Search

Abstract: Sarcocystis infections were found for the first time in the muscles of 3 of 3 gray wolves (Canis lupus) from Minnesota. Two kinds (thin-walled and thick-walled) of sarcocysts were detected, based on the appearance of the sarcocyst wall. In wolf 1, sarcocysts were thin-walled (<0.5 μm), and without any visible protrusions. Ultrastructurally, the sarcocyst wall was type 1a and identical to Sarcocystis svanai of the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). The second kind of sarcocyst, with a relatively thicker (>1 μm) sarcocyst wall, was detected in wolves 2 and 3. Ultrastructurally, the sarcocyst wall had undulating, pleomorphic villar protrusion of type 9c; these sarcocysts were identical to Sarcocystis caninum from the domestic dog. Molecularly, the 2 Sarcocystis species were characterized using 18S, 28S, COI, ITS-1, and rpoB genetic markers. All these markers showed 100% identity to either of the 2 species previously described from the domestic dog. The thick-walled sarococyst corresponded to Sarcocystis caninum, whereas the thin-walled sarcocyst corresponded to Sarcocystis svanai., (© American Society of Parasitologists 2024.)

Habitat selection studies facilitate assessing and predicting species distributions and habitat connectivity, but habitat selection can vary temporally and among individuals, which is often ignored. We used GPS telemetry data from 96 Gray wolves (Canis lupus) in the western Great Lakes region of the USA to assess differences in habitat selection while wolves exhibited resident (territorial) or non-resident (dispersing or floating) movements and discuss implications for habitat connectivity. We used a step-selection function (SSF) to assess habitat selection by wolves exhibiting resident or non-resident movements, and modeled circuit connectivity throughout the western Great Lakes region. Wolves selected for natural land cover and against areas with high road densities, with no differences in selection among wolves when resident, dispersing, or floating. Similar habitat selection between resident and non-resident wolves may be due to similarity in environmental conditions, when non-resident movements occur largely within established wolf range rather than near the periphery or beyond the species range. Alternatively, non-resident wolves may travel through occupied territories because higher food availability or lower human disturbance outweighs risks posed by conspecifics. Finally, an absence of differences in habitat selection between resident and non-resident wolf movements may be due to other unknown reasons. We recommend considering context-dependency when evaluating differences in movements and habitat use between resident and non-resident individuals. Our results also provide independent validation of a previous species distribution model and connectivity analysis suggesting most potential wolf habitat in the western Great Lakes region is occupied, with limited connectivity to unoccupied habitat., (© 2023. The Author(s).)