Wolves have become the symbol for family values, devotion to family and strong pair bond (mating for life).
Social monogamy is prevalent and biological monogamy is also observed as the dominant breeding strategy (extragroup mating being rare in most areas) in most wolf species (with the exception of, e.g., the Ethiopian wolf).
However, scientists argue that we should review the concept of grey wolves as exclusively monogamous or even predominantly monogamous.
It is known from well-studied wolf packs and genetic testing that polygamy occurs (mostly, within group, i.e., one male breeding with several females from the same group).
While the most frequent mate change scenario involves death of one of the partners (and the widowed partner consequently pairing up with a new mate), it is also not that uncommon that wolf pairs would ‘divorce’, i.e., split up while both partners are still alive.
There can be many reasons such as possible incompatibility, poor pup survival or, for example, displacement from the territory by other wolves which results in pair or group dispersal.
While it is possible to maintain the pair bond after such evictions, in high population density areas (with few vacant ranges) and with scarce prey resources, a pair might find it difficult to survive while remaining together (finding enough food while hunting and scavenging in other wolves’ territories and staying together for as long as necessary to displace another pack or to discover a vacant range).
I do not believe that we should doubt monogamy in wolves and their devotion as well as strong pair bond.
I agree, however, that it would be interesting and useful to study the rates of monogamy vs. other breeding strategies in wolf populations in order to determine causes to alternative breeding models.
But the main reason I have created this post is to argue that the current wolf populations might have be genetically predisposed to a more flexible breeding strategy range than wolves, historically.
During the 19th and 20th century (but in some places also earlier), wolves were heavily persecuted by humans to the point of eradication the species from most of its range.
For example, wolves nowadays occupy only ca. 15% of their historic range in the conterminous United States (Bruskotter, J.T. et al., 2013) and the elimination was even far more expansive prior to wolf reintroduction/natural recolonization (reaching also into Canada).
Where the wolf was not eradicated, its populations were heavily reduced, intensely hunted and pushed out into the very periphery of existence.
Such mass persecution had to result in attempts by the wolves to respond through increased breeding and through adaptive breeding.
In order to persist as a species, the wolves likely had to breed with several partners and accept new partners after the old partner’s death (without a prolonged grieving period and without much ‘pickiness’).
While 2 centuries of persecution (in most localities the eradication programmes were carried out in terms of decades) might not result in behavioural traditions, they should have resulted in evolutionary selection favouring wolves who carried genes allowing them to respond more flexibly to these losses and to the constant flux in pack turnovers, mate mortality, displacement by humans, severe pack size reductions leading to starvation and inability to defend territories etc.
It is quite possible that the wolves we are studying today, carry genes of the wolves that adapted to survive mass extinction through proliferate breeding (also, polygamous, promiscuous breeding and greater capability to endure mate change on an emotional level).
This new adaptation (if it exists which I find very probable) is not the result of ‘lax attitudes’ but rather (contrary to human intuition) it is a result of mental discipline – ‘get over yourself and get it done’.
It is a result of putting the survival of the species first and dismissing one’s own preferences and feelings.
Namely, I am not suggesting that the mass persecution favoured individuals who were ‘less moral’ (more prone to extramarital affairs, so to speak).
I am suggesting that it favoured individuals who could govern themselves and make decisions for the benefit of what is considered the greater good by the wolves (not thinking about themselves and what they want or do not want but rather about the future generations which appears to be a key value in wildlife species where even survival is often the means to ensure greater lifetime reproductive success).
It would be difficult to compare pre-persecution wolf mating systems with current mating systems because wolves have not been studied as much in those earlier times.
There could be some studies performed reviewing folklore, mythology, early accounts by ancient naturalists etc.
A major resource would be Native American wisdom because many ancient people did not live as closely with nature to have the least biased views.
Comparisons also could be made between wolf populations that live currently in areas where wolves were extirpated or where they survived (in ‘refugias’).
In these refugias where wolves were never eliminated, a more ‘pristine’ state could be observed (accounting for environmental conditions, contemporary wolf management and other factors).
However, there are probably very few areas where wolves did not suffer any impacts (directly or indirectly).
The Artic and mountainous areas might not be fit for drawing conclusions because they were often isolated from other wolf populations and lack if immigration can lead to different breeding choices.
Still, I believe it is an interesting (and potentially very sad) perspective to consider.
Wolves might have evolved a more variable approach to breeding but is it of their own will? Would they have chosen this for themselves as their evolutionary path?
***
I also thought I should add that there are some populations (e.g., wolves in Minnesota) where social demographics might have been influenced not by persecution itself but by the consequences of persecution (seeking of refugia habitats by other wolves) as well as the recolonization processes possibly pressuring the extant wolf packs to constantly keep up the production and dispersal rates that could result, for example, in smaller average pack sizes and reduced longevity due to reproductive pressure and lack of helpers.
The former refugia habitats during recolonization might experience a greater turnover because the packs cannot retain a sufficient number of subordinates in order to ensure pack stability during any times of crisis (sudden loss of pups, sudden loss of one of the breeders etc.).
As a result, such packs cannot afford ‘waiting it out’ and they should accept new breeders or unrelated helpers (who can become breeders by chance) in order to attempt to persist.
Notes by Ieva 