Genomic analysis of wolves from Pakistan clarifies boundaries among three divergent wolf lineages.

Among the three main divergent lineages of gray wolf (Canis lupus), the Holarctic lineage is the most widespread and best-studied, particularly in North America and Europe. Less is known about Tibetan (also called Himalayan) and Indian wolf lineages in southern Asia, especially in areas surrounding Pakistan where all three lineages are thought to meet. Given the endangered status of the Indian wolf in neighboring India and unclear southwestern boundary of the Tibetan wolf range, we conducted mitochondrial and genome-wide sequencing of wolves from Pakistan and Kyrgyzstan. Sequences of the mitochondrial D-loop region of 81 wolves from Pakistan indicated contact zones between Holarctic and Indian lineages across the northern and western mountains of Pakistan. Reduced-representation genome sequencing of 8 wolves indicated an east-to-west cline of Indian to Holarctic ancestry, consistent with a contact zone between these two lineages in Pakistan. The western boundary of the Tibetan lineage corresponded to the Ladakh region of India's Himalayas with a narrow zone of admixture spanning this boundary from the Karakoram Mountains of northern Pakistan into Ladakh, India. Our results highlight the conservation significance of Pakistan's wolf populations, especially the remaining populations in Sindh and Southern Punjab that represent the highly endangered Indian lineage.

Ungulate spatiotemporal responses to contrasting predation risk from wolves and snow leopards.

Spatial responses to risk from multiple predators can precipitate emergent consequences for prey (i.e. multiple-predator effects, MPEs) and mediate indirect interactions between predators. How prey navigate risk from multiple predators may therefore have important ramifications for understanding the propagation of predation-risk effects (PREs) through ecosystems. The interaction of predator and prey traits has emerged as a potentially key driver of antipredator behaviour but remains underexplored in large vertebrate systems, particularly where sympatric prey share multiple predators. We sought to better generalize our understanding of how predators influence their ecosystems by considering how multiple sources of contingency drive prey distribution in a multi-predator-multi-prey system. Specifically, we explored how two sympatric ungulates with different escape tactics-vertically agile, scrambling ibex Capra sibirica and sprinting argali Ovis ammon-responded to predation risk from shared predators with contrasting hunting modes-cursorial wolves Canis lupus and vertical-ambushing, stalking snow leopards Panthera uncia. Contrasting risk posed by the two predators presented prey with clear trade-offs. Ibex selected for greater exposure to chronic long-term risk from snow leopards, and argali for wolves, in a nearly symmetrical manner that was predictable based on the compatibility of their respective traits. Yet, acute short-term risk from the same predator upended these long-term strategies, increasing each ungulates' exposure to risk from the alternate predator in a manner consistent with a scenario in which conflicting antipredator behaviours precipitate risk-enhancing MPEs and mediate predator facilitation. By contrast, reactive responses to wolves led ibex to reduce their exposure to risk from both predators-a risk-reducing MPE. Evidence of a similar reactive risk-reducing effect for argali vis-à-vis snow leopards was lacking. Our results suggest that prey spatial responses and any resulting MPEs and prey-mediated interactions between predators are contingent on the interplay of hunting mode and escape tactics. Further investigation of interactions among various drivers of contingency in PREs will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding and improved forecasting of the ecological effects of predators.

Current trends suggest most Asian countries are unlikely to meet future biodiversity targets on protected areas.

Aichi Target 11 committed governments to protect ≥17% of their terrestrial environments by 2020, yet it was rarely achieved, raising questions about the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework goal to protect 30% by 2030. Asia is a challenging continent for such targets, combining high biodiversity with dense human populations. Here, we evaluated achievements in Asia against Aichi Target 11. We found that Asia was the most underperforming continent globally, with just 13.2% of terrestrial protected area (PA) coverage, averaging 14.1 ± SE 1.8% per country in 2020. 73.1% of terrestrial ecoregions had <17% representation and only 7% of PAs even had an assessment of management effectiveness. We found that a higher agricultural land in 2015 was associated with lower PA coverage today. Asian countries also showed a remarkably slow average annual pace of 0.4 ± SE 0.1% increase of PA extent. These combined lines of evidence suggest that the ambitious 2030 targets are unlikely to be achieved in Asia unless the PA coverage to increase 2.4-5.9 times faster. We provided three recommendations to support Asian countries to meet their post-2020 biodiversity targets: complete reporting and the wider adoption "other effective area-based conservation measures"; restoring disturbed landscapes; and bolstering transboundary PAs.