Blog created in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Anthropology/Archaeology. Header photo by MabelAmber [Pixabay] and profile photo by ForestWander [Wikimedia Commons].
From Haunting Howls to Yips and Yaps: Anthropogenic Factors of Hybridization and Engagement
Photo credit: Way, J.G. (2021). Profile of gray-phased northeastern coyote, or coywolf [digital photograph]. Accessed 14 March 2023, www.easterncoyoteresearch.com/Coywolf/, p. 70.
This blog was created as an alternative to the traditional undergraduate thesis. My chosen topic deals with the hybrid offspring of eastern wolves and western coyotes: eastern coyotes, or more colloquially, coywolves (Canis latrans var. | Canis latrans x Canis lycaon).
Because some posts are lengthy, I will include a TL;DR section at the end of each post.
Disclaimer: I do not claim to be an expert on this subject. I recommend checking out Jonathan Way’s book, as well as the authors listed in each post's References section.
Individuals across a variety of species alter their environments (e.g., beavers build dams, birds build nests, and earthworms physically/chemically alter soil) in a process called “niche construction.” Humans excel at this kind of activity and often participate in ways that “[use] phenomenal amounts of energy” [1, p. 28]. Unfortunately, this often results in “collateral consequences for climate, species diversity, and landscapes” [1, p. 30]. In response to the acceleration and accumulation of these consequences, it has been proposed that we have left the Holocene and entered into a new geological age called the “Anthropocene.”
Among other things, the Anthropocene is “a tool with which to focus attention on the current role of Homo sapiens in altering the Earth as a whole, and is a shorthand descriptor of that phenomenon” [1, p. 27]. It has become central to many analyses of human-animal relations and has called for us to do away with dualistic thinking of nature/society—with nature existing firmly outside the sphere of human society [2]. Rutherford, for example, has stated that “for all of its conceits around the importance of humans to the stories of the earth, it does invite a recognition that the world only operates via entanglement” [3, p. 215].
In light of this, I would like to acknowledge a study of mammalian movement in response to anthropogenic activity. Tucker et al. have determined that anthropogenic activities are "not only causing the loss of habitat and diversity, but also [affect] how animals move through fragmented and disturbed areas" [4, p. 9; see also 5-8]. Mammalian movements were typically two-to-three times smaller in areas with comparatively high instances of human presence compared to the same movements in areas with lower instances of human presence [4, p. 9]. This was attributed to both (1) an "individual-behavioral effect, where individuals alter their movements relative to" human activity, and (2) "a species-occurrence effect, where certain species that exhibit long-range movement" change their behavior to no longer reside in areas with high instances of human presence [4, pp. 11-12]. In terms of conservation, the authors conclude that animal movements should be considered a key conservation metric and that the goal should be maintaining landscape permeability [4, p. 13].
While most nations have some kind of endangered species legislation in place to prevent the loss of biodiversity, the majority of current conservation policies, practices, and conceptual frameworks are ill-suited to the Anthropocene because they were created "before there was widespread awareness of the unprecedented pace and magnitude of environmental change caused by humans" [9, p. 107]. Kareiva and Fuller recommend that we should instead be anticipating future impacts and "establishing goals that [reflect] the best science as to what is feasible in the future" [9, p. 108]; in short, a review and potential overhaul of current practices and/or conceptual frameworks because "nature is not a business, nor should it be run as one" [9, p. 111].
References:
[1] Boggs, C. (2016). Human Niche Construction and the Anthropocene. RCC Perspectives, 2, 27–32. www.jstor.org/stable/26241355
[2] Fredriksen, A. (2016). Of wildcats and wild cats: Troubling species-based conservation in the Anthropocene. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(4), 689-705. doi.org/10.1177/0263775815623539
[3] Rutherford, S. (2018). The Anthropocene’s animal? Coywolves as feral cotravelers. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 1(1-2), 206-223. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848618763250
[4] Tucker, M.A., Böhning-Gaese, K., Fagan, W.F., Fryxell, J., Moorter, B.V., Alberts, S.C., … Mueller, T. (2018). Moving in the Anthropocene: Global reductions in terrestrial mammalian movements. Science, 359(6374), 466-469.
[5] Patterson, B.R., Bondrup-Nielsen, S., & Messier, F. (1999). Activity patterns and daily movements of the eastern coyote, Canis latrans, in Nova Scotia. Canadian Field Naturalist, 113(2), 251-257. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285966455
[6] Way, J.G. (2011). Eastern coyote/coywolf (Canis latrans x lycaon) movement patterns: Lessons learned in urbanized ecosystems. Cities and the Environment (CATE), 4(1), Article 2. https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol4/iss1/2
[8] Way, J.G., Ortega, I.M., & Strauss, E.G. (2004). Movement and activity patterns of eastern coyotes in a coastal, suburban environment. Northeastern Naturalist, 11(3), 237-254. www.jstor.org/stable/3858416
[9] Kareiva, P. & Fuller, E. (2016). Beyond resilience: How to better prepare for the profound disruption of the Anthropocene. Global Policy, 7(Suppl. 1), 107-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12330
TL;DR:
Humans are niche constructors who greatly alter the environment
The degree to which anthropogenic alterations occur has led to the suggestion that we have left the Holocene and entered the Anthropocene
The Anthropocene is a central concept in contemporary human-wildlife analyses and invites a recognition of entanglement
Conservation practices, etc. may need an overhaul to account for the degree of anthropogenic impact on wildlife/the environment
Hybridization | DNA Analyses | Range & Diet | Behavior & Ecology | Attitudes | Conservation
*To preface this post, I will say that this is in no way a comprehensive discussion of conservation practices. This is merely a preview of what I was able to gather and understand during my limited time researching.
Conservation is a nuanced issue. Rutherford [1] brings up the point that coywolf conservation discourse tends to revolve around fear, be it from the uncertainty elicited by their hybrid nature or from their status as carnivores in general. These discussions can quickly descend into an argument based on the reconstruction of the past by questioning which species "belong" in the area. With this criterion as one of the most important, it is easy to see why some may protest the active protection of the coywolf as a (variant) species.
It is vital, however, that we recognize our role in the creation of these animals in the first place: in letting fear drive us to extirpate wolf populations, we paved the way for a species much more adapted to humans [1]. The “question, then, is if we made it, what is our responsibility to it” [1, p. 216]? Rutherford issues a call to arms, saying “the choice to encounter requires something of us; apathy becomes an unacceptable response” [1, p. 219] and suggesting that we attempt “a productive and generative attention to difference and livability in the context of” the differences between us and them [1, p. 218]. This may take the form, at the very least, of an acknowledgment of either (1) the inevitability of interspecific encounters, which begs for the adoption of conservation strategies with that in mind; or (2) the fact that humans can have a significant impact on the world’s biodiversity and can both drastically increase and decrease it, allowing for different types of species to emerge in response.
In line with Rutherford [1]’s arguments, others [2-5] have called for a new method of conservation—one that takes into account the degree to which anthropogenic activity has changed Earth systems (for related information, see my post on the Anthropocene), as well as the “failure of traditional conservation practices to halt defaunation” [2, p. 691]. Jackman and Way, in particular, have questioned the effectiveness of the outright hunting of carnivores, saying that it can both exacerbate human-wildlife conflicts and negatively impact various species’ social structures and behaviors [3, p. 187]. Their solution is the adoption of the compassionate conservation paradigm, which incorporates ethics and majority public opinion as well as recognizes the ecological importance of large carnivores. The overarching goal of this paradigm “is to first do no harm and to consider the intrinsic worth of individual animals in management practices” [3, p. 192].
The proposed Carnivore Conservation Act of Massachusetts, which aims to better adhere carnivore management practices (e.g., hunting seasons) to “the North American Model of Wildlife Management’s principle that wildlife should only be killed for a legitimate purpose” [4, p. 2; original emphasis removed], would fall under this paradigm. The executive summary on the first page outlines the argument for such an Act’s implementation:
"1. Promote the welfare of carnivores by prohibiting cruel and inhumane hunting
2. Promote a fair-chase hunting ethic of carnivores
3. Require scientifically valid carnivore management practices that serve a legitimate management purpose/objective/goal
4. Require the use of current and best available science in wildlife management decisions of carnivores. This involves abandoning principles that support the maximum utilization or killing of carnivores and requires accounting for the ecological importance of carnivores in fully functioning and robust ecosystems and recognizing their innate social and family structures" [4].
“The Act would shorten hunting seasons, institute bag limits, eliminate unpopular hunting practices…and provide refuges from hunting, yet permit limited hunting for the small minority of people that participate in that activity” [3, pp. 192-193; see also 4-5].
References:
[1] Rutherford, S. (2018). The Anthropocene’s animal? Coywolves as feral cotravelers. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 1(1-2), 206-223. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848618763250
[2] Fredriksen, A. (2016). Of wildcats and wild cats: Troubling species-based conservation in the Anthropocene. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(4), 689-705. doi.org/10.1177/0263775815623539
[3] Jackman, J.L. & Way, J.G. (2017). Once I found out: Awareness of and attitudes toward coyote hunting policies in Massachusetts. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 23(2), 187-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2017.1397824
It is vital that we recognize humanity's role in changing biodiversity
The suggested course of action moving forward is "compassionate conservation"
An example of compassionate conservation would be the (proposed) Carnivore Conservation Act of Massachusetts, which would still allow hunting(!) but implement restrictions
Hybridization | DNA Analyses | Range & Diet | Behavior & Ecology | Attitudes | The Anthropocene
Coywolves can live successfully in a variety of habitats (for related information, see my post on range/diet). The primary sources of mortality in the majority of these environments are anthropogenic (i.e., trapping, shooting, car accidents, and poisoning). Poisoning remained a widespread method of predator eradication until 1972, when its use on federal lands was banned in the United States; the use of household rodenticides is, however, still allowed.
Though a portion of the general public has become sympathetic towards these animals in recent years [1-2], deliberate killings still occur on city margins. An example of this was discovered during a 2005 study of a pack of coyotes in eastern Massachusetts [3]. Activity and movement patterns in this study were typical; the coyotes did not kill local pets or physically endanger citizens, but rather increased their nocturnal behavior to avoid people and displayed territorial behavior towards transient individuals. Even so, sightings of the individuals in this pack—Maeve, Jet, and Cour—led to some upset.
All three individuals were found dead during the study; in each case, the cause of death was ruled an anticoagulant pesticide (Brodifacoum, a second-generation poison and active ingredient in some forms of rat poison). Because all three displayed no abnormal behavior in the week leading up to their deaths and all died in less than a week, it is likely that, rather than having eaten poisoned prey, they were purposefully dosed at high concentrations.
Public support for the lethal management of carnivores has noticeably declined over time. Jackman and Way surveyed Cape Cod voters to examine “knowledge of and attitudes toward current coyote hunting policies and practices in Massachusetts” [1, p. 188]. Knowledge was largely limited, with only 40% being aware that Massachusetts has a hunting season for coyotes and 14% being aware that there are no bag limits—meaning a hunter can kill as many coyotes as they want. Responses to the survey indicated that only 23% supported the no-bag limits; the “only group to include majority support (62%)” [1, p. 190] comprised frequent hunters, who represented only a small percentage of the sampled public.
Anyone wishing to determine shifts in attitude towards and/or awareness of coywolves should consider the use of surveys à la Jackman and Way [1]. I wanted to incorporate a survey to determine whether residents of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania (where I am currently based) had noticeably different stances, but I did not give myself enough time to get IRB approval and properly analyze data. I would also recommend a potential partnership with an ecologist and/or biologist. Because I am an anthropologist and have little background in those fields, I was therefore somewhat limited in my view/understanding.
References:
[1] Jackman, J.L. & Way, J.G. (2017). Once I found out: Awareness of and attitudes toward coyote hunting policies in Massachusetts. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 23(2), 187-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2017.1397824
[3] Way, J.G., Cifuni, S.M., Eatough, D.L., & Strauss, E.G. (2006). Rat poison kills a pack of eastern coyotes, Canis latrans, in an urban area. Canadian Field Naturalist, 120(4), 478-480.
TL;DR:
Coywolf mortality is largely anthropogenic
Attitudes towards coywolves have improved over time
Massachusetts and Pennsylvania have no bag limits on coyotes; Pennsylvania has no set hunting season
Hybridization | DNA Analyses | Range & Diet | Behavior & Ecology | Conservation | The Anthropocene
The risk of interspecific predation is, by definition, absent for apex predators living within a natural system. Once that system has been significantly and anthropogenically altered, this will not always remain the case. Various studies [1-2] have determined that apex predators are capable of perceiving and responding to anthropogenic risks and will do so in ways akin to those exhibited by natural prey species. Like other canid species, coywolves will exhibit altered activity patterns, shifting away from areas and/or times of increased human presence [3-6], therefore decreasing the risk of potentially lethal encounters with people.
Activity patterns—ranging from movement to foraging to grooming [4]—allow an animal to efficiently exploit its environment while minimizing risk and are influenced by a variety of environmental and individual factors [3]. Movement patterns are a subset of activity patterns and significantly impact home range and territory sizes, habitat utilization, and population density [7].
In altering these patterns, coywolves have increased their odds of successfully living alongside humans. Studies of their activity and movement patterns throughout various (sub)urban areas show little to no diurnal movement, moderate amounts of crepuscular activity, and high rates of nocturnal activity [4-8]. High rates of diurnal activity are only typical of populations that either (1) live farther from humans or (2) face lower rates of persecution [3-6].
In forested and largely undisturbed areas, for example, activity is usually spread equally throughout the day [4-5]. Possible explanations for this include differences in the availability of cover, prey activity patterns, and human-coyote interactions. It may be that these differences are also reflective of sex differences in mate search and parental activities. Males have been found to travel the farthest, and their mean daily distances are markedly greater than those of females, especially during the breeding season [4-6]. This increase in movement has been attributed to either (1) unpaired male coyotes traveling farther to find receptive mates or (2) increased territoriality.
Home range and territory are synonymous. While the first refers to an area regularly visited in search of food or mates, the latter expands on the definition by implying a level of protectiveness against outsiders—in other words, they become territorial. Most wild canids exhibit a high level of territoriality, so most of their home range will also be their territory. In coywolves, this will equate to between 5 and 10 square miles (12.9–25.9 km^2) in (sub)urban areas and 15-20 square miles (38.8–51.8 km^2) in rural areas [5]. Because they can travel long distances quickly (usually 10-15 mi [16.1–24.1 km] per day) [5; 4, 6-7], they may be located anywhere within their home range at any given time.
Because "older, well-established individuals effectively guard considerably larger areas from other packs" [5, p. 83], coywolves as a whole are likely to stabilize—or even decrease—their own numbers without the aid of hunting and trapping measures. The typical pack size falls between 3 and 5 members, consisting of the breeding pair and their offspring [5]. It is common for people to overestimate the size of a pack; when howling, changes in intonation, pitch, and volume can easily make a pack of 3 sound like a pack of 10 [5].
References:
[1] Brook, L.A., Johnson, C.N., & Ritchie, E.G. (2012). Effects of predator control on behavior of an apex predator and indirect consequences for mesopredator suppression. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49(6), 1278-1286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02207.x
[2] Hertel, A.G., Zedrosser, A., Mysterud, A., Stoen, O.G., Steyaert, S.M.J.G., & Swenson, J.E. (2016). Temporal effects of hunting on foraging behavior of an apex predator: Do bears forego foraging when risk is high? Oecologia, 182, 1019-1029. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-016-3729-8
[3] Kitchen, A.M., Gese, E.M., & Schauster, E.R. (2000). Changes in coyote activity patterns due to reduced exposure to human persecution. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 78(5), 853-857. https://doi.org/10.1139/z00-003
[4] Patterson, B.R., Bondrup-Nielsen, S., & Messier, F. (1999). Activity patterns and daily movements of the eastern coyote, Canis latrans, in Nova Scotia. Canadian Field Naturalist, 113(2), 251-257. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285966455
[6] Way, J.G., Ortega, I.M., & Strauss, E.G. (2004). Movement and activity patterns of eastern coyotes in a coastal, suburban environment. Northeastern Naturalist, 11(3), 237-254. www.jstor.org/stable/3858416
[7] Way, J.G. (2011). Eastern coyote/coywolf (Canis latrans x lycaon) movement patterns: Lessons learned in urbanized ecosystems. Cities and the Environment (CATE), 4(1), Article 2. https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol4/iss1/2
[8] Way, J.G., Cifuni, S.M., Eatough, D.L., & Strauss, E.G. (2006). Rat poison kills a pack of eastern coyotes, Canis latrans, in an urban area. Canadian Field Naturalist, 120(4), 478-480.
Photo credit:
Way, J.G., Ortega, I.M., & Strauss, E.G. (2004). Graphs of activity patterns for coyotes on Cape Cod, MA, between June 1998-May 2000 [digital photograph]. Accessed 09 April 2023, www.jstor.org/stable/3858416, pp. 244-245.
TL;DR:
To decrease potentially lethal encounters with humans, coywolves will become primarily nocturnal
In undisturbed and forested areas, coywolves are more active throughout the day
Coywolves regulate their own numbers within a given area
A pack of coywolves (averaging 3-5 members) can easily sound larger than it is because of pitch, intonation, and volume changes while howling
Hybridization | DNA Analyses | Range & Diet | Attitudes | Conservation | The Anthropocene
A 2018 study conducted by Hody and Kays, which examined the geographic distribution of coyotes between 1900 and 2016, has determined that coyotes have dramatically extended their range across much of North and Central America. They attribute this expansion, in part, to environmental homogenization and the extirpation of wolf populations. The former likely created suitable habitats out of previously unsuitable ones, while the latter likely reduced coyotes’ predation risk and/or allowed them to incorporate larger prey into their diets [1].
Their hybrid offspring—coywolves—have an equally extensive range and "currently inhabit all of the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada" [2, p. 39]. Their habitats are extremely variable, including everything from wilderness to urban environments [2; see also 3]. They are omnivores and will therefore eat "anything from meat to melons" [2, p. 27]. The primary components of their diet, however, are small mammals (i.e., mice, voles, rabbits, and groundhogs). Interestingly, they have been found, on occasion, to eat seals [2].
For related information, see my post on hybridization.
References:
[1] Hody, J.W. & Kays, R. (2018). Mapping the expansion of coyotes (Canis latrans) across North and Central America. ZooKeys, 759, 81-97. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.759.15149
[3] Way, J.G., Cifuni, S.M., Eatough, D.L., & Strauss, E.G. (2006). Rat poison kills a pack of eastern coyotes, Canis latrans, in an urban area. Canadian Field Naturalist, 120(4), 478-480.
Photo credits (in order of appearance):
Hody, J.W. & Kays, R. (2018). Mapping the expansion of coyotes (Canis latrans) across North and Central America [digital photograph]. Accessed 15 March 2023, https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.759.15149, p. 89.
Adapted from Way, J.G. (2021). Eastern coyote colonization of the Northeast [digital photograph]. Accessed 14 March 2023, www.easterncoyoteresearch.com/Coywolf/, p. 23.
TL;DR:
Coywolves live in many different environments and currently inhabit all of the northeastern US and southeastern Canada
Coywolves are omnivores and eat "anything from meat to melons"
Hybridization | DNA Analyses | Behavior & Ecology | Attitudes | Conservation | The Anthropocene
Several studies [1-2; see also 3] have examined mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) collected from wolves, coyotes, and suspected hybrids throughout North America. Lehman et al. (1991) have determined that repeated (at least six) mating events between wolves and coyotes have led to the introgression of coyote mtDNA genotypes into wolf populations. No wolf genotypes were found in sampled coyotes, indicating a unidirectional introgression from coyotes to wolves [1]. The integrity of mtDNA haplotypes suggests that either (1) interbreeding between female wolves and male coyotes is not prevalent or (2) the resulting offspring of this type of cross do not breed further. Because viable hybrid offspring may have crossbred back into the coyote population rather than the wolf, some coyote populations may have greater genetic contributions from male wolves than can be determined through mtDNA analyses [1].
More recent studies [3-4] have determined that the genetic composition of these hybrids—coywolves—is approximately 60-65% coyote, 25-30% wolf, and 10% dog. In a study published in 2010 [4], geneticists discovered that DNA samples grouped in the Northeast yet remained distinct from their parental species’ genes [see also 3, 5], which indicates that coywolves are "currently breeding true…and now have relatively little influence from their parent species in the core of their range" [3, p. 46]. These overall genetic determinations have led to disagreement over whether coywolves should be considered their own species (i.e., Canis oriens) [6; see also 7].
References:
[1] Lehman, N., Eisenhawer, A., Hansen, K., Mech, L.D., Peterson, R.O., Gogan, P.JP., & Wayne, R.K. (1991). Introgression of coyote mitochondrial DNA into sympatric North American gray wolf populations. Evolution, 45(1), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.2307/2409486
[2] Stronen, A.V., Tessier, N., Jolicoeur, H., Paquet, P.C., Hénault, M., Villemure, M., … Lapointe, FJ. (2012). Canid hybridization: Contemporary evolution in human-modified landscapes. Ecology and Evolution, 2(9), 2128-2140. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.335
[6] Way, J.G. (2016, May 11). Why the eastern coyote should be a separate species: the ‘coywolf.’ The Conversation US. https://theconversation.com/why-the-eastern-coyote-should-be-a-separate-species-the-coywolf-59214
[7] Rutherford, S. (2018). The Anthropocene’s animal? Coywolves as feral cotravelers. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 1(1-2), 206-223. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848618763250
TL;DR:
Wolves and coyotes have interbred, creating viable offspring called "eastern coyotes" or "coywolves"
The average coywolf's genetic makeup is approx. 60% coyote, 30% wolf, and 10% dog, with influence from parental species' genes currently little to none
There is disagreement over whether coywolves should be considered a separate species
Hybridization | Range & Diet | Behavior & Ecology | Attitudes | Conservation | The Anthropocene
Anthropogenic activity has had a marked impact on the evolution, genetic potential, and distribution of a plethora of species, the result of which is often a hybridization event between two previously allopatric species. The outcome of these hybridization events will vary. Occasionally, the outcome will go no further than first-generation (F1) hybrids. Conversely, another outcome is a hybrid swarm, wherein F1 hybrids have successfully mated and produced fertile F2 hybrids. The primary mechanisms behind anthropogenic hybridization, in particular, include (1) translocations and/or direct harvest; (2) habitat modification, especially homogenization; and (3) climate change [1-2].
Facilitated by environmental homogenization and the direct harvest of wolf populations, eastern coyotes (hereafter “coywolves”) are the result of hybridization between eastern wolves (Canis lycaon; hereafter “wolves”) and western coyotes (Canis latrans; hereafter “coyotes”) [2-6]. Prior to the mid-1960s, park rangers in Canada’s Algonquin Provincial Park and the surrounding regions actively shot, trapped, poisoned, or otherwise killed wolves to bolster game populations. By 1965, approximately 36% of the wolf population had been culled [2]. The timing of the cull, occurring concurrently with efforts to make the land suitable for agriculture, is particularly important because it happened just as coyotes were beginning to colonize the region (for related information, see my post on range/diet). The drastic decrease in population density encouraged male wolves unable to find conspecific mates to take advantage of eroding reproductive barriers and mate with female coyotes, thereby creating a new, intermediate hybrid zone [3-4, 7].
The hybrid nature of coywolves is manifested in various morphological and behavioral traits along a spectrum between either parental species. For example, the average weight is 30–40 lbs (13.6–18.1 kg), but individuals may reach up to 55 lbs (24.9 kg)—heavier than the average coyote but lighter than the average wolf [6].
Like wolves, they hunt in packs, but, like coyotes, they demonstrate a curiosity towards humans and a willingness to work around them [6, 8]. Their average home range and pack size are also intermediate, being roughly 10 mi^2 (28.5 km^2) and 3-5 members, respectively [6]. It is their very hybridity that may prove to be the reason behind their evolutionary success, allowing them to readily colonize and thrive in “de-wolfed” and intermediary environments.
References:
[1] Ottenburghs, J. (2021). The genic view of hybridization in the Anthropocene. Evolutionary Applications, 14, 2342-2360. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.13223
[2] Rutledge, L.Y., White, B.N., Row, J.R., & Patterson, B.R. (2011). Intense harvesting of eastern wolves facilitated hybridization with coyotes. Ecology and Evolution, 2(1), 19-33. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.61
[3] Benson, J.F., Patterson, B.R., & Wheeldon, T.J. (2012). Spatial genetic and morphologic structure of wolves and coyotes in relation to environmental heterogeneity in a Canis hybrid zone. Molecular Ecology, 21(24), 5934-5954. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12045
[4] Lehman, N., Eisenhawer, A., Hansen, K., Mech, L.D., Peterson, R.O., Gogan, P.JP., & Wayne, R.K. (1991). Introgression of coyote mitochondrial DNA into sympatric North American gray wolf populations. Evolution, 45(1), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.2307/2409486
[5] Stronen, A.V., Tessier, N., Jolicoeur, H., Paquet, P.C., Hénault, M., Villemure, M., … Lapointe, FJ. (2012). Canid hybridization: Contemporary evolution in human-modified landscapes. Ecology and Evolution, 2(9), 2128-2140. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.335
[7] Way, J.G. (2016, May 11). Why the eastern coyote should be a separate species: the ‘coywolf.’ The Conversation US. https://theconversation.com/why-the-eastern-coyote-should-be-a-separate-species-the-coywolf-59214
[8] Rutherford, S. (2018). The Anthropocene’s animal? Coywolves as feral cotravelers. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 1(1-2), 206-223. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848618763250
Photo credits (in order of appearance):
Ottenburghs, J. (2021). The genic view of hybridization in the Anthropocene [digital photograph]. Accessed 09 April 2023, https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.13223, p. 2347.
Way, J.G. (2021). Coyote, wolf, and hybrid body mass comparison [digital photograph]. Accessed 14 March 2023, www.easterncoyoteresearch.com/Coywolf/, p. 43.
TL;DR:
Human activity can greatly impact wildlife/climate/the environment
Coywolves are the result of male wolves mating with female coyotes when they couldn't find conspecific mates
Coywolves hunt in packs, which average 3-5 members
Coywolves are more likely to run away from humans or observe them from afar than to attack
DNA Analyses | Range & Diet | Behavior & Ecology | Attitudes | Conservation | The Anthropocene
