ArticleThe Journal of heredity2018
Is the Red Wolf a Listable Unit Under the US Endangered Species Act?
Article in The Journal of heredity, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The paradoxical extinction: Exploring signatures of assortative mating as a possible mechanism that maintains canonical Red Wolf genetic ancestry in the American Gulf Coast canids.The Journal of heredity · 2026Article
- The value of hybrid genomes: Building two highly contiguous reference genome assemblies to advance Canis genomic studies.The Journal of heredity · 2024Article
- Population genomics for wildlife conservation and management.Molecular ecology · 2021Review
- Wolf Delisting Challenges Demonstrate Need for an Improved Framework for Conserving Intraspecific Variation under the Endangered Species Act.Bioscience · 2021Article
- Defining relictual biodiversity: Conservation units in speckled dace (Leuciscidae:Ecology and evolution · 2020Article
- Rediscovery of Red Wolf Ghost Alleles in a Canid Population Along the American Gulf Coast.Genes · 2018Article
- Article
- Conservation of biodiversity in the genomics era.Genome biology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Defining units that can be afforded legal protection is a crucial, albeit challenging, step in conservation planning. As we illustrate with a case study of the red wolf (Canis rufus) from the southeastern United States, this step is especially complex when the evolutionary history of the focal taxon is uncertain. The US Endangered Species Act (ESA) allows listing of species, subspecies, or Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) of vertebrates. Red wolves were listed as an endangered species in 1973, and their status remains precarious. However, some recent genetic studies suggest that red wolves are part of a small wolf species (C. lycaon) specialized for heavily forested habitats of eastern North America, whereas other authors suggest that red wolves arose, perhaps within the last ~400 years, through hybridization between gray wolves (C. lupus) and coyotes (C. latrans). Using published genetic, morphological, behavioral, and ecological data, we evaluated whether each evolutionary hypothesis would lead to a listable unit for red wolves. Although the potential hybrid origin of red wolves, combined with abundant evidence for recent hybridization with coyotes, raises questions about status as a separate species or subspecies, we conclude that under any proposed evolutionary scenario red wolves meet both criteria to be considered a DPS: they are Discrete compared with other conspecific populations, and they are Significant to the taxon to which they belong. As population-level units can qualify for legal protection under endangered-species legislation in many countries throughout the world, this general approach could potentially be applied more broadly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.