this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2025
60 points (100.0% liked)
UK Nature and Environment
470 readers
77 users here now
General Instance Rules:
- No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia.
- No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.
- No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users.
- Do not share intentionally false or misleading information.
- Do not spam or abuse network features.
Community Specific Rules:
- Keep posts UK-specific. There are other places on Lemmy to post articles which relate to global environmental issues (e.g. slrpnk.net).
- Keep comments in English so that they can be appropriately moderated.
Note: Our temporary logo is from The Wildlife Trusts. We are not officially associated with them.
Our winter banner is a shot of Shotley marshes, Suffolk by GreyShuck.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is 167 enough for a sustainable breeding population?
Probably is. And according to this study yes.
I couldn't find the source. Do you have a DOI?
Yes. You don't need many wolves to get going. And their territory is HUGE. Wolf packs have a smaller territory but wolves without a pack can have one that spans thousands of square kilometers. This means you can introduce 5 wolves over 500km and they'll find eachother and mate to a population of 167 in 10 years.
It being sustainable will mostly depend on their access to prey and area they can occupy.
You'd end up with a very inbred population though. Even starting with 167, wouldn't inbreeding be a risk? Animal biology is not my field, so I don't know how many individuals you need to sustain a genetically diverse population
Animal inbred risks are lower than humans. If you start with 5 and add a few wolves each 5-10 years, it should keep the genetics safe. Starting with 167 different ones would have a near zero percent risk of genetic problems.