Overview
Brief Summary
Biology
Trusted
Comprehensive Description
Description
Trusted
Distribution
Range Description
Trusted
Geographic Range
Formerly the range of red wolves included most habitats of the southeastern United States, however this species range was reduced in historic times to extreme southeastern Texas and southwestern Louisiana. Presently, red wolves are being reintroduced into areas of their historical range--Alligator River in North Carolina, and the Great Smoky Mountains of Tennessee and North Carolina (Wilson & Ruff 1999, Nowak 1991).
Biogeographic Regions: nearctic (Native )
Trusted
Global Range: (5000-20,000 square km (about 2000-8000 square miles)) Delineation of the range of this wolf is hampered by a paucity of specimens and debate over the taxonomic status of the species (seeNowak 2002). Data presented by Nowak (2002) indicate a range extending from Maine to Florida and eastward (south of the Great Lakes) to Illinois, Oklahoma, and Texas, based on pre-1918 complete skulls (fragmentary archaeological and paleontological material dating back 10,000 years do not change this much). Basically, if the red wold is regarded as a valid species, its range historically was essentially confined to the southeastern United States.
Assuming the traditional view that the red wolf is a valid species and that it still exists in unhybridized form, the species was, until recent reintroductions, extinct in the wild since early 1980s (or mid-1970s, Rennie 1991). Formerly it was believed to have occurred from central Texas eastward to the coasts of Florida and Georgia and north to North Carolina, and along the Mississippi River Valley north to southern Illinois, and occasionally in Mexico. The last remnant population along Texas/Louisiana coast was rendered functionally extinct due to hybridization with coyote.
A reintroduced population now occurs in an area of roughly 6,900 square kilometers in northeastern North Carolina (reintroduction in Great Smoky Mountains National Park failed and has been terminated; Federal Register, 8 October 1998). Propagation populations currently exist on two islands: Bulls Island, Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge, South Carolina; and St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge, Florida. Other red wolves exist in many captive-breeding facilities.
Trusted
Range
Trusted
National Distribution
United States
Origin: Native
Regularity: Regularly occurring
Currently: Present
Confidence: Confident
Type of Residency: Year-round
Trusted
Physical Description
Morphology
Physical Description
Red wolves are distinguished from their nearest relative, Canis lupus, by their smaller size, relatively narrower proportions, longer legs and ears, and shorter fur. Red wolves have a total length between 1000 and 1300 mm, tail length of from 300 to 420 mm, and shoulder height of 660 to 790 mm. Among red wolves, males average 10 percent larger than females. Red wolves usually have upperparts that are a mixture of cinnamon, tawny, and gray or black, while the back is normally blackish. The muzzle and limbs are tawny and the tail is tipped with black. In winter, the reddish element of the pelage is dominant. An annual molt takes place in the summer (Wilson & Ruff 1999, Nowak 1991).
Range mass: 20 to 40 kg.
Average mass: 23.5 kg.
Other Physical Features: endothermic ; homoiothermic; bilateral symmetry
Sexual Dimorphism: male larger
Trusted
Size
Diagnostic Description
Coyote is smaller (total length 105-132 cm), with a narrower nose pad and hind foot. Gray wolf tends to be larger (total length 137-206 cm). However, see taxonomy comments.
Trusted
Ecology
Habitat
Habitat and Ecology
Systems
- Terrestrial
Trusted
Habitat
Before becoming endangered, red wolves inhabited mountains, lowland forests, and wetlands. Presently, red wolves survive mainly as small relict and reintroduced populations in inaccessible swampland and mountainous terrain (Wilson & Ruff 1999, Nowak 1991).
Habitat Regions: temperate ; terrestrial
Terrestrial Biomes: forest ; scrub forest
Trusted
Comments: Suitable habitat for this habitat generalist includes upland and lowland forests, shrublands, and coastal prairies and marshes; areas with heavy vegetative cover. Young are born in a den in a hollow log, in a burrow, or in similar secluded sites.
Trusted
Habitat
Trusted
Migration
Non-Migrant: Yes. At least some populations of this species do not make significant seasonal migrations. Juvenile dispersal is not considered a migration.
Locally Migrant: No. No populations of this species make local extended movements (generally less than 200 km) at particular times of the year (e.g., to breeding or wintering grounds, to hibernation sites).
Locally Migrant: No. No populations of this species make annual migrations of over 200 km.
Home ranges variously reported as 65 to 130 square kilometers (Riley and McBride 1975), 117 (males) and 78 square kilometers (females, Carley 1979); 100-200 sq km mentioned by Lowman 1975; varies with conditions.
Trusted
Trophic Strategy
Food Habits
Rodents, ungulates, and other small mammals are the main prey of red wolves. The dominant prey species include raccoons, white-tailed deer, swamp rabbits, cottontail rabbits, pigs, rice rats, nutria, and muskrats. Red wolves will also eat carrion. They typically hunt in a particular area for 7 to 10 days, then switch to a different range (Wilson & Ruff 1999, Nowak 1991).
Animal Foods: birds; mammals; carrion
Plant Foods: fruit
Primary Diet: carnivore (Eats terrestrial vertebrates)
Trusted
Comments: Opportunistic. Diet consists of a variety of invertebrates and vertebrates (rabbits, rodents, deer, birds, etc.). Particularly favors marsh rabbits (Sylvilagus aquaticus), nutria (Myocastor coypus), and carrion. Not considered a threat to livestock (does not hunt in packs), but may prey on unattended young calves, pigs, and barnyard fowl (Matthews and Moseley 1990).
Trusted
Associations
Ecosystem Roles
Red wolves are important as top predators in the ecosystems in which they live.
Trusted
Predation
Red wolves are primarily preyed on by other canids, including conspecifics from other packs, gray wolves, and coyote as a result of agonistic interactions over territories. Young red wolves may also be taken by other large predators such as alligator, large raptors, and bobcats.
Trusted
Known prey organisms
Trusted
Population Biology
Number of Occurrences
Note: For many non-migratory species, occurrences are roughly equivalent to populations.
Estimated Number of Occurrences: 1 - 5
Comments: This species occurs in the wild in one major location (plus two islands that serve as propagation areas).
Trusted
Global Abundance
1 - 250 individuals
Comments: As of 2005, there were about 100 red wolves in the wild on 6,900 square kilometers in northeastern North Carolina. The number of reproductive individuals probably is not greater than 50. The captive population included around 165 wolves.
Trusted
General Ecology
More social than coyote but less so than gray wolf; typically travels and forages in small family groups or alone. Formerly density probably not more than 1 per 2 sq miles.
Trusted
Life History and Behavior
Behavior
Communication and Perception
Red wolves communicate with conspecifics through a complex suite of behavioral, tactile, chemical, and auditory signals. Body language, pheromones, and vocalizations all serve to communicate about social and reproductive status and mood. Social bonding is often acheived through touch. Home ranges are delimited using scent marks.
Communication Channels: visual ; tactile ; acoustic ; chemical
Other Communication Modes: pheromones ; scent marks
Perception Channels: visual ; acoustic
Trusted
Cyclicity
Life Expectancy
Lifespan/Longevity
Most individuals live to about 4 years, though one captive individual was recorded at 14 years old (Wilson & Ruff 1999, Nowak 1991).
Range lifespan
Status: captivity: 14 (high) years.
Average lifespan
Status: wild: 4 years.
Average lifespan
Status: wild: 16.0 years.
Average lifespan
Status: captivity: 20.0 years.
Average lifespan
Status: captivity: 14.0 years.
Trusted
Reproduction
Reproduction
The dominant male and female pair are solely able to reproduce within a pack. Other pack members assist in raising young and obtaining food for lactating females.
Mating System: monogamous ; cooperative breeder
Breeding season extends from January to March. The gestation period is 60-63 days, with average litters of 3-6 pups occurring in the spring. However, litters of up to 12 pups can occur.
Breeding season: Breeding occurs between January and March.
Range number of offspring: 1 to 12.
Average number of offspring: 3-6.
Range gestation period: 60 to 62 days.
Average age at sexual or reproductive maturity (female): 1 years.
Key Reproductive Features: iteroparous ; seasonal breeding ; gonochoric/gonochoristic/dioecious (sexes separate); viviparous
Average number of offspring: 5.
Both males and females participate in rearing the young in the den, as well as other pack members. The young are cared for, nursed, and sheperded through their first year of life.
Parental Investment: altricial ; male parental care ; female parental care ; post-independence association with parents; extended period of juvenile learning
Trusted
Mates in January-February. Gestation lasts 60-63 days. Litter of 3-12 (average 6-7) is born in March-May. One litter per year. Sexually mature in 3 years.
Trusted
Conservation
Conservation Status
IUCN Red List Assessment
Red List Category
Red List Criteria
Version
Year Assessed
Assessor/s
Reviewer/s
Contributor/s
Justification
History
- 2004Critically Endangered
- 1996Critically Endangered
- 1994Endangered(Groombridge 1994)
- 1990Endangered(IUCN 1990)
- 1988Endangered(IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre 1988)
- 1986Endangered(IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre 1986)
- 1982Endangered(Thornback and Jenkins 1982)
Trusted
Conservation Status
Red wolves have been blamed for depredations on livestock and game. As a result, humans, mainly ranchers, farmers, and government trappers, steadily eliminated populations of red wolves. In 1967, red wolves were listed as endangered and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service engaged in a salvage effort to protect remaining populations. Fourteen remaining red wolves were placed in a captive-breeding facility; they have become the founders of the present red wolf population. Currently, 200+ red wolves exist, and reintroductions are occurring in a few areas, including North Carolina and the Great Smoky Mountains.
US Federal List: endangered
CITES: appendix i; no special status
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: critically endangered
Trusted
National NatureServe Conservation Status
United States
Rounded National Status Rank: N1 - Critically Imperiled
Trusted
NatureServe Conservation Status
Rounded Global Status Rank: G1 - Critically Imperiled
Reasons: Exterminated from formerly large range in the southeastern U.S.; now exists in one major population in northeastern North Carolina, plus a couple islands used for propagation; intensively monitored and managed; attempted reintroduction in Great Smoky Mountains National Park was unsuccessful.
Trusted
Status: Endangered
Date Listed: 03/11/1967
Lead Region: Southeast Region (Region 4)
Where Listed: except where EXPN
Status: Experimental Population, Non-Essential
Date Listed: 11/19/1986
Lead Region: Southeast Region (Region 4)
Where Listed: U.S.A. (portions of NC and TN)
Population detail:
Population location: U.S.A. (portions of NC and TN_see 17.84(c)(9))
Listing status: EXPN
Population location: Entire, except where listed as experimental populations below
Listing status: E
For most current information and documents related to the conservation status and management of Canis rufus , see its USFWS Species Profile
Trusted
Status
Trusted
Trends
Population
Extinct in the Wild by 1980, the Red Wolf was reintroduced by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1987 into eastern North Carolina. The Red Wolf is now common within the reintroduction area of roughly 6,000 km². However, the species' abundance outside the reintroduction area is unknown.
Population Trend
Trusted
Global Short Term Trend: Relatively stable (=10% change)
Comments: USFWS (1990) categorized the status as "improving," but range has not expanded sigificantly beyond the reintroduction areas.
Global Long Term Trend: Decline of >90%
Comments: Assuming an historical range throughout southeastern North America (e.g., Nowak 2002), the extent of occurrence, area of occupancy, and abundance of this species have undergone a drastic decline over the long term.
Trusted
Threats
Threats
It has been estimated that the Red Wolf population in North Carolina can sustain only one hybrid litter out of every 59 litters (1.7%) to maintain 90% of its genetic diversity for the next 100 years (Kelly et al. 1999). However, prior to learning of this acceptable introgression rate, the introgression rate noted in the reintroduced population was minimally 15% (Kelly et al. 1999) or approximately 900% more than the population can sustain to maintain 90% of its genetic diversity for 100 years. If such levels of hybridization continued beyond 1999, non-hybridized Red Wolves could disappear within 12?24 years (3?6 generations). An adaptive management plan designed to test whether hybridization can be reduced to acceptable levels was initiated in 1999 (Kelly 2000). Initial results from this plan suggest that the intensive management specified in the plan may be effective in reducing introgression rates to acceptable levels (B. Fazio pers. comm.).
In the absence of hybridization, recovery of the Red Wolf and subsequent removal of the species from the U.S. Endangered Species List is deemed possible. It is noteworthy that similar hybridization has been observed in the population of suspected Red Wolf-type wolves in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada. If these wolves are ultimately shown to be Red Wolf-type wolves, this will enhance the conservation status of the species and nearly triple the known number of Red Wolf-type wolves surviving in the wild.
Human induced mortality (vehicles and gunshot) can be significant. However, the threat this mortality represents to the population is unclear. Most vehicle deaths occurred early in the reintroduction and were likely due to naive animals. Nonetheless, the overall impact of these mortality factors will depend on the proportion of the losses attributable to the breeding segment of the population (effective population (Ne) and what proportion of the overall population is lost due to these human factors (both N and Ne)).
Trusted
Degree of Threat: A : Very threatened throughout its range communities directly exploited or their composition and structure irreversibly threatened by man-made forces, including exotic species
Comments: Historical decline was due to human persecution (trapping, poisoning), habitat loss, and hybridization with coyote. Attempted reintroduction in Great Smoky Mountians National Park failed, probably due to parovirus and other common canine diseases, internal and external parasites, poor nutrition caused by low food availability, and predation (Federal Register, 8 October 1998). Hybridization with coyotes is an ongoing threat in northeastern North Carolina.
Trusted
Threats
Trusted
Management
Conservation Actions
The only free-ranging population of Red Wolves exists in north-eastern North Carolina in an area comprised of 60% private land and 40% public land. This area contains three national wildlife refuges (Alligator River NWR, Pocosin Lakes NWR, and Mattamuskeet NWR) which provide important protection to the wolves. Red Wolves or a very closely related taxon may also occupy Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada.
A very active recovery programme for the Red Wolf has been in existence since the mid-1970s (USFWS 1990; Phillips et al. 2003), with some measures from as early as the mid-1960s (USFWS, unpubl.). By 1976, a captive breeding programme was established using 17 animals captured in Texas and Louisiana (Carley 1975; USFWS 1990). Of these, 14 became the founders of the current captive breeding programme. In 1977, the first pups were born in the captive programme, and by 1985, the captive population had grown to 65 individuals in six zoological facilities (Parker 1986).
With the species reasonably secure in captivity, the USFWS began reintroducing Red Wolves at the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in north-eastern North Carolina in 1987. As of September 2002, 102 animals have been released with a minimum of 281 descendants produced in the wild since 1987. As of September 2002, there is a minimum population of 66 wild Red Wolves in north-eastern North Carolina, with a total wild population believed to be at least 100 individuals. Likewise, at this same time, there is a minimum population of 17 hybrid canids present in north-eastern North Carolina. The 17 known hybrids are sterilized and radio-collared (USFWS, unpubl.).
During 1991 a second reintroduction project was initiated at the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee (Lucash et al. 1999). Thirty-seven Red Wolves were released from 1992 to 1998. Of these, 26 either died or were recaptured after straying onto private lands outside the Park (Henry 1998). Moreover, only five of the 32 pups known to have been born in the wild survived but were removed from the wild during their first year (USFWS, unpubl.). Biologists suspect that disease, predation, malnutrition, and parasites contributed to the high rate of pup mortality (USFWS, unpubl.). Primarily because of the poor survival of wild-born offspring, the USFWS terminated the Tennessee restoration effort in 1998 (Henry 1998).
Occurrence in captivity
As of September 2002, there are approximately 175 Red Wolves in captivity at 33 facilities throughout the United States and Canada (USFWS, unpubl.). The purpose of the captive population is to safeguard the genetic integrity of the species and to provide animals for reintroduction. In addition, there are propagation projects on two small islands off the South Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the U.S. which, through reintroduction of known breeding individuals and capture of their offspring, provide wild-born pups for release into mainland reintroduction projects (USFWS 1990).
Trusted
Management Requirements: See USFWS (Federal Register, 13 April 1995) for revision of the special rule for nonessential experimental populations in North Carolina and Tennessee.
Trusted
Global Protection: Few (1-3) occurrences appropriately protected and managed
Comments: A population exists in northeastern North Carolina on three national wildlife refuges, a Department of Defense bombing range, state-owned lands, and private property, spanning a total of 6,100 square kilometers.
Needs: Application of the experimental population designation has been useful in getting support for introductions as part of the recovery process (Parker and Phillips 1991).
See 1989 recovery plan.
Trusted
Conservation
Trusted
Relevance to Humans and Ecosystems
Benefits
Economic Importance for Humans: Negative
Red wolves were long thought by the public to be a serious threat to livestock. This threat has been grossly exaggerated, though they may occasionally kill domestic animals (Fox 1975).
Trusted
Economic Importance for Humans: Positive
Red wolves eat many rodents, thus helping to control the populations of these pests (Fox 1975).
Positive Impacts: controls pest population
Trusted
Wikipedia
Red wolf
The red wolf (Canis lupus rufus,[1] formerly Canis rufus) is a North American canid which once roamed throughout the Southeastern United States.[4] Based on fossil and archaeological evidence, the original red wolf range extended throughout the Southeast, from the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, north to the Ohio River Valley and central Pennsylvania, and west to central Texas and southeastern Missouri. Historical habitats included forests, swamps, and coastal prairies, where it was an apex predator. The red wolf being morphologically midway between grey wolves and coyotes, recent genetic research indicate it may actually be a hybrid species.[5] The red wolf became extinct in the wild by 1980. 1987 saw a reintroduction in northeastern North Carolina through a captive breeding program and the animals are considered to be successfully breeding in the wild.[6]
Contents |
Physiology
Species description
The red wolf stands about 66–79 cm (26–31 in) at the shoulder. The total length is 111–165 cm (44–65 in) including a tail of 30–43 cm (12–17 in). The body weight can range from 16 to 41 kg (35 to 90 lb) but averages at about 24.5 kg (54 lb).[7] Male red wolves are approximately 10% larger than females. Coat long, coarse; mostly brown and buff colored on the upper part of the body with some black along the backs. Muzzle long; nose pad wide and black; ears rufous; legs long; tail long, bushy, black tipped. Body is intermediate in size between the gray wolf (Canis lupus) and the coyote (Canis latrans)[6][8]
General description
The red wolf pup begins life with a slate or dark gray pelt with auburn-tinged fur visible on its head. As it matures, this color changes color to a mixture of buff, tawny, cinnamon and brown along the body and a black tipped tail; it often has black guard hairs too and sometimes presents with black or dark bars on its forelegs. Black or melanistic individuals once occurred; such individuals were more common in Florida and in western areas. [9] The pelt molts once annually in the winter. Its muzzle is white furred around the lips. The red wolf is generally intermediate in size between the coyote and the gray wolf. However, the disproportionately long legs & large ears are two obvious features that separate red wolves from coyotes and gray wolves.[10] Its overall appearance is more slender and gracile than that of a grey wolf.
Taxonomy
The taxonomy of the red wolf has been debated since before efforts began in 1973 to save it from extinction. In 1971, Atkins and Dillon conducted a study on the brains of canids and confirmed the distinctiveness and primitive characteristics of the red wolf.[11] Many studies throughout the 1970s focused on the morphology of the red wolf came to the conclusion that the red wolf is a distinct species.[10] In 1980, Ferrell et al. found a unique allele in Canis specimens from within the red wolf range, supporting the conclusion that the red wolf is a distinct species.[12] Still, some in the scientific community considered it a subspecies of the grey wolf[13] or a hybrid of the grey wolf and the coyote.[14][15]
In 1992, the USFWS conducted an exhaustive review of the literature, including their own, and concluded that the red wolf is either a separate species unto itself or a subspecies of the gray wolf.[16][17][18] Many agency reports, books and web pages list the red wolf as Canis rufus but recent genetic research has opened a new debate about the taxonomy of both the red wolf and Canada's eastern wolf (Canis lycaon).[11] Wilson et al. (2000) concluded that the eastern wolf and red wolf should be considered as sister taxa due to a shared common ancestor going back 150,000-300,000 years. In addition, Wilson et al. further stated that they should be recognized as distinct species from other North American canids, and not as subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupus). However, these conclusions have been disputed,[19][20] and Mammal Species of the World[1] currently lists them both as subspecies of the gray wolf. Regardless of its true identity, the US Fish and Wildlife Service views the red wolf to be worthy of recovery efforts.
In May 2011, an analysis of red wolf, Eastern wolf, gray wolf, and dog genomes revealed that the red wolf was 76-80 percent coyote and only 20-24 percent gray wolf, suggesting that the red wolf is actually much more coyote in origin than the Eastern wolf. This study analyzed 48,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms and found no evidence for a unique Eastern wolf or red wolf species.[21] However, the US Fish and Wildlife Service still considers the red wolf a valid species and plans to make no changes to its recovery program.[5]
When considered as a full species, three subspecies of red wolf were originally recognized by Goldman;[22] two of these subspecies are extinct. Canis rufus floridanus (Maine to Florida).[20] has been extinct since 1930 and Canis rufus gregoryi (south-central United States)[20] was declared functionally extinct in the wild by 1980. Canis rufus rufus, the third surviving subspecies, was also functionally extinct in the wild by 1980, although that status was changed to "critically endangered" when captive-bred red wolves were reintroduced in eastern North Carolina in 1987. The current status of the “non-essential/ experimental” population in North Carolina is “endangered” and the population numbers around 100 wild animals.[citation needed]
Fossil and historic record
Paleontological evidence has suggested an origin of the red wolf line 1–2 Ma, branching from a wolf-coyote ancestor, which itself appeared about 4.9 Ma.[23][24] Between 150,000–300,000 years ago, the North American branch evolved into the red wolf, eastern wolf and the coyote.[25] Another wolf-like branch migrated to Eurasia and evolved into the gray wolf, which later migrated to North America.[24] It is thought that its original distribution included much of eastern North America, where red wolves were found from Maine south to Florida and in southcentral US westward to Texas. Records of bounty payments to Wappinger Indians in New York in the middle 18th century confirm its range at least that far north;[26] it's possible that it could have extended as far as extreme eastern Canada.[27]
Geographic distribution
The originally-recognized red wolf range extended throughout the Southeast, from the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, north to the Ohio River Valley and central Pennsylvania, and west to Central Texas and southeastern Missouri.[28] But 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.[29] Since 1987, red wolves (Canis rufus rufus) have been released into northeastern North Carolina where they roam 1.7 millions acres.[30] These lands span five counties (Dare, Hyde, Tryrrell, Washington and Beaufort) and include three national wildlife refuges, a U.S. Air Force bombing range, and private land.[30] 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.[29] 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. 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's Island in Florida is currently the only active island propagation site.
Ecology
Given their wide historical distribution, red wolves probably utilized a large suite of habitat types at one time. The last naturally occurring population utilized coastal prairie marshes, swamps and agricultural fields used to grow rice and cotton. However, this environment probably does not typify preferred red wolf habitat. There is evidence that the species was found in highest numbers in the once extensive bottomland river forests and swamps of the southeastern United States. Red wolves re-introduced into northeastern North Carolina have utilized 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]
Life history and behavior
Reproduction
The red wolf has one estrous cycle per year and typically becomes sexually mature by its second year. Litters average five pups[31] and red wolves live in family units similar to those of gray wolves.[11][31] Data acquired from the restoration project indicate that the offspring of a breeding pair are tolerated in their natal home range until the onset of sexual maturity.
Behavior
The red wolf lives in an extended family unit which includes a dominant breeding pair and young from prior seasons. The red wolf will scent mark territorial boundaries to deter intrusion from other wolf packs. As an apex predator, red wolves have no natural predators, although they may compete for prey with bobcats and coyotes and kills may be stolen by American black bears.
Dietary habits
Prior to extinction in the wild, the red wolf diet consisted of nutria, rabbits and rodents.[11] In contrast, the red wolves from the restored population rely on white-tailed deer, raccoon, nutria and rabbits. It should be noted, however, that 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.[32]
Conservation
Captive breeding and reintroduction
Formal efforts backed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began to save the red wolf from extinction in 1973 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service.[33][34] Measurements, vocalization analyses, and skull X-rays were used to distinguish red wolves from coyotes and red wolf-coyote hybrids.[33] Of the 400 animals 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 captive breeding 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.[34] These 14 were so closely related that they had the genetic effect of being only eight individuals.
In Dec. 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.[35] The first experimental translocation lasted for 11 days, during which a mated pair of red wolves were 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.[35] 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.[36]
In September 1987, four male-female pairs of red wolves were released in 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).[37]
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, Florida.
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 North Carolina in 1998, ending the effort to reintroduce the species to the Park.
In 2007, the US Fish an Wildlife Service estimated that there were 300 red wolves remaining in the world, with 207 of those in captivity.[38]
According to the latest Red Wolf Recovery Program First Quarter Report (October–December 2010), the US Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that there are currently 110-130 red wolves in the Red Wolf Recovery Area in North Carolina, however, since not all of the newly bred in the wild red wolves have radio collars, they can only confirm a total of 70 "known" individuals, 26 packs, 11 breeding pairs, and 9 additional individuals not associated with a pack.[30]
Interbreeding with the coyote (a species not native to North Carolina) 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 anthropogenic mortality, are of concern in the restoration of red wolves. Efforts to reduce the threats are presently being explored.[30]
Over 30 facilities participate in the red wolf Species Survival Plan and oversee the breeding and reintroduction of over 150 wolves.[39]
Cultural reference
On July 1, 1976, the red wolf became the official mascot of the United States Navy's premier Naval Special Warfare Support Helicopter Squadron, HAL-4. Today, they are known as HSC-84 and fly the HH-60H Rescue Hawk.
On January 1, 2008, Arkansas State University’s Mascot Selection Steering Committee decided to use the Wolves as a mascot. The Red Wolves were officially approved by the university board of trustees on March 7, 2008. The ceremony and unveiling of the new Red Wolves logo was held on March 13, 2008.
On April 30, 2008, Indiana University East revealed the Red Wolves to be the new mascot for the campus.
The chorus of the song "Coyotes" (written by Bob McDill, re-popularized by Don Edwards's performance in the documentary Grizzly Man) states that "the red wolf is gone." The line is an allusion to the cowboy's vanishing way of life.
References
- ^ a b c Wozencraft, W. Christopher (16 November 2005). "Order Carnivora (pp. 532-628)". In Wilson, Don E., and Reeder, DeeAnn M., eds. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2 vols. (2142 pp.). ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494. http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?id=14000773.
- ^ Kelly BT, Beyer A & Phillips MK (2008). Canis rufus. In: IUCN 2008. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Downloaded on 2008-10-23. Database entry includes justification for why this species is critically endangered.
- ^ Audubon, J. and J.Bachman.1851.The quadrapeds of North America, Volume 2.New York, NY.p.334.
- ^ Reich, D.E., R.K. Wayne, and D.B. Goldstein. Their coat turn urple in the spring also. 1999. Genetic evidence for a recent origin by hybridization of red wolves. Molecular Ecology 8:139 - 144.
- ^ a b Esch, Mary. "Study: Eastern wolves are hybrids with coyotes". AP News. http://www.wolfsource.org/?cat=55. Retrieved 1 June 2011.
- ^ a b U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.1997.Endangered Red Wolves. http://library.fws.gov/Pubs4/endangered_red_wolves.pdf:1-3.
- ^ Red Wolf Species Profile (2011).
- ^ Alden,P. and Nelson, G.2010.National Adubon Society Field Guide to the Southeastern States.p.365
- ^ Alderon, David. Foxes, Wolves, and Wild Dogs of the World. London: Blandford. 1998.p117
- ^ a b Nowak, R. 2003.Wolf Evolution and Taxonomy. ‘’In’’ Wolves, Behavior, Ecology and Conservation. Edited by Mech, D and Boitain, L.,University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press.
- ^ a b c d Atkins, D. and L.Dillon. 1971. Evolution of the cerebellum in the genus Canis. J. Mammal. 52:96-97.
- ^ Ferrell et.al.1980. Biochemical markers in species endangered by introgression: The red wolf. Biochem. Genet. 18:39-49.
- ^ Lawrence,B. and W. Bossert. 1975.Relationships of North American Canis shown by a multiple character analysis of selected populations.Pp73-86 in M.W. Fox, ed., The wild canids: Their systematics, behavioral ecology, and evolution. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
- ^ Mech, L.1970. The wolf: The ecology and behavior of an endangered species. Natural History Press, Garden City, NY.
- ^ Wayne, R. and S.Jenks. 1991. Mitochondrial DNA analysis supports extensive hybridization of the endangered red wolf (Canis rufus).Nature 351:565-68.
- ^ Phillips,M. and V.Henry.1992. Comments on red wolf taxonomy.Conserva. Biol. 6:596-99.
- ^ Nowak, R.1992.The red wolf is not a hybrid.Conserv. Biol.6:593-95.
- ^ Nowak et. al. 1995.Another look at wolf taxonomy.pp375-97 in L.N. Carbyn, S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip, eds. Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world.Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Edmonton, Alberta.
- ^ Koblmuller, S., Nord, M., Wayne, R. K. and J. Leonard. (2009) Origin and Status of the Great Lakes wolf. Molecular Ecology 18 : 2313-2326.
- ^ a b c Nowak, R. M. 2002. The original status of Wolves in Eastern North America. Southeastern Naturalist 1: 95-130
- ^ VonHolt, BM; et al (12 May 2011). "A genome-wide perspective on the evolutionary history of enigmatic wolf-like canids". Genome Res. doi:10.1101/gr.116301.110. PMC 3149496. PMID 21566151. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=3149496.
- ^ E.A. Goldman. 1937. The wolves of North America. Journal of Mammology. 18:37-45.
- ^ W. W. Dalquest and G. E. Schultz 1992. Ice Age mammals of northwestern Texas
- ^ a b B. Kurten and E. Anderson. 1980. Pleistocene mammals of North America 1-442
- ^ Wilson, P.J., S. Grewal, I.D. Lawford, J.N.M. Heal, A.G. Granacki, D. Pennock, J.B. Theberge, M.T. Theberge, D.R. Voigt, W. Waddell, R.E.Chambers, P.C. Paquet, G. Goulet, D. Cluff, and B.N. White. 2000. DNA profiles of the eastern Canadian wolf and the red wolf provide evidence for a common evolutionary history independent of the gray wolf. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:2156 - 2166.
- ^ J. Michael Smith: The Highland King Nimhammaw and the Native Indian Proprietors of Land in Dutchess County, NY: 1712-1765. Hudson River Valley Review
- ^ Wolves of Algonquin Provincial Park
- ^ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.1997. Endangered Red Wolves. http://library.fws.gov/Pubs4/endangered_red_wolves.pdf:p7.
- ^ a b Nowak, R. M. (2002). The original status of wolves in eastern North America. Southeastern Naturalist, 1(2), 95-130.
- ^ a b c d "Current Red Wolf Facts," found on the Red Wolf Recovery web page, http://www.fws.gov/redwolf/index.html, accessed on July 5, 2011.
- ^ a b c Phillips et.al.2003. Restoration of the Red Wolf ‘’In’’Wolves, Behavior, Ecology and Conservation. Edited by Mech, D and Boitain, L.,University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press.
- ^ Powell, W. S. (1973). Creatures of North Carolina from Roanoke Island to Purgatory Mountain. North Carolina Historical Review, 50(2 ), 121-168.
- ^ a b Carley,C.1975.Activities and findings of the red wolf recovery program from late 1973 to July 1, 1975. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque,NM.
- ^ a b McCarley,H. and J. Carley. 1979. Recent changes in distribution and status of red wolves (Canis rufus)Endangered Species Report no.4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM.
- ^ a b Carley, Curtis J. 1979. "Report on the Successful Translocation Experiment of Red Wolves (Canis rufus) to Bulls Island, S.C." Presentation at the Portland Wolf Symposium, Lewis and Clark College, Portland, Oregon, August 13–17, 1979.
- ^ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Cape Romain NWR, red wolf web page
- ^ USFWS.2010. Red Wolf Recovery Program, 1st Quarter Report, October–December 2010, Manteco, NC.
- ^ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Red Wolf (Canis rufus) 5-Year Status Review: Summary and Evaluation.
- ^ http://www.pdza.org/page.php?id=296
Further reading
- Nowak, R. M. (2003). Chapter 9: Wolf evolution and taxonomy. In D. Mech & L. Boitani (Eds.), Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation (pp. 239–258). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Philips, M. K., Kelly, B., & Henry, G. (2003). Restoration of the red wolf In D. Mech & L. Boitani (Eds.), "Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation (pp. 272-288). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Nowak, R. M. (2002). The original status of wolves in eastern North America. Southeastern Naturalist, 1(2), 95-130.
- Wilson, P. J., Grewal, S., Lawford, I. D., Heal, J. N. M., Granacki, A. G., Pennock, D., et al. (2000). DNA profiles of the eastern Canadian wolf and the red wolf provide evidence for a common evolutionary history independent of the gray wolf Canadian Journal of Zoology, 78, 2156–2166.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Roy, M.S., Girman, D.G., Taylor, A.C. & Wayne, R.K. (1994). "The use of museum specimens to reconstruct the genetic variability and relationships of extinct populations.". Experientia 50 : 551-557.
- ^ Wayne, R.K. & Jenks, S.M. (1991). "Mitochondrial DNA analysis implying extensive hybridization of the endangered red wolf Canis rufus". Nature 351 : 565-568.
- ^ 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.
- ^ R. Nowak, R.M. (1992). "The red wolf is not a hybrid.". Conservation Biology 6 : 593-595.
- ^ Silverstein, A., Silverstein, V. B. & Silverstein, R. A. (1994). "The Red wolf: endangered in America.". Brookfield: Conn. Millbrook Press.
- Nowak, R. M. (1979). North American Quaternary Canis. Unpublished Monograph, University of Kansas Hays.
| Wikispecies has information related to: Canis rufus |
| Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Canis rufus |
Suggested reading for related issue of Eastern wolf:
- Rutledge, L. Y., Bos, K. I., Pearce, R. J., & White, B. N. (2010). Genetic and morphometric analysis of sixteenth century Canis skull fragments: implications for historic eastern and gray wolf distribution in North America. Conservation Genetics, 11(4), 1273-1281.
- Wilson, P. J., Grewal, S. K., Mallory, F. F., & White, B. N. (2009). Genetic Characterization of Hybrid Wolves across Ontario. Journal of Heredity, 100(1), 80-89.
- Wilson, P. J., Grewal, S., McFadden, T., Chambers, R. C., & White, B. N. (2003). Mitochondrial DNA extracted from eastern North American wolves killed in the 1800s is not of gray wolf origin. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 81, 936-940.
Unreviewed
Names and Taxonomy
Taxonomy
Comments: Based on recent genetic studies, Wilson et al. (2000) concluded that the eastern timber wolf (Canis lupus lycaon) and the red wolf (Canis rufus) are sister taxa and are best considered to be conspecific. Additionally, Wilson et al. found that these two taxa form a North American lineage with the coyote (Canis latrans) that is distinct from that of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), which is Eurasian in origin. Wilson et al. (2000, 2003) proposed that the eastern timber wolf (Canis lycaon) be recognized as a species distinct from the gray wolf (C. lupus). In contrast, Nowak (2002) presented an analysis of cranial morphology of recent and Pleistocene Canis and concluded that Canis rufus is a valid species and that lycaon may be a hybrid between Canis rufus and western Canis lupus.
In a recent checklist of North American mammals, Baker et al. (2003) accepted C. lycaon and C. lupus as separate species as proposed by Wilson et al. (2000, 2003). Without explanation they retained the red wolf (Canis rufus) as a third North American wolf species. Wozencraft (in Wilson and Reeder 2005) recognized one Northern Hemisphere wolf species (Canis lupus) and listed rufus and lycaon as subspecies, noting that rufus appears to be a hybrid. In view of the unstable taxonomy of North American wolves and pending further information, this database retains the traditional arrangement of two wolf species in North America (C. lupus and C. rufus), with lycaon treated as a subspecies of C. lupus.
Genetic data (see Wayne and Jenks 1991, Wayne 1992, Wayne et al. 1998, Reich et al. 1999) indicate that existing populations of what have been called red wolves have no unique genetic characteristics and most likely are a product of hybridization between Canis lupus and C. latrans. Generally, however, the red wolf has been accepted as a valid species since the early 1970s (Paradiso and Nowak 1971). See Nowak (1992, 2002) for a response advocating that the red wolf is not a hybrid. Phillips and Henry (1992) reviewed various characters and concluded that Canis rufus is a valid species or at the very least a subspecies of Canis lupus. See also Dowling et al. (1992) for additional discussion of the taxonomic status of the red wolf.
Trusted
Disclaimer
EOL content is automatically assembled from many different content providers. As a result, from time to time you may find pages on EOL that are confusing.
To request an improvement, please leave a comment on the page. Thank you!




