustamante, Elaine A. Ostrander, John Novembre, Robert K. Wayne: A genome-wide perspective on the evolutionary history of enigmatic wolf-like canids. In: Genome Research. Band 21, Nr. 8, 1. August 2011, S. 1294–1305, doi:10.1101/gr.116301.110, PMC 3149496 (freier Volltext).

Canis rufus es un taxon del classe Mammalia.

Distribution

Sur est, ab le S.U.A. nonobstante in le actualitate su distrubution es multo reducite.

Le lupo rubie mesura inter 1 a 1.20 m de longe e pasa intre 20 a 41 kg.

Su Pelage es de color falve con mixtura de gris e nigre, illo es plus obscure super le dorso.

Habitat

Ille vive in grege in terrenos montaniose e zonas paludose inaccessibile.

Ille differe del lupo gris per su talia plus parve, de plus ille ha patas et aures longe e pelage curte.

Reproduction

Sol le masculo e le femina dominante ha le derecto a reproducir se in le banda ; le alteres membros del familia contribue al elevage del lupinos et al obtention de alimento pro le femina pro un bon lactation.

Le gestation dura inter 60 a 63 dies.

Alimentation

Rodentes, ungulates e altere parve mammales. Le predes predominante es le cervo de cauda blanc, le cuniculo, le porcos, le rattos, le myocastor e le ratto muscate ; equalmente illos pote mangiar caronia.

Canis rufus — від клясы сысуноў атрада драпежных сямейства сабачых.

Зьнешні выгляд

Canis rufus і Canis latrans

Даўжыня цела 95-120 см, даўжыня хваста 25—35 см; маса дарослых 20-35 кг, вышыня 66—79 см. Морда і ногі доўгія. Мех кароткі.

Крыніцы

Вонкавыя спасылкі

• Canis rufus | ARKive ^(анг.)
• Mulheisen, M. and R. Csomos 2001. Canis rufus, Animal Diversity Web ^(анг.)
• Ronald M. Nowak. 2005. Walker's carnivores of the world — JHU Press, P. 99 ^(анг.)

The reid wouf (Canis rufus^[4]/Canis lupus rufus^[5]), forby kent as the Florida wouf or Mississippi Valley wouf^[6] is a canid o unresolved taxonomic identity native tae the eastren Unitit States.^[7][8]

References

A Ruad wulew (Canis rufus, uk Canis niger näämd, det as oober ferkiard) as en slach faan hünjer (Canidae). Hi wiar al bal ütjstürwen, lewet nü oober weder uun North Carolina.

Ο κόκκινος λύκος (Canis lupus rufus^[1][2] ή Canis rufus^[3]) είναι κυνοειδές που προέρχεται από τις νοτιοανατολικές Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες. Το υποείδος είναι το αποκύημα της αρχαίας γενετικής ανάμειξης μεταξύ του γκρίζου λύκου και του κογιότ,^[4][5] ωστόσο θεωρείται μοναδικό και ως εκ τούτου άξιο διατήρησης.^[6] Μορφολογικά είναι ενδιάμεσος μεταξύ του κογιότ και του γκρίζου λύκου, και έχει κοκκινωπό, καστανόξανθο χρώμα.^[7][8] Το αμερικανικό Endangered Species Act του 1973 δεν παρέχει σήμερα προστασία για τα αναμεμειγμένα απειλούμενα με εξαφάνιση ζώα και οι ερευνητές υποστηρίζουν ότι σε αυτά πρέπει να εγγυάται πλήρη προστασία βάσει του θεσπίσματος.^[4][6] Ωστόσο, ο κόκκινος λύκος, όταν θεωρείται ως είδος καταγράφεται ως απειλούμενο είδος δυνάμει του παρόντος θεσπίσματος και προστατεύεται από το νόμο.^[9] Παρόλο που ο Canis rufus δεν περιλαμβάνεται στα παραρτήματα της CITES των απειλούμενων ειδών,^[10] από το 1996 η IUCN τον έχει καταχωρίσει ως κρίσιμα απειλούμενο είδος.^[10]

Παραπομπές

Улаан чоно (Canis rufus) нь Хойд Америкт, Америкийн Нэгдсэн Улсын зүүн өмнөд хэсгээр тархсан чоно юм. Хожуу Плейстоцены эринд бий болж, мөстлөгийн үеийг даван гарсан амьтан билээ^[3]. Техасаас Флорида хүртэлх нутагт амьдардаг бөгөөд Хойд Каролинад шилжүүлэн нутагшуулсан бүл бий^[4]. Зэрлэг улаан чононууд устах аюулд ороод байгаа гэж эрдэмтэд сануулдаг.

Эшлэл

Гадны холбоосууд

– Викимедиа дуу дүрсний сан

Rēadwulf

Rēad wulf is wulfa cynn.

The red wolf (Canis rufus)^[2][6][7] is a canine native to the southeastern United States. Its size is intermediate between the coyote (Canis latrans) and gray wolf (Canis lupus).^[8]

The red wolf's taxonomic classification as being a separate species, a subspecies of the gray wolf Canis lupus rufus,^[9][10] or a coywolf (a genetic admixture of wolf and coyote) has been contentious for nearly a century. Because of this, it is sometimes excluded from endangered species lists, despite its critically low numbers.^[11][12] Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently recognizes the red wolf as an endangered species and grants it protected status.^[3] Since 1996, the IUCN has listed the red wolf as a Critically Endangered species;^[2] however, it is not listed in the CITES Appendices of endangered species.^[13]

History

Red wolves were originally distributed throughout the southeastern and south-central United States from the Atlantic Ocean to central Texas, southeastern Oklahoma and southwestern Illinois in the west, and in the north from the Ohio River Valley, northern Pennsylvania, southern New York, and extreme southern Ontario in Canada^[2] south to the Gulf of Mexico.^[14] The red wolf was nearly driven to extinction by the mid-1900s due to aggressive predator-control programs, habitat destruction, and extensive hybridization with coyotes. By the late 1960s, it occurred in small numbers in the Gulf Coast of western Louisiana and eastern Texas.

Fourteen of these survivors were selected to be the founders of a captive-bred population, which was established in the Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium between 1974 and 1980. After a successful experimental relocation to Bulls Island off the coast of South Carolina in 1978, the red wolf was declared extinct in the wild in 1980 to proceed with restoration efforts. In 1987, the captive animals were released into the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (ARNWR) on the Albemarle Peninsula in North Carolina, with a second release, since reversed, taking place two years later in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.^[15] Of 63 red wolves released from 1987 to 1994,^[16] the population rose to as many as 100–120 individuals in 2012, but due to the lack of regulation enforcement by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the population has declined to 40 individuals in 2018,^[17] about 14 in 2019 ^[18] and 8 as of October 2021.^[19] No wild litters were born between 2019 and 2020.^[19]

Under pressure from conservation groups, the US Fish and Wildlife Service resumed reintroductions and increased protection. Reintroductions resumed in 2021. In 2022, the first wild litter was born since 2018. As of 2023, there are between 15 and 17 wild red wolves in ARNWR.^[20]

Description and behavior

A red wolf

The red wolf's appearance is typical of the genus Canis, and is generally intermediate in size between the coyote and gray wolf, though some specimens may overlap in size with small gray wolves. A study of Canis morphometrics conducted in eastern North Carolina reported that red wolves are morphometrically distinct from coyotes and hybrids.^[21] Adults measure 136–165 cm (53.5–65 in) in length, comprising a tail of about 37 cm (14.6 in).^[11][21] Their weight ranges from 20 to 39 kg (44-85 lbs) with males averaging 29 kg (64 lbs) and females 25 kg (55 lbs).^[21] Its pelage is typically more reddish and sparsely furred than the coyote's and gray wolf's, though melanistic individuals do occur.^[11] Its fur is generally tawny to grayish in color, with light markings around the lips and eyes.^[12] The red wolf has been compared by some authors to the greyhound in general form, owing to its relatively long and slender limbs. The ears are also proportionately larger than the coyote's and gray wolf's. The skull is typically narrow, with a long and slender rostrum, a small braincase and a well developed sagittal crest. Its cerebellum is unlike that of other Canis species, being closer in form to that of canids of the Vulpes and Urocyon genera, thus indicating that the red wolf is one of the more plesiomorphic members of its genus.^[11]

The red wolf is more sociable than the coyote, but less so than the gray wolf. It mates in January–February, with an average of 6-7 pups being born in March, April, and May. It is monogamous, with both parents participating in the rearing of young.^[22][23] Denning sites include hollow tree trunks, along stream banks and the abandoned earths of other animals. By the age of six weeks, the pups distance themselves from the den,^[22] and reach full size at the age of one year, becoming sexually mature two years later.^[12]

Using long-term data on red wolf individuals of known pedigree, it was found that inbreeding among first-degree relatives was rare.^[24] A likely mechanism for avoidance of inbreeding is independent dispersal trajectories from the natal pack. Many of the young wolves spend time alone or in small non-breeding packs composed of unrelated individuals. The union of two unrelated individuals in a new home range is the predominant pattern of breeding pair formation.^[24] Inbreeding is avoided because it results in progeny with reduced fitness (inbreeding depression) that is predominantly caused by the homozygous expression of recessive deleterious alleles.^[25]

Prior to its extinction in the wild, the red wolf's diet consisted of rabbits, rodents, and nutria (an introduced species).^[26] In contrast, the red wolves from the restored population rely on white-tailed deer, raccoon, nutria and rabbits.^[27][28] White-tailed deer were largely absent from the last wild refuge of red wolves on the Gulf Coast between Texas and Louisiana (where specimens were trapped from the last wild population for captive breeding), which likely accounts for the discrepancy in their dietary habits listed here. Historical accounts of wolves in the southeast by early explorers such as William Hilton, who sailed along the Cape Fear River in what is now North Carolina in 1644, also note that they ate deer.^[29]

Range and habitat

Historical range of the red wolf

The originally recognized red wolf range extended throughout the southeastern United States from the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, north to the Ohio River Valley and central Pennsylvania, and west to Central Texas and southeastern Missouri.^[30] Research into paleontological, archaeological and historical specimens of red wolves by Ronald Nowak expanded their known range to include land south of the Saint Lawrence River in Canada, along the eastern seaboard, and west to Missouri and mid-Illinois, terminating in the southern latitudes of Central Texas.^[1]

Given their wide historical distribution, red wolves probably used a large suite of habitat types at one time. The last naturally occurring population used coastal prairie marshes, swamps, and agricultural fields used to grow rice and cotton. However, this environment probably does not typify preferred red wolf habitat. Some evidence shows the species was found in highest numbers in the once extensive bottom-land river forests and swamps of the southeastern United States. Red wolves reintroduced into northeastern North Carolina have used habitat types ranging from agricultural lands to forest/wetland mosaics characterized by an overstory of pine and an understory of evergreen shrubs. This suggests that red wolves are habitat generalists and can thrive in most settings where prey populations are adequate and persecution by humans is slight.^[31]

Extirpation in the wild

Melanistic red wolf at Audubon Park, New Orleans (1931)

In 1940 the biologist Stanley P. Young noted that the red wolf was still common in eastern Texas, where more than 800 had been caught in 1939 because of their attacks on livestock. He did not believe that they could be exterminated because of their habit of living concealed in thickets.^[32] In 1962 a study of skull morphology of wild Canis in the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas indicated that the red wolf existed in only a few populations due to hybridization with the coyote. The explanation was that either the red wolf could not adapt to changes to its environment due to human land-use along with its accompanying influx of competing coyotes from the west, or that the red wolf was being hybridized out of existence by the coyote.^[33]

Reintroduced habitat

Since 1987, red wolves have been released into northeastern North Carolina, where they roam 1.7 million acres.^[34] These lands span five counties (Dare, Hyde, Tyrrell, Washington, and Beaufort) and include three national wildlife refuges, a U.S. Air Force bombing range, and private land.^[34] The red wolf recovery program is unique for a large carnivore reintroduction in that more than half of the land used for reintroduction lies on private property. Approximately 680,000 acres (2,800 km²) are federal and state lands, and 1,002,000 acres (4,050 km²) are private lands.

Beginning in 1991, red wolves were also released into the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in eastern Tennessee.^[35] However, due to exposure to environmental disease (parvovirus), parasites, and competition (with coyotes as well as intraspecific aggression), the red wolf was unable to successfully establish a wild population in the park. Low prey density was also a problem, forcing the wolves to leave the park boundaries in pursuit of food in lower elevations. In 1998, the FWS took away the remaining red wolves in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, relocating them to Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in eastern North Carolina.^[36] Other red wolves have been released on the coastal islands in Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina as part of the captive breeding management plan. St. Vincent Island in Florida is currently the only active island propagation site.

Captive breeding and reintroduction

USFWS worker with red wolf pups, August 2002

After the passage of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, formal efforts backed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began to save the red wolf from extinction, when a captive-breeding program was established at the Point Defiance Zoological Gardens, Tacoma, Washington. Four hundred animals were captured from southwestern Louisiana and southeastern Texas from 1973 to 1980 by the USFWS.^[37][38]

Measurements, vocalization analyses, and skull X-rays were used to distinguish red wolves from coyotes and red wolf × coyote hybrids. Of the 400 canids captured, only 43 were believed to be red wolves and sent to the breeding facility. The first litters were produced in captivity in May 1977. Some of the pups were determined to be hybrids, and they and their parents were removed from the program. Of the original 43 animals, only 17 were considered pure red wolves and since three were unable to breed, 14 became the breeding stock for the captive-breeding program.^[39] These 14 were so closely related that they had the genetic effect of being only eight individuals.

In 1996, the red wolf was listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as a critically endangered species.^[2]

20th century releases

1976 release in Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge

In December 1976, two wolves were released onto Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge's Bulls Island in South Carolina with the intent of testing and honing reintroduction methods. They were not released with the intent of beginning a permanent population on the island.^[40] The first experimental translocation lasted for 11 days, during which a mated pair of red wolves was monitored day and night with remote telemetry. A second experimental translocation was tried in 1978 with a different mated pair, and they were allowed to remain on the island for close to nine months.^[40] After that, a larger project was executed in 1987 to reintroduce a permanent population of red wolves back to the wild in the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (ARNWR) on the eastern coast of North Carolina. Also in 1987, Bulls Island became the first island breeding site. Pups were raised on the island and relocated to North Carolina until 2005.^[41]

1986 release in Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge

In September 1987, four male-female pairs of red wolves were released in the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, in northeastern North Carolina, and designated as an experimental population. Since then, the experimental population has grown and the recovery area expanded to include four national wildlife refuges, a Department of Defense bombing range, state-owned lands, and private lands, encompassing about 1,700,000 acres (6,900 km²).^[42]

1989 release on Horn Island, Mississippi

In 1989, the second island propagation project was initiated with release of a population on Horn Island off the Mississippi coast. This population was removed in 1998 because of a likelihood of encounters with humans. The third island propagation project introduced a population on St. Vincent Island, Florida, offshore between Cape San Blas and Apalachicola, Florida, in 1990, and in 1997, the fourth island propagation program introduced a population to Cape St. George Island, Florida, south of Apalachicola.

1991 release in the Great Smoky Mountains

In 1991, two pairs were reintroduced into the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, where the last known red wolf was killed in 1905. Despite some early success, the wolves were relocated to eastern North Carolina in 1998, ending the effort to reintroduce the species to the park.

21st century status

Over 30 facilities participate in the red wolf Species Survival Plan and oversee the breeding and reintroduction of over 150 wolves.^[43]

In 2007, the USFWS estimated that 300 red wolves remained in the world, with 207 of those in captivity.^[44] By late 2020, the number of wild individuals had shrunk to only about 7 radio-collared and a dozen uncollared individuals, with no wild pups born since 2018. This decline has been linked to shooting and poisoning of wolves by landowners, and suspended conservation efforts by the USFWS.^[45]

A 2019 analysis by the Center for Biological Diversity of available habitat throughout the red wolf's former range found that over 20,000 square miles of public land across 5 sites had viable habitat for red wolves to be reintroduced to in the future. These sites were chosen based on prey levels, isolation from coyotes and human development, and connectivity with other sites. These sites include: the Apalachicola and Osceola National Forests along with the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and nearby protected lands; numerous national parks and national forests in the Appalachian Mountains including the Monongahela, George Washington & Jefferson, Cherokee, Pisgah, Nantahala, Chattahoochee, and Talladega National Forests along with Shenandoah National Park and the lower elevations of Great Smoky Mountains National Park; Croatoan National Forest and Hofmann Forest on the North Carolina coast, and the Ozark, Ouatchita, and Mark Twain National Forests in the central United States.^[18]

In late 2018, two canids that are largely coyote were found on Galveston Island, Texas with red wolf alleles (gene expressions) left from a ghost population of red wolves. Since these alleles are from a different population from the red wolves in the North Carolina captive breeding program, there has been a proposal to selectively cross-breed the Galveston Island coyotes^[a] into the captive red wolf population.^[46] Another study published around the same time analyzing canid scat and hair samples in southwestern Louisiana found genetic evidence of red wolf ancestry in about 55% of sampled canids, with one such individual having between 78 and 100% red wolf ancestry, suggesting the possibility of more red wolf genes in the wild that may not be present in the captive population.^[47]

From 2015 to 2019, there were no red wolves released into the wild. But in March 2020, the FWS released a new breeding pair of red wolves, including a young male red wolf from St. Vincent Island, Florida into the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. The pair were unsuccessful at producing a litter of pups in the wild. On March 1, 2021, two male red wolves from Florida were paired with two female wild red wolves from eastern North Carolina and released into the wild. One of the male wolves was killed by a car shortly after being released into the wild. On April 30 and May 1, four adult red wolves were released into the wild and four red wolf pups were fostered by a wild female red wolf.^[48] In addition to the eight released wolves, the total number of red wolves living in the wild amount to nearly thirty wild individuals, including a dozen other wolves not wearing radio collars.^[49]

A study published in 2020 reported camera traps recorded "the presence of a large canid possessing wolf-like characters" in northeast Texas and later hair samples and tracks from the area indicated the presence of red wolves.^[50]

By fall of 2021, a total of six red wolves had been killed, including the four adults that had been released in the spring. Three of the released adults had been killed in vehicle collisions, two had died from unknown cases, and the fourth released adult had been shot by a landowner who feared the wolf was attempting to get his chickens. These losses dropped the number of wolves in the wild down to about 20 wild individuals. In the winter of 2021–2022, the Fish and Wildlife Services selected nine captive adult red wolves to be released into the wild. A family of five red wolves were released into the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, while two new breeding pairs of adult wolves were released into the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. The release of these new wolves brought the number of wild red wolves in eastern North Carolina up to less than 30 wild individuals.

On April 22, 2022, one of the breeding pairs of adult red wolves produced a litter of six wolf pups, four females and two males. This new litter of red wolf pups became the first litter born in the wild since 2018. As of 2023, there are between 15 and 17 wild red wolves in Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge.^[20]

Coyote × re-introduced red wolf issues

Interbreeding with the coyote has been recognized as a threat affecting the restoration of red wolves. Currently, adaptive management efforts are making progress in reducing the threat of coyotes to the red wolf population in northeastern North Carolina. Other threats, such as habitat fragmentation, disease, and human-caused mortality, are of concern in the restoration of red wolves. Efforts to reduce the threats are presently being explored.^[34]

By 1999, introgression of coyote genes was recognized as the single greatest threat to wild red wolf recovery and an adaptive management plan which included coyote sterilization has been successful, with coyote genes being reduced by 2015 to < 4% of the wild red wolf population.^[16]

Since the 2014 programmatic review, the USFWS ceased implementing the red wolf adaptive management plan that was responsible for preventing red wolf hybridization with coyotes and allowed the release of captive-born red wolves into the wild population.^[51] Since then, the wild population has decreased from 100 to 115 red wolves to less than 30.^[52] Despite the controversy over the red wolf's status as a unique taxon as well as the USFWS' apparent disinterest towards wolf conservation in the wild, the vast majority of public comments (including NC residents) submitted to the USFWS in 2017 over their new wolf management plan were in favor of the original wild conservation plan.^[53]

A 2016 genetic study of canid scats found that despite high coyote density inside the Red Wolf Experimental Population Area (RWEPA), hybridization occurs rarely (4% are hybrids).^[54]

Contested killing of re-introduced red wolves

High wolf mortality related to anthropogenic causes appeared to be the main factor limiting wolf dispersal westward from the RWEPA.^[54] High anthropogenic wolf mortality similarly limits expansion of eastern wolves outside of protected areas in south-eastern Canada.^[55]

In 2012, the Southern Environmental Law Center filed a lawsuit against the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission for jeopardizing the existence of the wild red wolf population by allowing nighttime hunting of coyotes in the five-county restoration area in eastern North Carolina.^[56] A 2014 court-approved settlement agreement was reached that banned nighttime hunting of coyotes and requires permitting and reporting coyote hunting.^[56] In response to the settlement, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission adopted a resolution requesting the USFWS to remove all wild red wolves from private lands, terminate recovery efforts, and declare red wolves extinct in the wild.^[57] This resolution came in the wake of a 2014 programmatic review of the red wolf conservation program conducted by The Wildlife Management Institute.^[58][59][60] The Wildlife Management Institute indicated the reintroduction of the red wolf was an incredible achievement. The report indicated that red wolves could be released and survive in the wild, but that illegal killing of red wolves threatens the long-term persistence of the population.^[60] The report stated that the USFWS needed to update its red wolf recovery plan, thoroughly evaluate its strategy for preventing coyote hybridization and increase its public outreach.^[61]

In 2014, the USFWS issued the first take permit for a red wolf to a private landowner.^[62] Since then, the USFWS issued several other take permits to landowners in the five-county restoration area. During June 2015, a landowner shot and killed a female red wolf after being authorized a take permit, causing a public outcry.^[63][64] In response, the Southern Environmental Law Center filed a lawsuit against the USFWS for violating the Endangered Species Act.^[65]

By 2016, the red wolf population of North Carolina had declined to 45-60 wolves. The largest cause of this decline was gunshot.^[66]

In June 2018, the USFWS announced a proposal that would limit the wolves' safe range to only Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, where only about 35 wolves remain, thus allowing hunting on private land.^[67][68] In November 2018, Chief Judge Terrence W. Boyle found that the USFWS had violated its congressional mandate to protect the red wolf, and ruled that USFWS had no power to give landowners the right to shoot them.^[69]

Relationship to humans

Since before European colonization of the Americas, the red wolf has featured prominently in Cherokee spiritual beliefs, where it is known as wa'ya (ᏩᏯ), and is said to be the companion of Kana'ti - the hunter and father of the Aniwaya or Wolf Clan.^[70] Traditionally, Cherokee people generally avoid killing red wolves, as such an act is believed to bring about the vengeance of the killed animals' pack-mates.^[71]

Gallery

• 

  Showing color variation

• 

  In winter

• 

  Color contrast

• 

  A red wolf in a breeding program. Fewer than 100 remain in the wild.

• 

  With radio collar

• 

  A captive red wolf from Oklahoma (1944)

Taxonomy

Comparative image of a red wolf and a western coyote (C. latrans incolatus)

The taxonomic status of the red wolf is debated. It has been described as either a species with a distinct lineage,^[72] a recent hybrid of the gray wolf and the coyote,^[10] an ancient hybrid of the gray wolf and the coyote which warrants species status,^[73] or a distinct species that has undergone recent hybridization with the coyote.^[74][75]

The naturalists John James Audubon and John Bachman were the first to suggest that the wolves of the southern United States were different from wolves in its other regions. In 1851 they recorded the "Black American Wolf" as C. l. var. ater that existed in Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Kentucky, southern Indiana, southern Missouri, Louisiana, and northern Texas. They also recorded the "Red Texan Wolf" as C. l. var. rufus that existed from northern Arkansas, through Texas, and into Mexico. In 1912 the zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller Jr. noted that the designation ater was unavailable and recorded these wolves as C. l. floridanus.^[76]

In 1937, the zoologist Edward Alphonso Goldman proposed a new species of wolf Canis rufus.^[6] Three subspecies of red wolf were originally recognized by Goldman, with two of these subspecies now being extinct. The Florida black wolf (Canis rufus floridanus) (Maine to Florida) has been extinct since 1908 and the Mississippi Valley red wolf (Canis rufus gregoryi) (south-central United States)^[1] was declared extinct by 1980. By the 1970s, the Texas red wolf (Canis rufus rufus) existed only in the coastal prairies and marshes of extreme southeastern Texas and southwestern Louisiana. These were removed from the wild to form a captive breeding program and reintroduced into eastern North Carolina in 1987.^[38]

In 1967, the zoologists Barbara Lawrence and William H. Bossert believed that the case for classifying C. rufus as a species was based too heavily on the small red wolves of central Texas, from where it was known that there existed hybridization with the coyote. They said that if an adequate number of specimens had been included from Florida, then the separation of C. rufus from C. lupus would have been unlikely.^[76] The taxonomic reference Catalogue of Life classifies the red wolf as a subspecies of Canis lupus.^[9] The mammalogist W. Christopher Wozencraft, writing in Mammal Species of the World (2005), regards the red wolf as a hybrid of the gray wolf and the coyote, but due to its uncertain status compromised by recognizing it as a subspecies of the gray wolf Canis lupus rufus.^[10]

In 2021, the American Society of Mammalogists considered the red wolf as its own species (Canis rufus).^[77][78]

Taxonomic debate

When European settlers first arrived to North America, the coyote's range was limited to the western half of the continent. They existed in the arid areas and across the open plains, including the prairie regions of the midwestern states. Early explorers found some in Indiana and Wisconsin. From the mid-1800s onward, coyotes began expanding beyond their original range.^[76]

The taxonomic debate regarding North American wolves can be summarised as follows:

There are two prevailing evolutionary models for North American Canis:

(i) a two-species model

that identifies grey wolves (C. lupus) and (western) coyotes (Canis latrans) as distinct species that gave rise to various hybrids, including the Great Lakes-boreal wolf (also known as Great Lakes wolf), the eastern coyote (also known as Coywolf / brush wolf / tweed wolf), the red wolf, and the eastern (Algonquin) wolf;

and

(ii) a three-species model

that identifies the grey wolf, western coyote, and eastern wolf (C. lycaon) as distinct species, where Great Lakes-boreal wolves are the product of grey wolf × eastern wolf hybridization, eastern coyotes are the result of eastern wolf × western coyote hybridization, and red wolves are considered historically the same species as the eastern wolf, although their contemporary genetic signature has diverged owing to a bottleneck associated with captive breeding.^[79]

Fossil evidence

The paleontologist Ronald M. Nowak notes that the oldest fossil remains of the red wolf are 10,000 years old and were found in Florida near Melbourne, Brevard County, Withlacoochee River, Citrus County, and Devil's Den Cave, Levy County. He notes that there are only a few, but questionable, fossil remains of the gray wolf found in the southeastern states. He proposes that following the extinction of the dire wolf, the coyote appears to have been displaced from the southeastern US by the red wolf until the last century, when the extirpation of wolves allowed the coyote to expand its range. He also proposes that the ancestor of all North American and Eurasian wolves was C. mosbachensis, which lived in the Middle Pleistocene 700,000–300,000 years ago.^[1]

C. mosbachensis was a wolf that once lived across Eurasia before going extinct. It was smaller than most North American wolf populations and smaller than C. rufus, and has been described as being similar in size to the small Indian wolf, Canis lupus pallipes. He further proposes that C. mosbachensis invaded North America where it became isolated by the later glaciation and there gave rise to C. rufus. In Eurasia, C. mosbachensis evolved into C. lupus, which later invaded North America.^[72]: 242

The paleontologist and expert on the genus Canis' natural history, Xiaoming Wang, looked at red wolf fossil material but could not state if it was, or was not, a separate species. He said that Nowak had put together more morphometric data on red wolves than anybody else, but Nowak's statistical analysis of the data revealed a red wolf that is difficult to deal with. Wang proposes that studies of ancient DNA taken from fossils might help settle the debate.^[80]

Morphological evidence

Audubon's depiction of the red wolf (1851)

Skulls of North American canines, with the red wolf in the center

In 1771, the English naturalist Mark Catesby referred to Florida and the Carolinas when he wrote that "The Wolves in America are like those of Europe, in shape and colour, but are somewhat smaller." They were described as being more timid and less voracious.^[81] In 1791 the American naturalist William Bartram wrote in his book Travels about a wolf which he had encountered in Florida that was larger than a dog, but was black in contrast to the larger yellow-brown wolves of Pennsylvania and Canada.^[31][82] In 1851 the naturalists John James Audubon and John Bachman described the "Red Texan Wolf" in detail. They noted that it could be found in Florida and other southeastern states, but it differed from other North American wolves and named it Canis lupus rufus. It was described as being more fox-like than the gray wolf, but retaining the same "sneaking, cowardly, yet ferocious disposition".^[5]

In 1905, the mammalogist Vernon Bailey referred to the "Texan Red Wolf" with the first use of the name Canis rufus.^[83] In 1937 the zoologist Edward Goldman undertook a morphological study of southeastern wolf specimens. He noted that their skulls and dentition differed from those of gray wolves and closely approached those of coyotes. He identified the specimens as all belonging to the one species which he referred to as Canis rufus.^[6][84] Goldman then examined a large number of southeastern wolf specimens and identified three subspecies, noting that their colors ranged from black, gray, and cinnamon-buff.^[84]

It is difficult to distinguish the red wolf from a red wolf × coyote hybrid.^[31] During the 1960s, two studies of the skull morphology of wild Canis in the southeastern states found them to belong to the red wolf, the coyote, or many variations in between. The conclusion was that there has been recent massive hybridization with the coyote.^[33][85] In contrast, another 1960s study of Canis morphology concluded that the red wolf, eastern wolf, and domestic dog were closer to the gray wolf than the coyote, while still remaining clearly distinctive from each other. The study regarded these 3 canines as subspecies of the gray wolf. However, the study noted that "red wolf" specimens taken from the edge of their range which they shared with the coyote could not be attributed to any one species because the cranial variation was very wide. The study proposed further research to ascertain if hybridization had occurred.^[86][87]

In 1971, a study of the skulls of C. rufus, C. lupus and C. latrans indicated that C. rufus was distinguishable by being in size and shape midway between the gray wolf and the coyote. A re-examination of museum canine skulls collected from central Texas between 1915 and 1918 showed variations spanning from C. rufus through to C. latrans. The study proposes that by 1930 due to human habitat modification, the red wolf had disappeared from this region and had been replaced by a hybrid swarm. By 1969, this hybrid swarm was moving eastwards into eastern Texas and Louisiana.^[8]

In the late 19th century, sheep farmers in Kerr County, Texas, stated that the coyotes in the region were larger than normal coyotes, and they believed that they were a gray wolf and coyote cross.^[76] In 1970, the wolf mammalogist L. David Mech proposed that the red wolf was a hybrid of the gray wolf and coyote.^[88] However, a 1971 study compared the cerebellum within the brain of six Canis species and found that the cerebellum of the red wolf indicated a distinct species, was closest to that of the gray wolf, but in contrast indicated some characteristics that were more primitive than those found in any of the other Canis species.^[89] In 2014, a three-dimensional morphometrics study of Canis species accepted only six red wolf specimens for analysis from those on offer, due to the impact of hybridization on the others.^[74]

DNA studies

Different DNA studies may give conflicting results because of the specimens selected, the technology used, and the assumptions made by the researchers.^[90][b]

Phylogenetic trees compiled using different genetic markers have given conflicting results on the relationship between the wolf, dog and coyote. One study based on SNPs^[92] (a single mutation), and another based on nuclear gene sequences^[93] (taken from the cell nucleus), showed dogs clustering with coyotes and separate from wolves. Another study based on SNPS showed wolves clustering with coyotes and separate from dogs.^[94] Other studies based on a number of markers show the more widely accepted result of wolves clustering with dogs separate from coyotes.^[95][96] These results demonstrate that caution is needed when interpreting the results provided by genetic markers.^[92]

Genetic marker evidence

In 1980, a study used gel electrophoresis to look at fragments of DNA taken from dogs, coyotes, and wolves from the red wolf's core range. The study found that a unique allele (expression of a gene) associated with Lactate dehydrogenase could be found in red wolves, but not dogs and coyotes. The study suggests that this allele survives in the red wolf. The study did not compare gray wolves for the existence of this allele.^[97]

Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) passes along the maternal line and can date back thousands of years.^[80] In 1991, a study of red wolf mDNA indicates that red wolf genotypes match those known to belong to the gray wolf or the coyote. The study concluded that the red wolf is either a wolf × coyote hybrid or a species that has hybridized with the wolf and coyote across its entire range. The study proposed that the red wolf is a southeastern occurring subspecies of the gray wolf that has undergone hybridization due to an expanding coyote population; however, being unique and threatened that it should remain protected.^[98] This conclusion led to debate for the remainder of the decade.^{[99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109]}

In 2000, a study looked at red wolves and eastern Canadian wolves. The study agreed that these two wolves readily hybridize with the coyote. The study used eight microsatellites (genetic markers taken from across the genome of a specimen). The phylogenetic tree produced from the genetic sequences showed red wolves and eastern Canadian wolves clustering together. These then clustered next closer with the coyote and away from the gray wolf. A further analysis using mDNA sequences indicated the presence of coyote in both of these two wolves, and that these two wolves had diverged from the coyote 150,000–300,000 years ago. No gray wolf sequences were detected in the samples. The study proposes that these findings are inconsistent with the two wolves being subspecies of the gray wolf, that red wolves and eastern Canadian wolves evolved in North America after having diverged from the coyote, and therefore they are more likely to hybridize with coyotes.^[110]

In 2009, a study of eastern Canadian wolves using microsatellites, mDNA, and the paternally-inherited yDNA markers found that the eastern Canadian wolf was a unique ecotype of the gray wolf that had undergone recent hybridization with other gray wolves and coyotes. It could find no evidence to support the findings of the earlier 2000 study regarding the eastern Canadian wolf. The study did not include the red wolf.^[111]

In 2011, a study compared the genetic sequences of 48,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (mutations) taken from the genomes of canids from around the world. The comparison indicated that the red wolf was about 76% coyote and 24% gray wolf with hybridization having occurred 287–430 years ago. The eastern wolf was 58% gray wolf and 42% coyote with hybridization having occurred 546–963 years ago. The study rejected the theory of a common ancestry for the red and eastern wolves.^[80][112] However the next year, a study reviewed a subset of the 2011 study's Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data and proposed that its methodology had skewed the results and that the red and eastern wolves are not hybrids but are in fact the same species separate from the gray wolf.^[80][113] The 2012 study proposed that there are three true Canis species in North America - the gray wolf, the western coyote, and the red wolf / eastern wolf, with the eastern wolf represented by the Algonquin wolf, with the Great Lakes wolf being a hybrid of the eastern wolf and the gray wolf, and the eastern coyote being a hybrid of the western coyote and the eastern (Algonquin) wolf.^[113]

Also in 2011, a scientific literature review was undertaken to help assess the taxonomy of North American wolves. One of the findings proposed was that the eastern wolf is supported as a separate species by morphological and genetic data. Genetic data supports a close relationship between the eastern and red wolves, but not close enough to support these as one species. It was "likely" that these were the separate descendants of a common ancestor shared with coyotes. This review was published in 2012.^[114] In 2014, the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis was invited by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to provide an independent review of its proposed rule relating to gray wolves. The center's panel findings were that the proposed rule was heavily dependent upon the analysis contained in a scientific literature review conducted in 2011 (Chambers et al.), that this work was not universally accepted, that the issue was "not settled", and that the rule does not represent the "best available science".^[115]

In early 2016, an mDNA analysis of three ancient (300–1,900 years old) wolf-like samples from the southeastern United States found that they grouped with the coyote clade, although their teeth were wolf-like. The study proposed that the specimens were either coyotes and this would mean that coyotes had occupied this region continuously rather than intermittently, a North American evolved red wolf lineage related to coyotes, or an ancient coyote–wolf hybrid. Ancient hybridization between wolves and coyotes would likely have been due to natural events or early human activities, not landscape changes associated with European colonization because of the age of these samples.^[116] Coyote–wolf hybrids may have occupied the southeastern United States for a long time, filling an important niche as a large predator.^[106][116]

Whole-genome evidence

A red wolf in the forest

In July 2016, a whole-genome DNA study proposed, based on the assumptions made, that all of the North American wolves and coyotes diverged from a common ancestor less than 6,000–117,000 years ago. The study also indicated that all North America wolves have a significant amount of coyote ancestry and all coyotes some degree of wolf ancestry, and that the red wolf and Great Lakes region wolf are highly admixed with different proportions of gray wolf and coyote ancestry. One test indicated a wolf/coyote divergence time of 51,000 years before present that matched other studies indicating that the extant wolf came into being around this time. Another test indicated that the red wolf diverged from the coyote between 55,000 and 117,000 years before present and the Great Lakes region wolf 32,000 years before present. Other tests and modelling showed various divergence ranges and the conclusion was a range of less than 6,000 and 117,000 years before present. The study found that coyote ancestry was highest in red wolves from the southeast of the United States and lowest among the Great Lakes region wolves.

The theory proposed was that this pattern matched the south-to-north disappearance of the wolf due to European colonization and its resulting loss of habitat. Bounties led to the extirpation of wolves initially in the southeast, and as the wolf population declined wolf-coyote admixture increased. Later, this process occurred in the Great Lakes region with the influx of coyotes replacing wolves, followed by the expansion of coyotes and their hybrids across the wider region.^[78][117] The red wolf may possess some genomic elements that were unique to gray wolf and coyote lineages from the American South.^[78] The proposed timing of the wolf/coyote divergence conflicts with the finding of a coyote-like specimen in strata dated to 1 million years before present,^[118] and red wolf fossil specimens dating back 10,000 years ago.^[1] The study concluded by stating that because of the extirpation of gray wolves in the American Southeast, "the reintroduced population of red wolves in eastern North Carolina is doomed to genetic swamping by coyotes without the extensive management of hybrids, as is currently practiced by the USFWS."^[78]

In September 2016, the USFWS announced a program of changes to the red wolf recovery program^[119] and "will begin implementing a series of actions based on the best and latest scientific information". The service will secure the captive population which is regarded as not sustainable, determine new sites for additional experimental wild populations, revise the application of the existing experimental population rule in North Carolina, and complete a comprehensive Species Status Assessment.^[120]

In 2017, a group of canid researchers challenged the recent finding that the red wolf and the eastern wolf were the result of recent coyote-wolf hybridization. The group highlight that no testing had been undertaken to ascertain the time period that hybridization had occurred and that, by the previous study's own figures, the hybridization could not have occurred recently but supports a much more ancient hybridization. The group found deficiencies in the previous study's selection of specimens and the findings drawn from the different techniques used. Therefore, the group argues that both the red wolf and the eastern wolf remain genetically distinct North American taxa.^[73] This was rebutted by the authors of the earlier study.^[121] Another study in late 2018 of wild canids in southwestern Louisiana also supported the red wolf as a separate species, citing distinct red wolf DNA within hybrid canids.^[47]

In 2019, a literature review of the previous studies was undertaken by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The position of the National Academies is that the historical red wolf forms a valid taxonomic species, the modern red wolf is distinct from wolves and coyotes, and modern red wolves trace some of their ancestry to historic red wolves. The species Canis rufus is supported for the modern red wolf, unless genomic evidence from historical red wolf specimens changes this assessment, due to a lack of continuity between the historic and the modern red wolves.^[122]

Wolf genome

Genetic studies relating to wolves or dogs have inferred phylogenetic relationships based on the only reference genome available, that of the Boxer dog. In 2017, the first reference genome of the wolf Canis lupus lupus was mapped to aid future research.^[123] In 2018, a study looked at the genomic structure and admixture of North American wolves, wolf-like canids, and coyotes using specimens from across their entire range that mapped the largest dataset of nuclear genome sequences against the wolf reference genome. The study supports the findings of previous studies that North American gray wolves and wolf-like canids were the result of complex gray wolf and coyote mixing. A polar wolf from Greenland and a coyote from Mexico represented the purest specimens. The coyotes from Alaska, California, Alabama, and Quebec show almost no wolf ancestry. Coyotes from Missouri, Illinois, and Florida exhibit 5–10% wolf ancestry. There was 40%:60% wolf to coyote ancestry in red wolves, 60%:40% in Eastern timber wolves, and 75%:25% in the Great Lakes wolves. There was 10% coyote ancestry in Mexican wolves and Atlantic Coast wolves, 5% in Pacific Coast and Yellowstone wolves, and less than 3% in Canadian archipelago wolves.^[124]

The study shows that the genomic ancestry of red, eastern timber and Great Lakes wolves were the result of admixture between modern gray wolves and modern coyotes. This was then followed by development into local populations. Individuals within each group showed consistent levels of coyote to wolf inheritance, indicating that this was the result of relatively ancient admixture. The eastern timber wolf (Algonquin Provincial Park) is genetically closely related to the Great Lakes wolf (Minnesota, Isle Royale National Park). If a third canid had been involved in the admixture of the North American wolf-like canids, then its genetic signature would have been found in coyotes and wolves, which it has not.^[124]

Gray wolves suffered a species-wide population bottleneck (reduction) approximately 25,000 YBP during the Last Glacial Maximum. This was followed by a single population of modern wolves expanding out of a Beringia refuge to repopulate the wolf's former range, replacing the remaining Late Pleistocene wolf populations across Eurasia and North America as they did so.^[125][126] This implies that if the coyote and red wolf were derived from this invasion, their histories date only tens of thousands and not hundreds of thousands of years ago, which is consistent with other studies.^[126]

The Endangered Species Act provides protection to endangered species, but does not provide protection for endangered admixed individuals, even if these serve as reservoirs for extinct genetic variation. Researchers on both sides of the red wolf debate argue that admixed canids warrant full protection under this Act.^[46][78]

Separate species that can be strengthened from hybrids

In 2020, a study conducted DNA sequencing of canines across southeastern US to detect those with any red wolf ancestry. The study found that red wolf ancestry exists in the coyote populations of southwestern Louisiana and southeastern Texas, but also newly detected in North Carolina. The red wolf ancestry of these populations possess unique red wolf alleles not found in the current captive red wolf population. The study proposes that the expanding coyotes admixed with red wolves to gain genetic material that was suited to the southeastern environment and would aid their adaptation to it, and that surviving red wolves admixed with coyotes because the red wolves were suffering from inbreeding.^[127]

In 2021, a study conducted DNA sequencing of canines across the remnant red wolf hybrid zone of southwestern Louisiana and southeastern Texas. The study found red wolf ancestry in the coyote genomes which increases up to 60% in a westward gradient. This was due to introgression from the remnant red wolf population over the past 100 years. The study proposes that coyotes expanded into the gulf region and admixed with red wolves prior to the red wolf going extinct in the wild due to loss of habitat and persecution. In the past two decades the hybrid region has expanded. The study presented the genetic evidence that the red wolf is a separate species, based on the structure of one of the loci of its X-chromosome which is accepted as a marker for distinct species. As such, the study suggested that the introgressed red wolf ancestry could be de-introgressed back as a basis for breeding further red wolves from the hybrids.^[128]

Pre-dates the coyote in North America

In 2021, a study of mitochondrial genomes sourced from specimens dated before the 20th century revealed that red wolves could be found across North America. With the arrival of the gray wolf between 80,000 and 60,000 years ago, the red wolf's range shrank to the eastern forests and California, and the coyote replaced the red wolf mid-continent between 60,000 and 30,000 years ago. The coyote expanded into California at the beginning of the Holocene era 12,000–10,000 years ago and admixed with the red wolf, phenotypically replacing them. The study proposes that the red wolf may pre-date the coyote in North America.^[129]

Explanatory footnotes

References

La ruĝa lupo (Canis rufus) estas nordamerika kanisa specio kiu vivis en la sudorienta Usono. Hodiaŭ, ĝi estas la plej minacata kanisa specio en la mondo. Fakte oni konsideris jam en 1980 ke ĝi estas formortinta en naturo; ekde tiam oni entreprenis diversajn programojn por ties reenmeto.

El lobo rojo (Canis lupus rufus) es un cánido de taxonomía históricamente dudosa que hoy sólo se puede encontrar en algunas zonas del este de Estados Unidos, México y, tal vez, sureste de Canadá. Se le clasifica ahora como una subespecie de lobo (Canis lupus), aunque podría ser una población híbrida reciente entre lobo y coyote (Canis latrans), o, como anteriormente se le consideraba, una especie independiente de ambas, Canis rufus. En cualquier caso, el lobo rojo es un animal en grave peligro de extinción, razón por la cual es objeto de programas de cría en cautividad.

Si el conflicto taxonómico ya era evidente, desde 1999 la complicación es aún mayor. En esa fecha, White y Wilson establecieron, tras estudios genéticos, que las poblaciones de lobo del sureste de Canadá eran una especie diferente que debía nominarse como Canis lycaon (Eastern Canadian Wolf en inglés, sin nombre en español) y que esta especie era próxima a Canis rufus, estando además más emparentada con el coyote que con el lobo común. Esta afirmación no goza del adecuado consenso de los expertos, pero hay cierta tendencia a considerar que Canis rufus y Canis lycaon son la misma especie, siendo el nombre latino correcto Canis lycaon. De ser este el caso, se mantendría en español el nombre vulgar "Lobo Rojo" para ambas.

Otras especies reciben localmente denominaciones parecidas que no deberían confundirse con el lobo rojo: son el cuón o perro rojo (Cuon alpinus) y el aguará guazú o lobo de crín (Chrysocion brachyurus), a veces llamado lobo rojo en Brasil.

Descripción

El lobo rojo en plena cacería.

El lobo rojo tiene un tamaño intermedio entre el lobo común o gris y el coyote. Los machos adultos pesan entre 25 y 35 kilos, mientras que las hembras son ligeramente más pequeñas. El pelaje está manchado de multitud de colores, entre los que destacan el negro, grisáceo, marrón y amarillento; el pelaje rojizo que da nombre a la especie es más frecuente en las poblaciones orientales, especialmente en las originarias de Texas.

Al igual que los lobos grises, los lobos rojos son animales sociales, pero sus manadas son más pequeñas que las de los primeros, a menudo compuestas únicamente por una pareja y sus hijos de distintas edades. Los lobos rojos pueden llegar a tener hasta tres camadas, de 2 o 3 cachorros al año, que abandonan el grupo familiar hacia los 6 meses de edad.

Los lobos rojos se alimentan preferentemente de mamíferos de tamaño pequeño, como roedores y conejos. En grupo atacan también a los mapaches e incluso a ciervos adultos. También consumen ocasionalmente insectos y bayas.

Subespecies

El lobo rojo tiene 3 subespecies, de las cuales, 2 están extintas

• Canis rufus floridanis †
• Canis rufus gregoryi †
• Canis rufus rufus

Historia

Lobo rojo y coyote

Aunque varios políticos partidarios de su persecución invocan con frecuencia su supuesta naturaleza híbrida debido a que las leyes vigentes en Estados Unidos no protegen a los cruces, lo cierto es que en los últimos años los análisis genéticos y los hallazgos fósiles han indicado claramente que esta especie es auténtica. La línea evolutiva del lobo común se separó del tronco común hace más de un millón de años (coincidiendo con su colonización de Eurasia desde Norteamérica), mientras que los lobos rojos y los coyotes lo hicieron hace medio millón de años. Posteriormente, hace unos 300.000 años, los lobos grises retornaron a América del Norte y se expandieron por todo el continente.

Como ya se ha dicho, estudios publicados en el año 1999 afirman que los lobos del sureste de Canadá, son una especie diferente (Canis lycaon). Las opiniones posteriores se reparten entre: aceptar Canis lycaon como especie exclusiva del sureste de Canadá, considerar que Canis lycaon engloba a los lobos rojos autóctonos del sureste de Norteamérica (lycaon más rufus), que se trata de híbridos entre lobo común y lobo rojo, o que, de acuerdo a la visión clásica, es una subespecie de Canis lupus lycaon.

Sin tener en cuenta a estos lobos canadienses, se puede decir que la distribución original del lobo rojo a la llegada de los primeros colonos europeos se extendía desde Pensilvania hasta Texas. Pero considerando a los lobos canadienses, su área llegaría hasta el sureste canadiense. Con el tiempo, la persecución humana, la destrucción de su hábitat y los cruces de lobos rojos con coyotes y perros después de que fueran expulsados de los bosques llevaron la especie al borde de la extinción. De las tres subespecies que se han documentado, la de Florida (C. r. floridanus) se extinguió en 1930 y la del golfo de México (C. r. rufus), difundida por las áreas costeras desde Texas hasta Luisiana lo hizo en 1970. La tercera (C. r. gregoryi) se extinguió en estado salvaje en 1980, pero por suerte aún quedaban algunos ejemplares en cautividad que dieron lugar a nuevas manadas con las que iniciar un proyecto de reintroducción en la naturaleza. El primero de ellos se produjo en Carolina del Norte en 1987, donde se liberaron 100 individuos con éxito. Según el censo de 1997, la población de Carolina del Norte y Tennessee, hacia donde se extendió tras la reintroducción, más los individuos en cautividad ronda en la actualidad los 550 individuos. Algunos expertos consideran que de confirmarse que Canis lycaon es conespecífico con Canis rufus, los lobos del sureste de Canadá podrían utilizarse en los programas de reintroducción en Estados Unidos. Además, si fuera el caso, habría que revisar el estado de conservación de la especie, que no sería tan crítico.

Referencias

Punasusi (Canis rufus) on Yhdysvaltain itäosissa elävä äärimmäisen uhanalainen koiraeläin. Se eli aikaisemmin laajalti Pohjois-Amerikan itäosissa, mutta metsästys ja elinalueen supistuminen ovat saattaneet sen sukupuuton partaalle. 1980-luvulla punasusi hävisi jo kertaalleen luonnosta.

Luokittelu

Punasutta on perinteisesti pidetty itsenäisenä lajina Canis rufus, jolla on kolme alalajia: C. rufus rufus, C. r. floridanus ja C. r. gregoryi. Punasuden ja suden eli harmaasuden (Canis lupus) keskinäinen luokittelu on kuitenkin ollut ongelmallista. On esimerkiksi esitetty teoria, että punasusi olisi oikeastaan vain suden ja kojootin risteytymisen tuloksena syntynyt hybridi. Monet tutkijat ovat siksi luopuneet punasuden lajistatuksesta, ja he pitävät punasutta ja sen alalajeja vain suden alalajeina.^[2][3]

Koko ja ulkonäkö

Punasuden turkki on nimensä mukaisesti punertava. Sitä ei kuitenkaan sen perusteella voi erottaa kojootista tai sudesta, koska myös niiden turkki on usein punertavaa. Joskus punasusien turkki on jopa harmahtavan musta, toisin kuin kojootilla. Raajat ovat pidemmät ja hontelommat, korvat suuremmat ja peitinkarvat lyhyempiä kuin sudella. Fossiilien perustella otaksutaan kojootin ja punasuden kehittyneen samasta kantamuodosta, vaikka toisaalta on myös arveltu että punasusi olisi vain suden ja kojootin risteytymä. Kooltaan punasusi on kojootin ja suden väliltä. Ruumis on 135–165 cm pitkä ja painoa on 16–41 kg, uros on naarasta kookkaampi.

Levinneisyys

Punasuden alkuperäinen levinneisyys ulottui pohjoisessa Pennsylvaniaan, etelässä Floridaan ja lännessä Texasiin. Nykyään punasusia elää Etelä-Carolinassa, Floridassa ja Mississippissä, Yhdysvalloissa. Nämä populaatiot perustuvat yksilöihin, joita on palautettu luontoon vankeudesta.

Elintavat

Punasudet elävät metsissä ja soilla. Ne liikkuvat pääasiassa öisin. Päivällä punasusi makaa maahan kaivamassaan onkalossa. Kesällä se liikkuu laiskasti, mutta aktivoituu syksyllä. Punasusien ääntely muistuttaa kojootin ulvontaa ja päättyy kojootille tyypilliseen korkeaan ulinaan. Punasudet elävät alfa-parin johtamassa laumassa, joka on samantapainen kuin kojooteilla ja susilla. Reviiriä puolustetaan muilta laumoilta. Elinalueen koko on noin 40–80 km².

Punasusi saalistaa jäniksiä, kaniineja, jyrsijöitä, peuroja ja majavia, joskus myös kaloja ja rapuja. Punasusinaaras synnyttää keväällä 2–7 pentua 8–9 viikon kantoajan jälkeen. Kaikki perheenjäsenet auttavat pentujen hoidossa. Punasuden elinikä on enintään 13 vuotta.

Uhat

Punasusi on uhanalainen, ja se on kärsinyt sekä metsästyksestä että elinalueiden tuhoutumisesta. Pahin uhka on risteytyminen kojootin kanssa. Punasusi hävisi luonnosta 1980-luvulla. Yksi sen kolmesta alalajista, C. l. floridanus, kuoli kokonaan sukupuuttoon. Punasusi kuitenkin säilyi vankeudessa elävien yksilöiden turvin. Risteytyminen kojootin kanssa aiheutui kojoottien leviämisestä ja punasusien määrän romahtamisesta niin pieneksi, että lisääntymiskumppaniksi kelpasi kojootti. Tämä aiheutti viimeisten puhtaiden yksilöiden häviämisen luonnosta. Punasusia on palautettu luontoon vuodesta 1987 lähtien ja vuonna 2003 luonnossa arvioitiin elävän noin 100 punasutta, kaikki C. l. gregoryi -alalajia. Toinen alalaji elää vankeudessa Etelä-Carolinassa. Punasuden ja kojootin yhteisiä pentueita on steriloitu, jotta ne eivät enää lisääntyisi.

Lähteet

• Koivisto, I., & Sarvala, M. & Liukko, U-M.: Maailman uhanalaiset eläimet - Osa 2: Nisäkkäät. Weilin + Göös, 1991. ISBN 951-35-4687-X.

Viitteet

Canis rufus

Le Loup rouge ou Loup roux (Canis rufus) est un Canidé en danger critique d'extinction. Il doit son nom à la couleur de son pelage et vit en Amérique du Nord. Il subsiste des doutes sur ses origines et le Loup rouge est tantôt considéré comme une espèce à part entière, tantôt comme une sous-espèce (Canis lupus rufus) du Loup gris, parfois seulement comme un hybride (Canis lupus × Canis latrans) entre le Loup gris et le Coyote.

Taxonomie

La taxonomie du Loup rouge est controversée. Mammal Species of the World traite C. rufus comme synonyme de C. lupus, tout en soulignant que le groupe rufus, avec ses trois sous-espèces, pourrait être considérée incertae sedis^[1].

Avant l'arrivée des Européens en Amérique du Nord, les Cherokees considéraient le Loup rouge comme distinct, l'appelant ᏩᏯ (wa'ya)^[2].

William Bartram fut le premier naturaliste à mentionner le Loup rouge, dans son ouvrage intitulé Travels. Il y relate une rencontre avec des loups en Floride, qu'il décrit comme « plus grands qu'un chien, et parfaitement noirs, à l'exception des femelles, qui ont une tache blanche sur la poitrine, mais ils ne sont pas aussi grands que les loups du Canada et de Pennsylvanie, qui sont d'une couleur brun jaunâtre »^[3]. C'est toutefois Audubon et Bachman qui en ont fait la première description officielle^[4]. Ils le nomment alors Canis lupus var. rufus, le Loup rouge du Texas (red Texan wolf).

Au début des années 1970, à la suite d'analyses morphométriques, des biologistes ont conclu que C. rufus constituait bel et bien une espèce^[5],[6],[7]. La découverte d'un allèle unique au Loup rouge en 1980 a été le premier argument moléculaire pour considérer C. rufus comme espèce^[8].

D'autres auteurs, longtemps minoritaires, considèrent le Loup rouge comme étant un hybride entre le Loup gris (Canis lupus) et le coyote (Canis latrans) à la suite de plusieurs études génétiques controversées menées depuis 1992^[9],[10], son nom scientifique serait alors Canis lupus x Canis latrans^[11]. Il n'est donc dans ce cas plus rattaché à aucune espèce particulière.

D'autres auteurs considèrent qu'il s'agit d'une sous-espèce, Canis lupus rufus, du Loup gris^[12].

Sous-espèces

Traditionnellement, trois sous-espèces de Loup rouge sont reconnues, dont deux sont éteintes. Il s'agit de:

• Canis rufus floridanus, éteinte depuis 1930 ;
• Canis rufus rufus, déclarée éteinte vers 1970 ;
• Canis rufus gregoryi, seule sous-espèce survivante, disparue à l'état sauvage en 1980 puis réintroduite en 1987.^{[réf. souhaitée]}

Morphologie

Loup rouge et coyote.

Le Loup rouge est plus grand que le Coyote, mais plus petit que le Loup gris, quoique des spécimens soient plus grands que certains petits loups gris. En moyenne, l'adulte mesure 106 cm de long et pèse 23 kg^[13]. Son pelage est généralement plus roux que le Coyote et le Loup gris, mais ce critère peut être confondant^[7]. De plus, comme chez le Loup gris, les individus mélaniques ne sont pas rares. Toujours par rapport au Loup gris et au Coyote, ses oreilles sont proportionnellement plus grandes et son crâne est plus étroit, avec un museau long et mince.

Habitat et répartition

On considère que l'aire de répartition originelle des loups rouges inclut l'est de l'Amérique du Nord, où l’on peut en trouver en Pennsylvanie à l'est, à la Floride au sud et au Texas à l'ouest.

Populations et conservation

Au siècle dernier, les persécutions, la destruction de l'habitat et l'hybridation avec les coyotes ont conduit le Loup rouge au bord de l'extinction. Un programme d'élevage en captivité a entrepris la réintroduction de cette espèce dans la nature canadienne^[14]. Au début des années 2010, la population totale était estimée à un peu plus d'une centaine d'individus^[15].

Il en existait trois populations distinctes dont deux sont disparues, la dernière est très menacée^[16] et le classement en tant que hybride menacerait sa réintroduction ou l'existence même des populations survivantes.

En 2022, une portée de six louveteaux est née dans le refuge faunique national d'Alligator River alors que l'espèce était considérée comme pratiquement éteinte en 2021^[17].

Notes et références

Voir aussi

Références taxonomique

En 2010, comme sous-espèce

• (en) Référence Mammal Species of the World (3^e éd., 2005) : Canis lupus rufus
• (fr) Référence Catalogue of Life : Canis lupus rufus Audubon and Bachman, 1851
• (en) Référence CITES : espèce Canis lupus Audubon & Bachman, 1851 (+ répartition sur Species+) (consulté le 22 mai 2015)
• (fr+en) Référence ITIS : Canis lupus rufus Audubon & Bachman, 1851

En 2010, comme espèce

• (fr) Référence Catalogue of Life : Canis rufus Audubon and Bachman, 1851 Non Valide
• (en) Référence Paleobiology Database : Canis rufus Audubon and Bachman 1851
• (fr+en) Référence ITIS : Canis rufus Audubon & Bachman, 1851 Non valide
• (en) Référence Animal Diversity Web : Canis rufus
• (en) Référence NCBI : Canis rufus (taxons inclus)
• (en) Référence UICN : espèce Canis rufus Audubon & Bachman, 1851 (consulté le 26 décembre 2020)
• (en) Référence Fonds documentaire ARKive : Canis rufus

O lobo vermello (Canis rufus) é un cánido de taxonomía historicamente dubidosa que hoxe só se pode atopar nalgunhas zonas do leste de Estados Unidos, México e, talvez, sueste de Canadá. Clasifícase agora como unha subespecie de lobo (Canis lupus), aínda que podería ser unha poboación híbrida recente entre lobo e coiote (Canis latrans), ou, como anteriormente se consideraba, unha especie independente de ambas, Canis rufus. En calquera caso, o lobo vermello é un animal en grave perigo de extinción, razón pola cal é obxecto de programas de cría en catividade.

Se o conflito taxonómico xa era evidente, desde 1999 a complicación é aínda maior. Nesa data, White e Wilson estableceron, tras estudos xenéticos, que as poboacións de lobo do sueste de Canadá eran unha especie diferente que debía nomearse como Canis lycaon (Eastern Canadian Wolf en inglés, sen nome en galego) e que esta especie era próxima a Canis rufus, estando ademais máis emparentada co coiote que co lobo común. Esta afirmación non goza do adecuado consenso dos expertos, pero hai certa tendencia a considerar que Canis rufus e Canis lycaon son a mesma especie, sendo o nome latino correcto Canis lycaon.

Outras especies reciben localmente denominacións parecidas que non deberían confundirse co lobo vermello: son o cuón ou can vermello (Cuon alpinus) e o augará guazú ou lobo de crin (Chrysocion brachyurus), ás veces chamado lobo vermello en Brasil.

Descrición

O lobo vermello en plena cazaría.

O lobo vermello ten un tamaño intermedio entre o lobo común ou gris e o coiote. Os machos adultos pesan entre 25 e 35 quilos, mentres que as femias son lixeiramente máis pequenas. O pelame está manchado de multitude de cores, entre os que destacan o negro, agrisado, marrón e amarelado; o pelame avermellado que dá nome á especie é máis frecuente nas poboacións orientais, especialmente nas orixinarias de Texas.

Do mesmo xeito que os lobos grises, os lobos vermellos son animais sociais, pero as súas mandas son máis pequenas que as dos primeiros, a miúdo compostas unicamente por unha parella e os seus fillos de distintas idades. Os lobos vermellos poden chegar a ter até tres camadas, de 2 ou 3 cachorros ao ano, que abandonan o grupo familiar cara aos 6 meses de idade.

Os lobos vermellos aliméntanse preferentemente de mamíferos de tamaño pequeno, como roedores e coellos. En grupo atacan tamén aos mapaches e mesmo a cervos adultos. Tamén consomen ocasionalmente insectos e bagas.

Historia

Lobo vermello e coiote

Aínda que varios políticos partidarios da súa persecución invocan con frecuencia a súa suposta natureza híbrida debido a que as leis vixentes en Estados Unidos non protexen os cruzamentos, o certo é que nos últimos anos as análises xenéticas e os achados fósiles indicaron claramente que esta especie é auténtica. A liña evolutiva do lobo común separouse do tronco común fai máis dun millón de anos (coincidindo ca súa colonización de Eurasia desde Norteamérica), mentres que os lobos vermellos e os coiotes o fixeron fai medio millón de anos. Posteriormente, fai uns 300.000 anos, os lobos grises retornaron a América do Norte e expandíronse por todo o continente.

Como xa se dixo, estudos publicados no ano 1999 afirman que os lobos do sueste de Canadá, son unha especie diferente (Canis lycaon). As opinións posteriores repártense entre: aceptar Canis lycaon como especie exclusiva do sueste de Canadá, considerar que Canis lycaon engloba os lobos vermellos autóctonos do sueste de Norteamérica (lycaon máis rufus), que se trata de híbridos entre lobo común e lobo vermello, ou que, de acordo á visión clásica, é unha subespecie de Canis lupus lycaon.

Sen ter en conta a estes lobos canadenses, pódese dicir que a distribución orixinal do lobo vermello á chegada dos primeiros colonos europeos se estendía desde Pensilvania até Texas. Pero considerando aos lobos canadenses, a súa área chegaría até o sueste canadense. Co tempo, a persecución humana, a destrución do seu hábitat e os cruzamentos de lobos vermellos con coiotes e cans despois de que fosen expulsados dos bosques levaron a especie ao bordo da extinción. Das tres subespecies que se documentaron, a de Florida (C. r. floridanus) extinguiuse en 1930 e a do golfo de México (C. r. rufus), difundida polas áreas costeiras desde Texas até Luisiana fíxoo en 1970. A terceira (C. r. gregoryi) extinguiuse en estado salvaxe en 1980, pero por sorte aínda quedaban algúns exemplares en catividade que deron lugar a novas mandas coas que iniciar un proxecto de reintroducción na natureza. O primeiro deles produciuse en Carolina do Norte en 1987, onde se liberaron 100 individuos con éxito. Segundo o censo de 1997, a poboación de Carolina do Norte e Tennessee, cara a onde se estendeu tras a reintroducción, máis os individuos en catividade rolda na actualidade os 550 individuos. Algúns expertos consideran que de confirmarse que Canis lycaon é conespecífico con Canis rufus, os lobos do sueste de Canadá poderían utilizarse nos programas de reintroducción en Estados Unidos. Ademais, se fose o caso, habería que revisar o estado de conservación da especie, que non sería tan crítico.

Referencias

Véxase tamén

Crveni vuk (Canis rufus^[2] ili Canis lupus rufus), također poznat kao i Floridski crni vuk ili Vuk doline Mississippija je kanid s jugoistoka SAD-a. Ova vrsta je neriješenog taksonomskog identiteta, naime morfološki je između kojota i sivog vuka i crvenkasto-sive je boje. Crveni vuk je kritično ugrožena vrsta SAD-a i zaštićena je zakonom, a upisana je na IUCN-ov crveni popis 1996. godine^[3]. Smatra se najrjeđom vrstom vuka i jedna je od pet najugroženijih vrsta vuka na svijetu^[4].

Sistematizacija i evolucija

Audubonov prikaz vrste iz 1851.

Taksonomski status crvenog vuka bio je predmet kontroverzi. Genetska studija iz 2011. godine pokazala je da je to hibridna vrsta između sivih vukova i kojota^[5]. Ponovna analiza ove studije, zajedno sa širom kontekstualnom analizom koja je uključivala ponašanje, morfološke i dodatne genetske informacije, dovela je do argumenata da je crveni vuk nezavisna vrsta, ali koja pati od značajne introgresije gena kojota vjerojatno zbog desetkovanja crvenog vuka i fragmentacije njihove društvene strukture zbog lova^[6]. Premda ovaj pregled z 2012. godine nije jedinstveno prihvaćen među mjerodavnim znanstvenicima, dvije kasnije revizije ažuriranih istraživanja 2013. i 2014. godine upućuju na to da je crveni vuk nekad bio vrsta koja se razlikovala od sivog vuka i kojota^[7]. Genske studije iz 2015. godine, koristeći najopsežnije podatke o mitohondrijskoj DNK, Y-kromosomskim podacima i genomima 127.235 jedinstvenih nukleotidnih polimorfizama, zaključili su da je "najviše parsimonsko objašnjenje" da su istočni vukovi u provincijskom parku Algonquin "ostatak entiteta povijesnih vukova koji su najvjerojatnije postojali diljem istočnih Sjedinjenih Država ". Također, istraživanje iz 2016. od 28 sekvencijskih kanidnih genoma zaključilo je kako crveni i istočni vukovi imaju sekvence koje se mogu objasniti samo kao rezultat hibridizacije sivog vuka i kojota.

Crveni su vukovi bili prva vrsta vukova novoga svijeta s kojima su se susreli europski kolonisti, a izvorno su obitavali diljem istočnih Sjedinjenih Američkih Država, od Atlantskog oceana do središnjeg Teksasa, a na sjeveru od doline rijeke Ohio, sjeverne Pennsylvanije i juga južnog New Yorka do Meksičkog zaljeva na jugu^[8]. Crveni je vuk do sredine 1900. godine bio gotovo izumro zbog agresivnih programa kontrole predatora, uništavanja staništa i opsežne hibridizacije s kojotima. Do kasnih šezdesetih, to se dogodilo s manjim zajednicama u zaljevu obale zapadne Louisiane i istočnog Teksasa. Četrnaest od tih preživjelih odabrano je kao temelj zajednice uzgojene u zatočeništvu u zoološkom vrtu Point Defiance od 1974. do 1980. godine. Nakon uspješnog eksperimentalnog preseljenja na otok Bulls na obali Južne Karoline 1978. godine, crveni vuk je proglašen izumro u divljini 1980. godine. Kako bi nastavili s naporima obnove, 1987. godine zarobljene životinje puštene su u Parku divljine Alligator River na poluotoku Albemarle u Sjevernoj Karolini, te dvije godine kasnije i u Nacionalnom parku Great Smoky Mountains^[9] Od 63 crvena vuka koji su pušteni od 1987. do 1994. godine, populacija je porasla na čak 100-120 jedinki do 2012., ali je 2018. godine zabilježen pad na samo 40 jedinki^[10] .

Izgled i društveni život

Crveni vuk u zoološkom vrtu Rosamond Gifford, Syracuse, New York.

Izgled crvenog vuka tipičan je za rod Canis i općenito je srednje veličine između kojota i sivog vuka, iako se neki primjerci mogu preklapati s malim sivim vukovima. Odrasli imaju duljinu od 136-160 cm i teže od 23-39 kg^[11]. Krzno im je obično više crvenkasto i manje čupavo od krzna kojota i sivih vukova, općenito je blijedo i sivkasto s oznakama svjetlih dijelova oko usana i očiju^[12]. Uši su im također proporcionalno veće od ušiju kojota i sivih vukova. Glava je obično uska, s dugom i vitkom njuškom, malom lubanjom i dobro razvijenim sagitalnim grebenom. Maleni mozak crvenog vuka se razlikuje od ostalih Canis vrsta, približavajući se onima kanidima vrsta Vulpes i Urocyon, što ukazuje na to da je crveni vuk jedan od drevnih članova ovih rodova.

Crveni vuk je društveniji od kojota, ali manje od sivog vuka. Pari se u siječnju i veljači, s prosječno 6-7 mladunaca rođenih u ožujku, travnju i svibnju. Oni su monogamni s oba roditelja koji sudjeluju u uzgoju vučića^[13]. Borave u šupljim stablima debala, duž obala potoka i napuštenih skloništa drugih životinja. U dobi od šest tjedana vučići se udaljavaju od skloništa, a dosežu punu veličinu u dobi od jedne godine, postajući seksualno zreli dvije godine kasnije.

Izvori

Serigala Merah adalah (Canis lupus rufus atau Canis rufus) satwa famili canidae asli dari amerika serikat bagian tenggara. secara morfologis berada di tengah antara anjing hutan dan serigala abu-abu, dan berwarna kemerahan dan kuning kecoklatan. serigala merah secara hukum termasuk dalam daftar spesies terancam punah amerika serikat dan dilindungi oleh hukum. masuk daftar critically endangered oleh IUCN sejak tahun 1996. diputuskan sebagai spesies serigala paling langka dan salah satu dari lima famili canidae yang terancam punah di dunia.^[1]

Rujukan

1. ^ "Canis rufus (Red Wolf)". oldredlist.iucnredlist.org. Diakses tanggal 2018-11-29.

Il lupo rosso (Canis lupus rufus^[1] Audubon & Bachman, 1851), detto anche lupo della Florida o lupo della valle del Mississippi^[3] è un canide lupino a tassonomia controversa, indigeno degli Stati Uniti d'America orientali.^[4][5] È morfologicamente intermedio tra il coyote e gli altri lupi nordamericani come il lupo nordoccidentale, e di colore fulvo rossiccio.^[6][7] È una specie protetta al livello federale,^[8] ed è considerato dall' IUCN, fin dal 1996, una specie in pericolo critico.^[2]

È probabile che la specie fosse il primo lupo del nuovo mondo incontrato dai coloni europei, inizialmente distribuito in tutti gli stati orientali degli Stati Uniti, dall'oceano atlantico al Texas centrale, a nord dalla valle dell'Ohio, nella Pennsylvania settentrionale, a New York, e a sud fino al Golfo del Messico.^[5] Una campagna di persecuzione e distruzione ambientale, durata fino a metà del ventesimo secolo, spinse il lupo rosso all'orlo dell'estinzione. Nei tardi anni sessanta, la popolazione si ridusse a pochi esemplari presenti lungo la Costa del Golfo di Louisiana e al Texas orientale. Quattordici esemplari furono scelti per un programma di allevamento attivato dal Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium, durato dal 1974 fino al 1980. Nel 1978, dopo una rilocalizzazione sperimentale avvenuta con successo su Bulls Island presso la costa del Sud Carolina, per poter procedere alla sua reintroduzione, il lupo rosso fu formalmente dichiarato una specie estinta in natura. Nel 1987, degli esemplari furono introdotti presso l'Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge situato nella Penisola di Albemarle-Pamlico della Carolina del Nord, con un'ulteriore introduzione avvenuta due anni dopo nel Parco nazionale delle Great Smoky Mountains.^[9] Dai 63 esemplari liberati tra il 1987 e il 1994,^[10] la popolazione di lupi rossi aumentò fino a 100-120 esemplari nel 2012, ma decrementò a 50-75 nel 2015.^[11]

Inizialmente classificato come una specie distinta a base della sua morfologia, lo stato tassonomico della specie è diventata controversa con l'ascesa della biologia molecolare, con diversi studiosi che hanno ritenuto si tratti di una specie a parte, e altri che invece propongono la presenza di un ibrido tra il lupo grigio e coyote, con quest'ultima ipotesi venendo confermata negli anni 2010 da ripetuti sequenziamenti dell'intero genoma.

Tassonomia

La specie fu prima descritta nel 1791 da William Bartram, come un animale indigeno della Florida, più piccolo e scuro dei lupi di Canada e Pennsylvania.^[12][13] Nel 1851, John James Audubon lo descrisse in dettaglio per la prima volta, rappresentandolo come una sottospecie di lupo grigio (Canis lupus rufus) con tratti da volpe, ma mantenendo la disposizione "infida, codarda, ma feroce" degli altri lupi.^[14] Fu classificato come una specie distinta da Edward Alphonso Goldman nel 1937 dopo un attento studio di numerosi teschi, notando che il cranio e la dentatura del lupo rosso fosse diversa da quella del lupo grigio, con tratti in comune con il coyote.^[15]

Controversia

La tassonomia del lupo rosso è stata dibattuta anche prima dei tentativi di salvarlo dall'estinzione nel 1973. Diversi studi morfologici condotti nei tardi anni sessanta e all'inizio degli anni settanta conclusero che il lupo rosso fosse una specie distinta.^[16] Nel 1971, uno studio condotto sui cervelli dei canidi confermò il lupo rosso fosse un canide abbastanza distinto da classificarlo come specie a parte.^[17] Questo fu confermato nel 1980 con la scoperta d'un allele distinto nella specie.^[18] Nel 1992, la United States Fish and Wildlife Service, dopo una revisione di numerosi studi, concluse ambiguamente che il lupo rosso potrebbe sì essere una specie a parte oppure una sottospecie di lupo grigio.^[19][20][21]

Il dibattito venne riacceso con l'avvento della biologia molecolare. Nel 2000, studi condotti sulle impronte genetiche nei microsatelliti dei lupi orientali presenti nel Parco Provinciale di Algonquin^[22] rivelarono somiglianze significanti tra i lupi orientali e il lupo rosso, giungendo alla conclusione che i due fossero della stessa specie. Fu proposto che i due canidi si fossero evoluti indipendentemente dal lupo grigio, e che si divisero dal coyote tra 150.000 e 300.000 anni fa.^[23] Questa conclusione non venne universalmente accettata,^[21][24] e la MSW3^[25], nel 2005, li classificò entrambi come sottospecie di lupo grigio.

Nel 2011, un'analisi di 48,000 polimorfismi a singolo nucleotide di cani e lupi nordamericani suggerì che entrambi il lupo rosso e il lupo orientale fossero ibridi tra lupi grigi e coyote, con il lupo rosso principalmente di origine nel coyote, con solo il 20-24% del suo genoma risalente al lupo grigio.^[26] Questa analisi fu criticata, siccome gli esemplari di lupo rosso utilizzati nell'analisi furono confermati sia essere ibridi di recente ancestralità coyote,^[27] che al fatto che i lupi grigi non si accoppiano volentieri con i coyote.^[28] Un ulteriore studio sul cromosoma Y sui lupi rossi, grigi e orientali effettuato l'anno successivo, confermò l'ipotesi, che sia il lupo rosso e che il lupo orientale fossero specie distinte, ma concesse che i due potessero volentieri accoppiarsi con i coyote.^[29] Fu proposto che i lupi rossi e orientali con strutture sociali intatte sono meno disposti ad incrociarsi con i coyote.^[30] Nel 2014, la controversia sullo stato tassonomico del lupo rosso venne sintetizzata su una rivista comprensiva degli studi condotti nel 2011 e nel 2012. La sintesi concluse che i lupi rossi e orientali sono specie distinte dal lupo grigio.^[31] Questa non fu accettata come definitiva dall'United States Fish & Wildlife Service.^[32]

Nel 2016 e nel 2018, dei sequenziamenti dell'intero genoma del lupo grigio e del coyote rivelarono che le due specie si sono diversificate solo tra 117,000 e 6,000 anni fa, e che tutti i lupi nordamericani possiedono geni risalenti ai coyote. Entrambi il lupo rosso e il lupo orientale furono trovati possedere la quantità massima di geni di coyote fra i lupi nordamericani, soprattutto il primo,^[33][34] il cui 60% del DNA è risalente al coyote e 40% al lupo grigio.^[35]

Descrizione e comportamento

Esemplare melanico, fotografato nel 1935 in Louisiana, dove la specie è estinta

Il lupo rosso è generalmente intermedio in grandezza tra il coyote e il lupo nordoccidentale, sebbene certi esemplari siano in grado di raggiungere la taglia di un piccolo esemplare di quest'ultimo. Gli adulti misurano da 136 a 160 cm in lunghezza e pesano dai 19 ai 41 chili. Il suo mantello è più rossiccio e ruvido di quello del coyote e del lupo nordoccidentale, ma sono stati individuati anche esemplari melanici.^[6] Il pelo è generalmente fulvo-grigio, con segni chiari intorno agli occhi e alle labbra.^[7] Simile al lupo orientale,^[36] certi autori hanno paragonato la corporatura del lupo rosso a quella di un levriero, grazie agli arti lunghi e snelli. Le orecchie sono proporzionalmente più grandi di quelle del coyote e del lupo nordoccidentale. Il cranio è tipicamente snello, con un rostro lungo, un neurocranio piccolo e una cresta sagittale ben sviluppata.^[6]

Il lupo rosso è più socievole del coyote, ma meno degli altri lupi nordamericani. Si accoppia tra gennaio e febbraio, partorendo circa 6-7 cuccioli tra marzo, aprile e maggio. È una specie monogama, ed entrambi i genitori si prendono cura della prole.^[37][38] Le tane sono costruite nei tronchi cavi, lungo le rive dei fiumi e nelle tane abbandonate da altri animali. All'età di sei settimane, i cuccioli si allontanano dalla tana,^[37] e raggiungono le dimensioni adulte dopo un anno, e alla maturità sessuale all'età di due anni.^[7]

Prima della sua estinzione in natura, la dieta del lupo rosso consisteva di nutrie, conigli e roditori.^[39] In contrasto, i lupi rossi nelle popolazioni reintrodotte si cibano di cervi della Virginia, procioni, nutrie e conigli.^[40][41] Il suo latrato è stato descritto ripetutamente come un miscuglio di ululati lupini e latrati da coyote. Il lupo rosso è più aggressivo del lupo nordoccidentale e del coyote, e, quando intrappolato, spesso attacca, ringhiando e ululando. I coyote in circostanze simili tendono solo ad ululare, mentre gli altri lupi nordamericani sono più sottomessi. Il linguaggio del corpo è aggressivo, e ricorda più quello del lupo nordoccidentale che del coyote, mostrando i denti a bocca chiusa e alzando sia i peli del collo che della schiena, mentre i coyote spalancano le fauci e inarcano la schiena.^[42]

Distribuzione e habitat

Areale storico del lupo rosso

Si riconosce che l'areale storico originario del lupo rosso si estendesse in tutti gli Stati Uniti orientali, dalle coste atlantiche e del Golfo, a nord, fino nella valle dell'Ohio e della Pennsylvania, e ad ovest fino al Texas centrale e il Missouri sudorientale.^[43] Ricerche condotte su esemplari fossili indicano che il suo habitat si estendesse anche a sud del fiume San Lorenzo in Canada, lungo la costa orientale, e ad ovest fino a Missouri ed Illinois, fino alle latitudini meridionali del Texas centrale.^[44]

In virtù del suo vasto areale storico, il lupo rosso probabilmente non era limitato a popolare un solo habitat. L'ultima popolazione presente allo stato selvaggio occupava praterie, acquitrini costali, paludi, e i campi assegnati alla coltivazione di riso e cotone, sebbene è probabile che questo areale non rappresenti l'habitat ideale della specie. Vi sono prove che la specie è numerosa nelle zone degli Stati Uniti orientali una volta caratterizzati dalla presenza di pianure alluvionali, lungo le foreste e le paludi. Gli esemplari reintrodotti nella Carolina del Nord hanno utilizzato vari habitat, dalle terre agricole ad ambienti forestali/alluvionali misti. Ciò indica che il lupo rosso è un "generalista ambientale" in grado di prosperare in diversi habitat, a condizione che non venga perseguitato dall'uomo.^[13]

Conservazione

Un membro dello United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) con due cuccioli di lupo rosso

Nel 1967 il lupo rosso venne dichiarato specie a rischio. Nel 1973 venne pertanto attivato un programma per la conservazione della specie con l'approvazione della Endangered Species Act. Un censimento eseguito, sia nel Texas che in Louisiana confermò la rarità della specie, con un probabile rischio di inquinamento genetico con i coyote, a quel tempo molto più comuni. Un progetto di allevamento in cattività fu realizzato presso il Point Defiance Zoological Gardens in Tacoma, Washington. Tra il 1973 e il 1980, la United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) catturò 400 canidi, inviandone all'impianto di allevamento, 43, identificati come lupi rossi. Di questi 43, solo 14 vennero scelti come compatibili al progetto di allevamento, in quanto tutti gli altri furono identificati essere frutto di incroci con coyote.^[13]

Esemplare maschio della popolazione usata nel progetto scartato di reintrodurre la specie al Parco nazionale delle Great Smoky Mountains

Tra il 1976 e il 1977, per determinare se gli esemplari catturati fossero in grado di sopravvivere allo stato selvatico, la USFWS liberò due gruppi di lupo rosso su Bulls Island, una zona gestita dal Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge nella Carolina del Sud, vasto 5.000 acri, pari a 20,23 Km². Il successo di questo esperimento incoraggiò la USFWS a scegliere, come luogo di permanente reintroduzione l'Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (ARNWR) situato nella Carolina Nord nordoccidentale, ritenuto un habitat ideale, in virtù della presenza di abbondanza di prede, di pochi esseri umani e coyote. Prima di proseguire, la USFWS convinse il Congresso a modificare l'Endangered Species Act in modo che i lupi reintrodotti fossero definiti come "sperimentali/non-essenziali", consentendo così maggior flessibilità al progetto, e incoraggiando i proprietari privati situati nelle zone di reintroduzione a cooperare di più, permettendoli di continuare a cacciare nel luogo e di abbattere lupi in autodifesa.^[13]

Nell'ottobre 1987 iniziò il trasferimento dei lupi rossi nell'ARNWR, trasferimento che si concluse nel dicembre 1994. Complessivamente vennero rilasciati 63 esemplari nel corso di 76 sessioni. Nel 1989, un ulteriore trasferimento ebbe luogo nel Parco nazionale delle Great Smoky Mountains (GSMNP). In entrambi i luoghi, la popolazione di lupi rossi aumentò, e, nel 1992 venne decisa un'ulteriore reintroduzione nel Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, non lontano da Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. Nel 1998 però, il progetto nel GSMNP fu scartato, sia causa dell'incapacità dei lupi di stabilire la loro presenza nei territori posti all'interno dei confini del parco che dell'elevata mortalità delle cucciolate. Nel frattempo, l'ARNWR venne infiltrata da coyote, spingendo, nel 1999, la USFWS a iniziare una campagna di sterilizzazione dei coyote della zona.^[9] Nel 2007, fu censito che la popolazione intera di lupi rossi consisteva in 300 esemplari, di cui 207 ancora in cattività.^[45]

Nel 2012, il Southern Environmental Law Center fece causa al North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) per aver minacciato, con la legalizzazione della caccia notturna al coyote, l'esistenza del lupo rosso^[46] nella zona di recupero. Nel 2014, la caccia notturna nella zona fu proibita, e fu reso obbligatorio ai cacciatore il possesso di una patente con l'autorizzazione di cacciare i coyote, con il conseguente rapporto di ogni abbattimento.^[47] In risposta, la NCWRC adottò una risoluzione chiedendo al USFWS di togliere tutti i lupi dalle terre private, terminare il progetto di recupero, e dichiarare la specie estinta allo stato naturale, affermando che, fra altri motivi, l'inquinamento genetico con i coyote e la preponderanza di terreni privati usati nella zona di recupero rendevano il progetto inconsistente con gli scopi della Endangered Species Act.^[48] Ciò avvenne dopo un resoconto del progetto pubblicato nel 2014 dal Wildlife Management Institute affermando che, nonostante i suoi successi, il programma di recupero del lupo rosso doveva aggiornare la sua strategia nell'impedire gli incroci con i coyote e migliorare le sue relazioni pubbliche.^[49] Successivamente, la USFWS cessò il suo progetto di sterilizzazione di coyote e smise di liberare lupi nati in cattività nella zona di recupero.^[50] Un anno dopo, la popolazione selvatica decrementò da 100-115 esemplari a 50-65.^[51]

Note