Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Current Zoology logoLink to Current Zoology
. 2017 Feb 17;63(3):341–348. doi: 10.1093/cz/zox001

Howl variation across Himalayan, North African, Indian, and Holarctic wolf clades: tracing divergence in the world’s oldest wolf lineages using acoustics

Lauren Hennelly a,*, Bilal Habib a,*, Holly Root-Gutteridge b, Vicente Palacios c, Daniela Passilongo d
PMCID: PMC5804178  PMID: 29491993

Abstract

Vocal divergence within species often corresponds to morphological, environmental, and genetic differences between populations. Wolf howls are long-range signals that encode individual, group, and subspecies differences, yet the factors that may drive this variation are poorly understood. Furthermore, the taxonomic division within the Canis genus remains contended and additional data are required to clarify the position of the Himalayan, North African, and Indian wolves within Canis lupus. We recorded 451 howls from the 3 most basal wolf lineages—Himalayan C. lupus chanco—Himalayan haplotype, North African C. lupus lupaster, and Indian C. lupus pallipes wolves—and present a howl acoustic description within each clade. With an additional 619 howls from 7 Holarctic subspecies, we used a random forest classifier and principal component analysis on 9 acoustic parameters to assess whether Himalayan, North African, and Indian wolf howls exhibit acoustic differences compared to each other and Holarctic wolf howls. Generally, both the North African and Indian wolf howls exhibited high mean fundamental frequency (F0) and short duration compared to the Holarctic clade. In contrast, the Himalayan wolf howls typically had lower mean F0, unmodulated frequencies, and short howls compared to Holarctic wolf howls. The Himalayan and North African wolves had the most acoustically distinct howls and differed significantly from each other and to the Holarctic wolves. Along with the influence of body size and environmental differences, these results suggest that genetic divergence and/or geographic distance may play an important role in understanding howl variation across subspecies.

Keywords: acoustic variation, Canis lupus, geographic variation, mammal communication.

Variation in vocal communication is influenced by many factors, often leading to acoustic divergence across populations and species (Wilkins et al. 2013). Multiple drivers such as environmental conditions (Morton 1975; Slabbekoorn and Smith 2002; Slabbekoorn and Peet 2003; Russo et al. 2007), body size (Badyaev and Leaf 1997; Fitch 1997), population differences in mate preferences (Gerhardt 1991), and stochastic forces (Percy et al. 2006; Irwin et al. 2008) have been shown to shape patterns in acoustic variation across a wide range of taxa and further clarify the processes governing acoustic divergence. Understanding these acoustic differences contributes to a comprehensive view of the genetic, behavioral, and ecological attributes of a taxon, and often aids in the taxonomic recognition of cryptic species (Narins 1983; Henry 1994; Kingston et al. 2001).

Population-level variation in vocalizations is found across a wide range of mammalian species (seals—Terhune 1994; Risch et al. 2007; whales—Ford 1991; Rossi-Santos and Podos 2006; rodents—Conner 1982; Roux et al. 2002; Campbell et al. 2010; primates—Delgado 2007; bats—O’Farrell et al. 2000; Law et al. 2002), yet remains relatively unexplored for most mammal groups compared to other taxa, such as birds. Additional variation in vocalizations of some taxa have been demonstrated at the subspecies, group, and individual levels, including the howl acoustic structure of wolves Canislupus (individual—Theberge and Falls 1967; Tooze et al. 1990; Palacios et al. 2007; Root-Gutteridge et al. 2014a, 2014b; group—Zaccaroni et al. 2012; subspecies—Kershenbaum et al. 2016). The howl is the main long-distance vocalization and is used for social spacing, reassembly between dispersed individuals, and territorial defense (Harrington and Mech 1979; Nowak et al. 2007). Previous studies have suggested geographic distance may play a role in howl differences across groups, such that distance among wolf packs increases the differences in howl acoustic qualities, producing a regional accent (Zaccaroni et al. 2012; Root-Gutteridge et al. 2014b). On a subspecies level, smaller canid species show a greater diversity of howl-type usages that may reflect differences in vocal production in different sized species, distinct acoustic properties of habitats, or varying emphases on the social role of howling (Kershenbaum et al. 2016). Taken together, this variation in wolf howl acoustic structure may reflect the evolutionary history, morphology, and/or ecology of a population or subspecies.

Based on mitochondrial DNA, the wolves of Asia and North Africa appear to have a dynamic and poorly understood phylogeographic history. Recent research has recognized 3 basal lineages of gray wolves: the Himalayan wolf C.lupuschanco—Himalayan haplotype, Indian wolf C.lupuspallipes, and the North African wolf C.lupuslupaster) (Aggarwal et al. 2003; Sharma et al. 2004; Rueness et al. 2011; Gaubert et al. 2012). The Himalayan wolf is the world’s oldest wolf lineage, having diverged from the rest of the wolf clade around 630,000–800,000 years ago. The same studies showed the Indian wolf mitochondrial lineage to be 270,000–400,000 years divergent from the Himalayan lineage and other wolves (Figure 1; Aggarwal et al. 2003; Sharma et al. 2004). Despite the Himalayan and Indian wolf’s unique ancestry, little is known about their ecology, distribution, and behavior—consequently giving little clarity regarding their taxonomic status (Shrotriya et al. 2012). Morphologically, the Himalayan and Indian wolf show no striking differences to other wolf lineages, as Indian and Himalayan wolves weigh about 25 kg and 35 kg, respectively, similar to other desert wolf subspecies and the Tibetan wolf (Table 1). Further information incorporating nuclear genetic analyses, morphology, and behavior using a comparative approach will help clarify taxonomic issues, such that a better understanding of wolf evolution and historical diversification can emerge.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Phylogenetic tree displaying the major relationships within C. lupus clade based on 726 bp of the Cyt b gene from Rueness et al. (2011).

Table 1.

Wolf subspecies included in the study with associated howl amount, habitat characteristics, and body size (kg)

Clade Wolf subspecies Scientific classification Number of individuals (number of packs) Habitat (country recorded from) Body size Number of howls
Himalayan Himalayan wolf C. lupus chanco— Himalayan haplotype ∼15 (4) High-altitude, arid mountains and valleysa ∼35 kga 301
North African North African wolf C. lupus lupaster 6 packs Arid scrubland, forests, savannahb “the African wolf is larger than the golden jackal, but their size may overlap”b 33
Indian Indian wolf C. lupus pallipes ∼10 (4) Semi-arid grasslands and scrublandsc 19–25 kg (♂): 17–22 kg (♀)c 117
Holarctic Arctic wolf C. lupus arctos ∼12 (7) Tundra and taigad ∼36.6 kg (♂); ∼29.6 kg (♀)e 26
European wolf C. lupus lupus ∼20 packs Mountainous forested areas and scrublandsf 25–55 kg (♂), 23–42 kg (♀)g 65
Iberian wolf C. lupus signatus 11 (1) Mountainous forested areash ∼40 kg (♂); ∼27 kg (♀)h 176
Italian wolf C. lupus italicus 7 packs Deciduous foresti 25–35 kg (♂)j 164
Israeli wolf C. lupus arabs 5 (1) Arid scrubland and desertk 19–27 kg (♂); 17.4–22.5 kg (♀)k 30
Mackenzie Valley wolf C. lupus occidentalis 9 packs Mountainous forested areas, montane grasslandl ∼32–64 kg (♂); ∼30–50 kg (♀)m 127
Mexican wolf C. lupus baileyi 2 packs Semi-forested areasn and semi-arid scrublando 41–23 kgp; 40.2 kg (♂); 35.1 kg (♀)q 31
Open in a new tab

Note: A total of 1,070 howls were included in the analysis

Although once considered to fall within the golden jackal clade, the morphology and behavior of the North African wolf actually show more similarity toward wolves, such as the lack of spinal curvature in their aggressive posture and usage of howl types (Ferguson 1981; Gaubert et al. 2012; Kershenbaum et al. 2016). This third basal wolf lineage likely colonized Africa prior to the northern hemisphere radiation of C.lupus (Gaubert et al. 2012). Based on mitochondrial DNA, the wolf is considered to be C.lupuslupaster, yet a robust description of the wolf’s morphological and behavioral attributes is currently deficient due to recent taxonomic identification (Gaubert et al. 2012). While genetically verified North African wolves are larger than golden jackals, there are some individuals or populations that fall into an intermediate phenotype, making their identity unclear due to lack of knowledge on C.lupuslupaster morphological variation and extent of hybridization in the region (Gaubert et al. 2012). While recent genetic analyses have provided insights into wolf phylogenetics (vonHoldt et al. 2011), there is a lack of understanding in the ecology, morphology, and behavior of these basal wolf lineages, especially in light of possible behavioral and ecological barriers in the maintenance of these evolutionary distinct wolf populations.

Here, we quantify the magnitude and pattern of howl acoustic structure variation to evaluate whether these long-range vocalizations show acoustic differences across wolf subspecies. Using a set of 1,070 howls from 10 wolf subspecies, we measured 9 acoustic parameters to examine how certain wolf subspecies howls may differ across specific acoustic characteristics. To test whether the basal wolf lineages show the most divergent howls, we assess how Himalayan, North African, and Indian wolf howl acoustic structure compare to the Holarctic wolf clade and each other using principal component analysis (PCA) and random forest classifier. Lastly, we discuss the relative influences of evolutionary history, morphology, and environment on understanding the variation in wolf howl acoustic structure.

Materials and Methods

Data collection and sound analysis

Howl surveys for the Indian and Himalayan wolf were conducted in the grasslands of Maharashtra as well as the Trans-Himalayas of Spiti Valley in Himachal Pradesh and the Changthang plateau of Ladakh in Jammu and Kashmir, India. Although the geographic range of the Himalayan wolf has not been properly determined, the free-ranging wolves of Spiti Valley are considered Himalayan wolves based on a genetic sample in Sharma et al.’s (2004) study that originated from captive wolves captured near Kibber in Spiti Valley. The free-ranging wolves at the study site in Ladakh have yet to be genetically determined; however, mitochondrial DNA studies on museum specimens from Ladakh and Tibet have been found to fall within the Himalayan wolf clade (Sharma et al. 2004). Therefore, in this study we consider the Ladakh wolves to be C.lupuschanco-Himalayan haplotype.

Wild and captive wolf howling from all subspecies were either elicited by playbacks using previously recorded howls or were recorded as spontaneous howls (i.e., not elicited). The Himalayan and Indian wolf howls were recorded by playback using a JBL Charge speaker (HARMAN, Stamford, CT) between 6 PM and 9 PM and 05 AM and 08 AM, corresponding to the peak daily howling time in wolves (Gazzola et al. 2002). Playback consisted of 3 trials with a 2-min wait time between trials for a howl response. Vocalizations were recorded using a Blue Yeti Pro USB Condenser Microphone (Blue Microphones, Westlake Village, CA) and a digital recorder [Zoom H4N Handheld Audio Recorder {Zoom Corporation, Tokyo, Japan}] with a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz and 16-bit accuracy. Analysis of recorded howling was performed with Raven Pro 1.3 software (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY) using the default Hanning window, 2,048 Hz time resolution, and spectrogram view (Cornell Lab of Ornithology). Recordings of other wolf subspecies were from captive and wild wolves from a variety of different sources given in Table 1 and Supplementary Table S2. Fundamental frequency, was measured every 0.05 s for Himalayan, Indian, Iberian, and Italian wolves (Palacios et al. 2007; Passilongo et al. 2009). The howls for the other wolf subspecies were used from Kershenbaum et al. (2016), in which 50 measurements of fundamental frequency was made for each howl, ranging from every 0.02 s to 0.31 s. Howl duration was from 0.52 s to 15.5 s. From these measurements, 9 acoustic parameters were obtained that were based from previous studies demonstrating them to be useful in individual and group-specific identification (Supplementary Table S3; Tooze et al. 1990; Palacios et al. 2007; Zaccaroni et al. 2012; Root-Gutteridge et al. 2014b).

Statistical analysis

To assess subspecies differences for each howl acoustic parameter, we compared each basal wolf lineage—the Himalayan, North African, and Indian wolf—howl acoustic parameters to each other and the subspecies within the Holarctic clade, which is comprised of the European, Iberian, Italian, Israeli, Arctic, Mexican, and Mackenzie Valley wolf subspecies. Due to the nonparametric nature of the data, we used a Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance under Dunn’s test with Bonferroni P value adjustments to assess acoustic differences across wolf subspecies. To distill major howl acoustic parameters into a single composite measure, we used PCA, which extracts linearly uncorrelated variables from a suite of potentially correlated variables, thereby reducing the dimensionality of the data. The first principal component (PC1) and second principle component (PC2) were used to evaluate subspecies differences using a Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance under Dunn’s test with Bonferroni P value adjustments. All possible subspecies comparisons were tested to investigate patterns in PC1 and PC2 differentiation within the C.lupus clade.

Subsequently, we applied Breiman’s random forest algorithm (Breiman 2001), a tree-based machine learning classifier for nonparametric data, to examine whether howls from each subspecies can be distinguished based on their 9 acoustic parameters and to identify the most important acoustic parameters in classifying wolf subspecies. The random forest algorithm consists of tree-structured classifiers, which each tree is trained on a bootstrapped sample with replacement from the training data and utilizes both bagging and random feature selection to construct decision trees (Breiman 2001). For building the random forest model, we used all 9 acoustic parameters and based the algorithm on 2,000 decision trees. Classical multidimensional scaling (MDS) was then applied to visualize dissimilarities in howl acoustic structure across wolf subspecies using the proximity matrix from the random forest algorithm.

Results

Compared to the Holarctic clade, both the North African and Indian wolf typically exhibited high mean frequencies, wide frequency ranges, and short duration. The Himalayan wolf howls characteristically had low mean frequency, short duration, and unmodulated frequency variation in howls compared to the Holarctic clade (Supplementary Table S4). Within the Holarctic clade, the smallest wolf subspecies—the Israeli wolf—had the highest mean frequency and shortest duration (average meanf = 619 Hz, average duration  =  2.92 s), whereas lower mean frequencies were generally observed in larger wolf subspecies, such as the Mackenzie Valley wolf (average meanf = 492.5 Hz, average duration = 4.14 s) and European wolf (average meanf =  418.7 Hz, average duration =  5.15 s).

The Kruskal–Wallis test for evaluating differences in each acoustic parameter across all wolf subspecies demonstrated clear acoustic dissimilarities across the majority of 9 acoustic parameters used in this study (Supplementary Tables S4–S12). For the PCA, the most important variables in PC1 were mean frequency, maximum frequency, and end frequency, while the coefficient of frequency variation, duration, minimum and maximum frequency were the most important variables for PC2 (Table 2). PC1 and PC2 each explained 39% and 29% of the total variation. The PCA plot illustrates that the Himalayan and North African wolf subspecies occupy distinct regions with some overlap within the Holarctic clade (Figure 2).

Table 2.

PC1 loadings, PC2 loadings, and the mean decrease in accuracy values

Howl acoustic parameter Abbreviation PC1 loadings PC2 loadings Mean decrease in accuracy
Mean frequency Meanf −0.52 0.014 96.15
Maximum frequency Maxf −0.50 −0.21 117.72
Minimum frequency Minf −0.43 0.30 86.14
End frequency Endf −0.44 0.30 96.14
Duration Duration 0.13 −0.31 131.56
Range Range −0.27 −0.49 120.36
Coefficient of frequency variation [(SD/Meanf) × 100] cofv −0.12 −0.54 109.24
Position of maximum frequency Posmax −0.0105 0.29 75.15
Position of minimum frequency Posmin −0.0089 −0.25 62.83
Open in a new tab

Notes: These values are based on gini impurity index for each howl acoustic parameter. Higher values of mean decrease in accuracy indicate variables that are more important in classification for the random forest model. The proportion of variance of PC1, PC2, and PC3 was 0.39, 0.29, and 0.14, respectively. SD, standard deviation.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

PCA plot incorporating 1,070 howls across the Holarctic, Himalayan, Indian, and North African lineages of C. lupus. The Holarctic lineage represents Iberian, Italian, Israeli, European, Mexican, Mackenzie Valley, and Arctic wolf subspecies. The basal wolf lineages form distinct separate clusters with partial overlap within the Holartic clade.

Comparing all possible wolf subspecies combinations using a Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance under Dunn’s test with Bonferroni P value adjustments on PC1 showed that the Himalayan wolf was acoustically distinct from both all Holarctic and the two other basal wolf subspecies (Table 3). The North African wolf showed significant differences for PC1 among all wolf subspecies except the Arctic and Israeli wolf. In contrast, the Indian wolf showed no significant differences in howl acoustic structure from any of the Holarctic wolf subspecies. Within the Holarctic clade, various wolf subspecies were also acoustically distinct from each other, yet these differences were less marked than those between and within the 2 most basal wolf lineages (Table 3). For the PC2 comparison, the Himalayan and Indian wolf showed the most distinct howls across all wolf subspecies (Table 4).

Table 3.

PC1 comparison across all wolf subspecies using a post hoc Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance under Dunn’s tests with Bonferroni P value adjustments

Himalayan North African Indian Arctic European Iberian Mackenzie Valley Israeli Italian Mexican
Himalayan <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.004
North African <0.001 <0.001 0.43 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.17 <0.001 <0.001
Indian <0.001 <0.001 0.17 0.095 1.00 0.26 0.31 1.00 0.43
Arctic <0.001 0.43 0.17 <0.001 0.25 0.0016 1.00 0.26 0.0059
European <0.001 <0.001 0.095 <0.001 0.015 1.00 0.0016 0.013 1.00
Iberian <0.001 <0.001 1.00 0.25 0.015 0.041 0.43 1.00 0.25
Mackenzie Valley <0.001 <0.001 0.26 0.0016 1.00 0.041 0.0052 0.035 1.00
Israeli <0.001 0.17 0.31 1.00 0.0016 0.43 0.0052 0.43 0.016
Italian <0.001 <0.001 1.00 0.26 0.013 1.00 0.035 0.43 0.23
Mexican 0.004 <0.001 0.43 0.0059 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.016 0.23
Open in a new tab

Note: Each subspecies was treated as an independent unit. Bolded values indicate P values below 0.001.

Table 4.

PC2 comparisons across all wolf subspecies using a post hoc Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance under Dunn’s tests with Bonferroni P value adjustments

Himalayan North African Indian Arctic European Iberian Mackenzie Valley Israeli Italian Mexican
Himalayan <0.001 1.00 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
North African <0.001 <0.001 1.00 0.37 1.00 <0.001 0.21 0.95 0.77
Indian 1.00 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Arctic <0.001 1.00 <0.001 1.00 1.00 0.026 0.85 1.00 1.00
European <0.001 0.37 <0.001 1.00 <0.001 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00
Iberian <0.001 1.00 <0.001 1.00 <0.001 <0.001 0.0038 <0.001 0.044
Mackenzie Valley <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.026 0.67 <0.001 1.00 0.0021 1.00
Israeli <0.001 0.21 <0.001 0.85 1.00 0.0038 1.00 1.00 1.00
Italian <0.001 0.95 <0.001 1.00 1.00 <0.001 0.0021 1.00 1.00
Mexican <0.001 0.77 <0.001 1.00 1.00 0.044 1.00 1.00 1.00
Open in a new tab

Note: Each subspecies was treated as an independent unit. Bolded values indicate P values below 0.001.

Using Breiman’s random forest algorithm, the most correctly classified howls belonged to the Himalayan wolf (87.7%), North African wolf (81.2%), and the Iberian wolf (68.4%) (Table 5). The most important variables for distinguishing howls of each subspecies were duration, range, maximum frequency, and coefficient of frequency variation (Table 2). In the MDS plot, the smaller wolf subspecies appear to form a tight cluster consisting of the North African, Indian, and Israeli wolf. Although Himalayan and Iberian wolf have highly variable proximity measures, both occupy a distinct region of the plot (Figure 3).

Table 5.

Percent of howls classified correctly to each wolf subspecies on 9 acoustic parameters

Wolf subspecies Percent correctly classified Best guess Percent misclassified as best guess
Himalayan wolf 87.7 Indian 5.3
North African wolf 81.2 Italian 9.1
Indian wolf 68.4 Himalayan 15.4
Arctic wolf 34.6 Italian 34.6
European wolf 32.3 Iberian 29.2
Iberian wolf 75.6 Italian 9.6
Israeli wolf 6.7 Italian 30.0
Italian wolf 52.4 Himalayan 17.7
Mackenzie Valley wolf 62.2 Himalayan 18.1
Mexican wolf 54.8 Iberian 38.7
Open in a new tab

Notes: Best guess represents the specific wolf subspecies that was most commonly misclassified as the wolf subspecies being tested for. The overall estimate of error rate was 32.2%.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Classical MDS plot from the random forest algorithm using 9 acoustic parameters across the 10 wolf subspecies. Himalayan and Iberian wolves form distinct highly variable clusters, whereas North African and Indian wolves form tight clusters in the upper right section of the axis.

Discussion

Our quantitative study illustrates that the long-range vocalization of the wolf shows distinct acoustic differences across subspecies in the C.lupus clade. This complements the results from Kershenbaum et al. (2016) where howl-type usage varied among wolf subspecies. Acoustic differences in howls are most prominent in the Himalayan and North African wolf, which diverged before the radiation of the Holarctic clade across the Northern hemisphere (Sharma et al. 2004, Rueness et al. 2011). This suggests that geographic distance and/or genetic divergence may broadly be correlated with wolf howl acoustic structure. Additionally, we observe that smallest wolf subspecies, notably the North African, Indian, and Israeli wolf, have the highest mean frequencies in our study, indicating that body size may effect some acoustic parameters (Supplementary Table S1). Overall, our study contributes to a multi-step process in understanding the processes shaping howl acoustic variation in C.lupus.

In some species, acoustic divergence is associated with genetic or geographic distance, suggesting that stochastic forces play an important role in the divergence of acoustic signals (Percy et al. 2006; Irwin et al. 2008; Amezquita et al. 2009; Chen et al. 2009; Campbell et al. 2010; Thinh et al. 2011). For canids, previous studies have shown that red wolves C.rufus have similar howl types to coyotes C.latrans, despite the red wolf’s intermediate morphology between gray wolves and coyotes (Chambers et al. 2012; Kershenbaum et al. 2016). Although it is debated whether red wolves are hybrids between gray wolves and coyotes (vonHoldt et al. 2016) or if red wolves and coyotes diverged from a common ancestor around 150,000–300,000 years ago (Wilson et al. 2000), similarities in acoustic behavior between the two species may suggest evolutionary history playing a role in howl acoustic variation. In our study, strong acoustic differences in the howls of the 2 most basal wolf lineages may indicate that genetic divergence and/or geographic distance may be broadly correlated with acoustic divergence in C.lupus. Previous studies on the Himalayan, North African, and Indian wolf show that these lineages have been isolated since before the radiation across the Northern Hemisphere (Sharma et al. 2004; Rueness et al. 2011), and during that time may have accumulated acoustic differences in their howls due to stochastic forces, such as behavioral drift. It is notable that the most basal wolf subspecies, the Himalayan wolf, appears to have a divergent acoustic howl structure from other similarly sized wolf subspecies (Table 1), further suggesting that geographic or genetic distance may play important roles in patterns of howl variation. Obtaining howls from adjacent wolf subspecies, such as the Tibetan wolf C.lupuschanco in Northern China and the Steppe wolf C.lupuscampestris in Central Asia would aid in disentangling whether shared ancestry, geographic distance, and/or environmental differences is driving acoustic divergence in wolves.

Owing to the ability of gray wolves to inhabit almost every possible terrestrial environment (Mech and Boitani 2003), body sizes range widely across wolf subspecies and may have influenced some acoustic variables in our study (Table 1). Generally, our results show that the smallest wolf subspecies, such as the Israeli, Indian, and North African wolf, had the highest mean frequencies, a trend seen in previous studies on other taxa (Wallschager 1980; Fitch 1997; Barclay et al. 1999). Smaller canids also commonly show a greater diversity in howl types and favor howls that end in sharp frequency drops (Kershenbaum et al. 2016). While the smallest subspecies, the North African wolf, has the highest mean frequency and greatest mean frequency range, whether an overall trend between body size and howl acoustic structure exists is unclear. For instance, Mexican wolves had one of the lowest mean frequencies and narrowest frequency ranges, yet are also one of the smallest wolf subspecies, averaging between 23 and 41 kg (Hedrick et al. 1997). Although Himalayan wolves are a medium-sized wolf subspecies (Shrotriya et al. 2012), our study shows that Himalayan wolves have the lowest mean frequency of any wolf subspecies in our study. While acoustic differences can be associated to divergent body sizes (Heller and Helveren 1989; Fitch 1997; Jones 1999; Pfefferle and Fischer 2006), vocalizations are influenced by many factors, such as mate choice criteria, which may act as a stronger selective force on acoustic divergence (McComb 1991; Mitani et al. 1992; Charlton et al. 2009). A larger set of howls with associated wolf weights would further elucidate the influence of body size on patterns of wolf howl acoustic structure across wolf subspecies.

While environmental contexts have been shown to influence acoustic signals (Morton 1975; Badyaev and Leaf 1997; Slabbekoorn and Smith 2002), there are no striking differences in habitats of Indian and North African wolves to other wolf subspecies, such as the Israeli or the Mexican wolf subspecies that reside in similar dry scrubland habitats (Olson et al. 2001). In contrast, the Himalayan wolf lives in the highly mountainous and treeless Trans-Himalaya landscape, which may pose additional selective pressures on long-distance communication (Wilkins et al. 2013). Under the acoustic adaptation hypothesis, habitat differences may cause selection on vocal communication that optimizes propagation in specific environments (Morton 1975). This hypothesis is mostly applied to closed versus open habitats, which are commonly defined by the extent of vegetation structure (Morton 1975). Vocalizations in densely vegetated habitats show specific acoustic adjustments to increase sound propagation, such as lengthening vocal signals and limiting frequency modulations (Brown and Handford 2000; Ey and Fischer 2009). Thus, wolves in open, treeless habitats are expected to have howls with a shorter duration, higher frequency modulation, and higher mean frequencies compared to wolves living in closed habitats (Ey and Fischer 2009). Although both Himalayan and Arctic wolves live in primarily treeless and open habitats, they show highly contrasting acoustic structure in their howls, notably in their mean frequencies and frequency variation. Overall for mammals, there have only been a few examples of changes in vocal signals corresponding to habitat differences (but see Masters 1991; Mitani et al. 1999; Perla and Slobodchikoff 2002), suggesting that selective forces imposed by the environment may only weakly influence vocal communication in mammals (Ey and Fischer 2009).

Understanding possible behavioral differences in closely related species provides great insight into speciation (Mendelson and Shaw 2005; Arnegard et al. 2010; Wilkins et al. 2013) and aids in identifying cryptic species (Irwin et al. 2001; Thabah et al. 2006; Angulo and Riechle 2008; Braune et al. 2008; Ramasindrazana et al. 2011). Taxonomic confusion surrounding the Himalayan wolf has persisted for over 165 years, as the wolf was once first considered to be its own species C.laniger, yet later regarded as just another Tibetan wolf population C.lupuschanco (Shrotriya et al. 2012). Although the wolves are genetically unique based on mitochondrial DNA, the classification still remains controversial and understudied, hindering its conservation. This study is the first to provide detailed howl acoustic descriptions of the Himalayan wolf and distinguish that, although morphologically similar to other wolf subspecies, there may be underlying behavioral differences reflecting their basal position in the Canis clade.

Overall, our study shows that the acoustic structure of wolf howls varies across subspecies and provides insight into the possible causes shaping acoustic variation, particularly the role of stochastic forces in which howl variation reflects evolution history or geographic distance. Future research that includes a larger and more diverse sample of howls from current and additional wolf subspecies would further elucidate patterns and processes influencing wolf howl acoustic structure.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Data
Click here for additional data file. (98.7KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

We thank Dawa Tashi, Stanzin Dorjay, Salvador Lyngdoh, Shivam Shrotriya, and members of Project Wolf for providing logistical support during fieldwork in India. Additionally, we thank the State Forest Departments of Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Maharashtra, and various zoos in India for permissions to record wolf howls. Finally, we thank all who helped with the project: the staff at Colchester Zoo; the Wildwood Trust, the Borror Laboratory of Bioacoustics; the British Library; Lupus Laetus; Polish Mammal Research Institute; Tigress Productions; the BBC Natural History Unit; Longleat Safari Park; Tierstimmen Archiv; Wild Sweden; Wolf Park; the Macaulay Sound Library and the UK Wolf Conservation Trust; and Mike Collins, Teresa Palmer, Monty Sloan, Karl-Heinz Frommolt, Yorgos Iliopoulos, Christine Anhalt, Louise Gentle, Richard Yarnell, and Victoria Allison Hughes. We also thank Geraldine Werhahn and Bryan Maitland for helpful comments on the manuscript.

Funding

We are thankful for the Fulbright Program and United States-India Education Foundation for financial support to L.H. as well as the Wildlife Institute of India for funding the Ecology and Conservation of the Himalayan wolf project.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material can be found at http://www.cz.oxfordjournals.org/.

References

  1. Aggarwal RK, Ramadevi J, Singh L, 2003. Ancient origin and evolution of the Indian wolf: evidence from mitochondrial DNA typing of wolves from Trans-Himalayan region and Penninsular India. Genome Biol 4:2–16. [Google Scholar]
  2. Amezquita A, Lima AP, Jehle R, Castellanos L, Ramos O, 2009. Calls, colours, shape, and genes: a multi-trait approach to the study of geographic variation in the Amazonian frog Allobates femoralis. Biol J Linn Soc 98:826–838. [Google Scholar]
  3. Angulo A, Reichle S, 2008. Acoustic signals, species diagnosis, and species concepts: the case of a new cryptic species of Leptodactylus (Amphibia, Anura, Leptodactylidae) from the Chapare region, Bolivia. Zool J Linnean Soc 152:59–77. [Google Scholar]
  4. Arnegard ME, McIntyre PB, Harmon LJ, Zelditch ML, Crampton WGR. et al. , 2010. Sexual signal evolution outpaces ecological divergence during electric fish species radiation. Am Nat 176:335–356. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Badyaev AV, Leaf ES, 1997. Habitat associations of song characteristics in Phylloscopus and Hippolais warblers. Auk 114:40–46. [Google Scholar]
  6. Barclay RMR, Fullard JH, Jacobs DS, 1999. Variation in the echolocation calls of the hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus: influence of body size, habitat structure, and geographic location. Can J Zool 77:530–534. [Google Scholar]
  7. Braune P, Schmidt S, Zimmermann E, 2008. Acoustic divergence in the communication of cryptic species of nocturnal primates (Microcebus spp.). BMC Biol 6:19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Breiman L, 2001. Random forest. Mach Learn 45:5–32. [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown TJ, Handford P, 2000. Sound design for vocalizations: quality in the woods, consistency in the fields. Condor 102:81–92. [Google Scholar]
  10. Campbell P, Pasch B, Pino JL, Crino OL, Phillips M. et al. , 2010. Geographic variation in the songs of neotropical singing mice: testing the relative importance of drift and local adaptation. Evolution 64:1955–1972. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chambers SM, Fain SR, Fazio B, Amaral M, 2012. An account of the taxonomy of North American wolves from morphological and genetic analyses. North Am Fauna 77:1–67. [Google Scholar]
  12. Charlton BD, Zhihe Z, Snyder RJ, 2009. The information content of giant panda Ailuropoda melanoleuca bleats: acoustic cues to sex, age and size. Anim Behav 78:893–898. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chen S, Jones G, Rossiter SJ, 2009. Determinants of echolocation call frequency variation in the Formosan lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus ehavior. Proc R Soc Lond [Biol] 276:3901–3909. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ciucci P, Boitani L, 1998. Elementi di biologia, gestione, ricerca. Istituto Nazionale per la Fauna Selvatica “Alessandro Ghigi”. Documenti tecnici 23.
  15. Conner DA, 1982. Geographic variation in short calls of pika Ochotona princeps. J Mammal 63:48–52. [Google Scholar]
  16. Daniel R, MacNulty, Douglas W, Smith L, Mech D. et al. , 2009. Body size and predatory performance in wolves: is bigger better? J Anim Ecol 78(3):532–539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dawes PR, Elander M, Ericson M, 1986. The wolf Canis lupus in Greenland: a historical review and present status. Arctic 39(2):119–132. [Google Scholar]
  18. Delgado RA, 2007. Geographic variation in the long calls of male orangutans (Pongo spp.). Ethology 487–498. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ey E, Fischer J, 2009. The “acoustic adaptation hypothesis”: a review of the evidence from birds, anurans, and mammals. Bioacoustics 19:21–48. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ferguson WW, 1981. The systematic position of Canis aureus lupaster (Carnivora: Canidae) and the occurrence of Canis lupus in North Africa, Egypt and Sinai. Mammalia 45:459–466. [Google Scholar]
  21. Fitch TW, 1997. Vocal tract length and formant frequency dispersion correlate with body size in rhesus macaques. J Acoust Soc Am 102:1213–1222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Ford JKB, 1991. Vocal traditions among resident killer whales Orcinus orca in coastal waters of British Columbia. Can J Zool 69: 1454–1483. [Google Scholar]
  23. Fredrickson R, Hedrick P, 2002. Body size in endangered Mexican wolves: effects of inbreeding and cross-lineage matings. Anim Conserv 5:39–43. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gade-Jøgensen I, Stagegaard R, 2000. Diet composition of wolves Canis lupus in east-central Finland. Acta Theriol 45(4):537–547. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gaubert P, Bloch C, Benyacoub S, Abdelhamid A, Pagani P. et al. , 2012. Reviving the African wolf Canis lupus lupaster in North and West Africa: a mitochondrial lineage ranging more than 6,000 km wide. PLoS ONE 6:e16385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gazzola A, Avanzinelli E, Mauri L, Scandura M, Apollonio M, 2002. Temporal changes of howling in south European wolf packs. Ital J Zool 69:157–161. [Google Scholar]
  27. Geffen E, Anderson MJ, Wayne RK, 2004. Climate and habitat barriers to dispersal in the highly mobile grey wolf. Mol Ecol 13:2481–2490. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Gerhardt CH, 1991. Female mate choice in treefrogs: static and dynamic acoustic criteria. Anim Behav 42:615–635. [Google Scholar]
  29. Harrington FH, Mech DL, 1979. Wolf howling and its role in territorial maintenance. Behavior 68:207–249. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hedrick PW, Miller PS, Geffen E, Wayne RK, 1997. Genetic evaluation of the three captive Mexican wolf lineages. Zoo Biol 16:47–69. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hefner R, Geffen E, 1999. Group size and home range of the Arabian wolf Canis lupus in Southern Israel. J Mammal 80:611–619. [Google Scholar]
  32. Heller KG, Helveren O, 1989. Resource partitioning of sonar frequency bands in rhinolophoid bats. Oecologia 80:178–186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Henry CS, 1994. Singing and cryptic speciation in insects. Trends Ecol Evol 9:388–392. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Irwin DE, Alstrom P, Olsson U, Benowitz-Fredericks ZM, 2001. Cryptic species in the genus Phylloscopus (Old World leaf warblers). Ibis 143:233–247. [Google Scholar]
  35. Irwin DE, Thimgan MP, Irwin JH, 2008. Call divergence is correlated with geographic and genetic distance in greenish warblers Phylloscopus trochiloides: a strong role for stochasticity in signal evolution? J Evol Biol 21:435–448. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Jhala Y, 2003. Status, ecology, and conservation of the Indian wolf Canis lupus pallipes Sykes. J Bomb Nat Hist Soc 100:293–307. [Google Scholar]
  37. Jones G, 1999. Scaling of echolocation call parameters in bats. J Exp Biol 202:3359–3367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Kershenbaum A, Root-Gutteridge HAJ, Habib B, Koler-Matznick J, Mitchell B. et al. , 2016. Disentangling canid howls across multiple species and subspecies: structure in a complex communication channel. Behav Proc 124:149–157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Kingston T, Lara MC, Jones G, Akbar Z, Kunz TH. et al. , 2001. Acoustic divergence in two cryptic Hipposideros species: a role for social selection? Proc B Soc Lond B 268:1381–1386. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Law BS, Reinhold L, Pennay M, 2002. Geographic variation in the echolocation calls of Vespadelus spp. (Vespertillionidae) from New South Wales and Queensland, Australia. Acta Chiropterol 4:201–215. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lopez-Gonzalez C, Garcia-Mendoza DF, 2012. A checklist of the mammals (Mammalia) of Chihuahua, Mexico. Check List 8(6):1122–1133. [Google Scholar]
  42. Masters JC, 1991. Loud calls of Galago crassicaudatus and G. garnettii and their relation to habitat structure. Primates 32:153–167. [Google Scholar]
  43. McComb KE, 1991. Female choice for high roaring rates in red deer Cervus elaphus. Anim Behav 41:79–88. [Google Scholar]
  44. Mech DL, Boitani L, 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. Chicago (IL: ): University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  45. Mendelson TC, Shaw KL, 2005. Sexual ehavior: rapid speciation in an arthropod. Nature 433:375–376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Mitani JC, Hasegawa T, Gros-Louis J, Marler P, Byrne R, 1992. Dialects in wild chimpanzees? Am J Primatol 27:233–243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Mitani JC, Hunley KL, Murdoch ME, 1999. Geographic variation in the calls of wild chimpanzees: a reassessment. Am J Primatol 47:133–151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Morton ES, 1975. Ecological sources of selection on avian sounds. Am Nat 109: 17–34. [Google Scholar]
  49. Musiani M, Leonard JA, Cluff DH, Gates CC, Mariani S. et al. , 2007. Differentiation of tundra/taiga and boreal coniferous forest wolves: genetics, coat colour, and association with migratory caribou. Mol Ecol 16:4149–4170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Narins PM, 1983. Divergence in acoustic communication systems of two sibling species of eleutherodactylid frogs. Copeia 4:1089–1090. [Google Scholar]
  51. Nowak S, Jedrzejewski W, Schmidt K, Theuerkauf J, Myslajek RW. et al. , 2007. Howling activity of free-ranging wolves Canis lupus in the Bialowieza Primeval Forest and the Western Beskidy Mountains (Poland). J Ethol 25:231–237. [Google Scholar]
  52. O’Farrell MJ, Corben C, Gannon WL, 2000. Geographic variation in the echolocation calls of the hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus. Acta Chiropterol 2:185–196. [Google Scholar]
  53. Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED, Burgess ND, Powell GVN, 2001. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth. Bioscience 51:933–938. [Google Scholar]
  54. Palacios V, Font E, Marquez R, 2007. Iberian wolf howls: acoustic structure, individual variation, and a comparison with North American populations. J Mammal 88:606–613. [Google Scholar]
  55. Passilongo D, Buccianti A, Dessi-Fulgheri F, Gazzola A, Zaccaroni M. et al. , 2010. The acoustic structure of wolf howls in some eastern Tuscany (central Italy) free ranging packs. Bioacoustics 19:159–175. [Google Scholar]
  56. Percy DM, Taylor GS, Kennedy M, 2006. Psyllid communication: acoustic diversity, mate recognition, and phylogenetic signal. Invertebr Syst 20:431–445. [Google Scholar]
  57. Perla BS, Slobodchikoff, 2002. Habitat structure and alarm call dialects in Gunnison’s prairie dog Cynomys gunnisoni. Behav Ecol 13: 844–850. [Google Scholar]
  58. Pfefferle D, Fischer J, 2006. Sounds and size: identification of acoustic variables that reflect body size in hamadryas baboons Papio hamadryas. Anim Behav 72:43–51. [Google Scholar]
  59. Ramasindrazana B, Goodman SM, Schoeman CM, Appleton B, 2011. Identification of cryptic species of Miniopterus bats (Chiroptera: Miniopteridae) from Madagascar and the Comoros using bioacoustics overlaid on molecular genetic and morphological characters. Biol J Linnean Soc 104:284–302. [Google Scholar]
  60. Randi E, 2011. Genetics and conservation of wolves Canis lupus in Europe. Mammal Rev 41(2):99–111. [Google Scholar]
  61. Reed JE, Ballard WB, Gipson PS, Kelly BT, Krausman PR. et al. , 2006. Diets of free-ranging Mexican Gray wolves in Arizona and New Mexico. Wildl Soc Bull 34(4):1127–1133. [Google Scholar]
  62. Reuven H, Geffen E, 1999. Group size and home range of the Arabian wolf Canis lupus in Southern Israel. J Mammal 80(2):611–619. [Google Scholar]
  63. Risch D, Clark CW, Corkeron PJ, Elepfandt A, Kovacs KM. et al. , 2007. Vocalizations of male bearded seals Erignathus barbatus: classification and geographic variation. Anim Behav 73:747–762. [Google Scholar]
  64. Root-Gutteridge H, Benscik M, Chebli M, Gentle LK, Terrell-Nield C. et al. , 2014a. Improving individual identification in captive Eastern grey wolves Canis lupus lycoan using the time course of howl amplitudes. Bioacoustics 23:39–53. [Google Scholar]
  65. Root-Gutteridge H, Bencsik M, Chebli M, Gentle LK, Terrell-Nield C. et al. , 2014b. Identifying individual wild Eastern grey wolves Canis lupus lycaon using fundamental frequency and amplitude of howls. Bioacoustics 23:55–66. [Google Scholar]
  66. Rossi-Santos MR, Podos J, 2006. Latitudinal variation in whistle structure of the estuarine dolphin Sotalia guianensis. Behavior 143:347–364. [Google Scholar]
  67. Roux A, Jackson TP, Cherry MI, 2002. Differences in alarm vocalizations of sympatric populations of the whistling rat Parotomys brantsii and P. littledalei (Rodentia: Muridae). J Zool 257: 189–194. [Google Scholar]
  68. Rueness EK, Asmyhr MG, Sillero–Zubiri C, Macdonald DW, Atickem A. et al. , 2011. The cryptic African wolf: Canis aureus lupaster is not a Golden Jackal and is not endemic to Egypt. PLoS ONE 6:e16385. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Russo D, Mucedda M, Bello M, Biscardi S, Pidinchedda E. et al. , 2007. Divergent echolocation call frequencies in insular rhinolophids (Chiroptera): a case of character displacement? J Biogeogr 34:2129–2138. [Google Scholar]
  70. Sharma DK, Maldonado JE, Jhala YV, Fleischer RC, 2004. Ancient wolf lineage in India. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:S1–S4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Shrotriya S, Lyngdoh S, Habib B, 2012. Wolves in the Trans-Himalayas: 165 years of taxonomic confusion. Curr Sci 103:885–887. [Google Scholar]
  72. Slabbekoorn H, Peet M, 2003. Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise. Nature 424:276. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Slabbekoorn H, Smith TB, 2002. Habitat-dependent song divergence in the Little Greenbul: an analysis of environmental selection pressures on acoustic signals. Evolution 56:1849–1858. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Terhune JM, 1994. Geographic variation of harp seal underwater vocalizations. Can J Zool 72:892–897. [Google Scholar]
  75. Thabah A, Rossiter SJ, Kingston T, Zhang S, Parsons S. et al. , 2006. Genetic divergence and echolocation call frequency in crypic species of Hipposideros larvatus s.l. (Chiroptera: Hipposideridae) from the Indo-Malayan region. Biol J Linnean Soc 88:119–130. [Google Scholar]
  76. Theberge JB, Falls BJ, 1967. Howling as a means of communication in timber wolves. Am Zool 7:331–338. [Google Scholar]
  77. Thinh VN, Hallam C, Roos C, Hammerschmidt K, 2011. Concordance between vocal and genetic diversity in crested gibbons. BMC Evol Biol 11:36. 10.1186/1471-218-11-36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Tooze ZJ, Harrington FH, Fentress JC, 1990. Individually distinct vocalizations in timber wolves Canis lupus. Anim Behav 40:723–730. [Google Scholar]
  79. vonHoldt BM, Pollinger JP, Earl DA, Knowles JC, Boyko AR. et al. , 2011. A genome-wide perspective on the evolutionary history of enigmatic wolf–like canids. Genome Biol 21:1294–1305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. vonHoldt BM, Cahill JA, Fan Z, Gronau I, Robinson J. et al. , 2016. Whole-enome sequence analysis shows that two endemic species of North American wolf are admixtures of the coyote and gray wolf. Sci Adv 2:e1501714.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Wallschager D, 1980. Correlation of song frequency and body weight in passerine birds. Experientia 36:412. [Google Scholar]
  82. Wilkins MR, Seddon N, Safran RJ, 2013. Evolutionary divergence in acoustic signals: causes and consequences. Trends Ecol Evol 28:156–166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Wilson PJ, Grewal S, Lawford ID, Heal JNM, Granacki AG. 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. Can J Zool 78:2156–2166. [Google Scholar]
  84. Zaccaroni M, Passilongo D, Buccianti A, Dessi-Fulgheri F, Facchini C. et al. , 2012. Group specific vocal signature in free-ranging wolf packs. Ethol Ecol Evol 24:149–157. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Data
Click here for additional data file. (98.7KB, pdf)

Articles from Current Zoology are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES