Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …


Editor-in-Chief: Denys, Christiane

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.732
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.794

CiteScore 2018: 0.91

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.434
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.665

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 82, Issue 6


Dung-pile use by guanacos in eastern Patagonia

Andrea Marino
  • Corresponding author
  • Instituto Patagónico para el Estudio de los Ecosistemas Continentales (IPEEC), Centro Nacional Patagónico-CONICET (National Research Council of Argentina), B. Brown 2915, Puerto Madryn, Argentina
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-03-03 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2017-0110


Previous studies on guanacos have reported that only territorial males create and maintain dung-piles. The aim of this analysis was to compare dung-pile use by territorial males with the use by females and young in family groups, and by bachelor males. Although territorial males showed the highest dung-pile use, all individuals dropped feces on piles frequently, in contrast to what was previously observed within other guanaco populations. Besides stressing the behavioral plasticity of guanacos, these results suggest an additional adaptive function of localized-defecation other than demarcating territory ownership by the territorial male.

Keywords: dung-piles; guanaco; localized defecation; territory defense; ungulates


  • Beldomenico, P.M., M. Uhart, M.F. Bonoa, C. Marull, R. Baldi and J.L. Peralta. 2003. Internal parasites of free-ranging guanacos from Patagonia. Vet. Parasitol. 118: 71–78.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Burgi, V. 2005. Homerange and habitat use by guanaco (Lama guanicoe) females in northeastern Chubut. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia, Puerto Madryn, p. 41.Google Scholar

  • Crawley, M.J. 2007. The R book. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester.Google Scholar

  • Estes, R.D. 1991. The behavior guide to African mammals. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar

  • Ezenwa, V.O. 2008. Selective defecation and selective foraging: antiparasite behavior in wild ungulates? Ethology 110: 851–862.Google Scholar

  • Franklin, W.L. 1982. Biology, ecology, and relationship to man of the South American camelids. In: (M.A. Mares and H.H. Genoways, eds.) Mammalian biology in South America, Special publications series, Vol 6, Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology and University of Pittsburg, Linesville, PA. pp. 457–489.Google Scholar

  • Franklin, W.L. 1983. Contrasting socioecologies of South America’s wild camelids: the vicuña and the guanaco. Am. Soc. Mam. Special Publication 7: 573–628.Google Scholar

  • Henriquez, J.M. 2004. Camelid defecation influences vegetation development and species richnesss on glacial moraines. Tierra del Fuego. R. Ch. Hist. Nat. 77: 501–508.Google Scholar

  • Jarman, P.J. 1974. Social organization of antelope. Behaviour 48: 215–267.Google Scholar

  • Marino, A. 2010. Costs and benefits of sociality differ between female guanacos living in contrasting ecological conditions. Ethology 116: 1–12.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Marino, A. 2011. Guanaco and anti-predator response: behaviour, social organisation and vulnerability to predation. Universidad Nacional del Comahue, San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina.Google Scholar

  • Marino, A. 2012. Indirect measures of reproductive effort in a resource-defense polygynous ungulate: territorial defense by male guanacos. J. Ethol. 30: 83–91.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Marino, A., M. Pascual and R. Baldi. 2014. Ecological drivers of guanaco recruitment: variable carrying capacity and density dependence. Oecologia 175: 1189–1200.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Puig, S. and F. Videla. 1995. Comportamiento y organización social del guanaco. In: (S. Puig, ed.) Técnicas para el manejo del guanaco. UICN, Gland, Switzerland. pp. 97–118.Google Scholar

  • Putman, R.J., A.D. Fowler and S. Tout. 1991. Patterns of use of ancient grassland by cattle and horses and effects on vegetational composition and structure. Biol. Cons. 56: 329–347.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Taylor, E.L. 1954. Grazing behaviour and helminthic disease. Br. J. Anim. Bahav. 2: 61–62.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Vilá, B. 1994. Use of dung piles by neighbouring vicuñas. Z. Säugetierk. 59: 126–128.Google Scholar

  • Walther, F.R., E.C. Mungal and G.A. Grau. 1983. Gazelles and their relatives: a study of territorial behavior. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey.Google Scholar

  • Wronski, T., A. Apio and M. Plath. 2006. The communicatory significance of localised defecation sites in bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus). Behav. Ecol. Soc. 60: 368–378.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zalba, S.M. and A. Loydi. 2014. The influence of feral horses dung piles on surrounding vegetation. Manag. Biol. Invasion. 5: 73–79.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-08-31

Accepted: 2018-02-09

Published Online: 2018-03-03

Published in Print: 2018-11-27

Citation Information: Mammalia, Volume 82, Issue 6, Pages 596–599, ISSN (Online) 1864-1547, ISSN (Print) 0025-1461, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2017-0110.

Export Citation

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in