Established in 1903, Journal of Heredity covers
organismal genetics across a wide range of disciplines and taxa.
Articles include such rapidly advancing fields as conservation genetics
of endangered species, population structure and phylogeography,
molecular evolution and speciation, molecular genetics of disease
resistance in plants and animals, genetic biodiversity and relevant
computer programs.
By Matt Cronin
Wolves in the panhandle of southeast Alaska are currently
being considered as an endangered species by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service in response to a petition by environmental groups. These groups
are proposing that the Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus ligoni)
subspecies that inhabits the entire region and a distinct population
segment of wolves on Prince of Wales Island are threatened or endangered
with extinction.
Whether or not these wolves are endangered with extinction was beyond
the scope of our study. However our research quantified the genetic
variation of these wolves in southeast Alaska which can contribute to
assessing their status as a subspecies.
Because the US Endangered Species Act (ESA) defines species as
“species, subspecies, and distinct population segments”, these
categories are all considered “species” for the ESA. Although this
definition is not consistent with the scientific definition of species
it has become the legal definition of species for the ESA.
Therefore we have two questions to consider:
Are the wolves in southeast Alaska a subspecies?
Are the wolves on Prince of Wales Island a distinct population segment?
The literature on subspecies and distinct population segment
designation is vast, but it is important to understand that subspecies
is a taxonomic category, and basically refers to a group of populations
that share an independent evolutionary history.
Taxonomy is the science of biological classification and is based on
evolutionary history and common ancestry (called phylogeny). Species,
subspecies, and higher-level groups (e.g, a genus such as Canis)
are classified based on common ancestry. For example, wolves and foxes
share common ancestry and are classified in the same family (Canidae),
while bobcats and lions are classified in a different family (Felidae)
because they share a common ancestry that is different from foxes and
wolves.
Wolf
in southeast Alaska. Photo credit: Kristian Larson, the Alaska Dept of
Fish and Game (Wildlife Conservation Division, Region I). Image used
with permission.
Subspecies designations are often subjective because of uncertainty
about the relationships among populations of the same species. This
leads many scientists to reject or ignore the subspecies category, but
because the ESA is the most powerful environmental law in the United
States the analysis of subspecies is of great practical importance.
Our results and other research showed that the wolves in Southeast
Alaska differed in allele frequencies compared to wolves in other
regions. Allele frequencies reflect the distribution of genetic
variation within and among populations. However, the wolves in southeast
Alaska do not comprise a homogeneous population, and there is as much
genetic variation among the Game Management Units (GMU) in southeast
Alaska as there is between southeast Alaska and other areas.
Our research data showed that the wolves in southeast Alaska are not a
homogeneous group, but consist of multiple populations with different
histories of colonization, isolation, and interbreeding. The genetic
data also showed that the wolves on Prince of Wales Island are not
particularly differentiated compared to the overall differentiation in
Southeast Alaska and do not support designation as a distinct population
segment.
The overall pattern for wolves in southeast Alaska is not one of long
term isolation and evolutionary independence and does not support a
subspecies designation. Other authors, including biologists with the US
Fish and Wildlife Service, also do not designate wolves in southeast
Alaska as a subspecies and there is general recognition that North
America wolf subspecies designations have been arbitrary and are not
supported by genetic data.
There is growing recognition in the scientific community of
unwarranted taxonomic inflation of wildlife species and subspecies
designations to achieve conservation goals. Because the very nature of
subspecies is vague, wildlife management and conservation should focus
on populations, including wolf populations. This allows all of the same
management actions as proposed for subspecies, but with increased
scientific rigor.
Headline image credit: Alaskan wolf, by Douglas Brown. CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0 via Flickr.
No comments:
Post a Comment