Chapter 24: Collared peccary Pecari spp. (Linnaeus, 1758)259
More specifically, radio-tracked collared peccaries in the
Atlantic Forest showed that the trends of habitat and ripar-
ian zone use were group-specific (Keuroghlian et al. 2008).
Differences between the groups were probably related to
the locations where home ranges were established and the
range- specific composition of habitats and other resources
(Keuroghlian et al. 2004, 2008). This can have important ecologi-
cal implications because within an ecosystem, ecological behav-
iour can vary between different herds depending on the locations
where home ranges are established (Keuroghlian et al. 2008).
Similar to white-lipped peccaries, collared peccaries may
also function as ecosystem engineers by creating and maintain-
ing water/mud wallows in the understorey when wallowing in
these areas. Because of their frequent visits, the soil in the wal-
lows is more compacted, which makes them more predictable
waterbodies than natural occurring ponds (Sowls 1997; Beck
et al. 2010). Wallows and leaf litter can become important breed-
ing grounds, especially during the dry season, for several frog
species (Beck et al. 2010; Reider et al. 2013). In addition, many
species, such as terrestrial birds, deer, bats, and even primates,
use wallows to either forage or drink water (H. Beck, personal
observations).Population Densities
Despite the collared peccary being the most studied species of
Tayassuidae, there are relatively few reliable estimates of popu-
lation density. Table 24.1 summarizes what is known across its
geographic range.Figure 24.4 Collared peccary (Pecari tajacu) in suburban areas of Tucson,
Arizona, USA (photograph by tjsgarden, https://tjsgarden.com/cactus-
pictures-free-photos/). (A black and white version of this figure will appear in some
formats. For the colour version, please refer to the plate section.)Table 24.1 Density estimates of collared peccary (Pecari tajacu) along its geographic range.Site Density (ind./km^2 ) (range
when available)Source ObservationsSouthern–Central Arizona (USA) 3.0– 4.7 Schweinsburg 1971 Arid lands
Southern–Central Arizona (USA) 2.1–4.5 Supple 1983 Arid lands
Southern Arizona (USA) 4.5– 11.5 Day 1985 Arid lands
Western Texas (USA) 1.2–2.5 and 3.3–11.0 Bissonette 1982 Arid lands
Southern Texas (USA) 3.8–8.8 Low 1970 Arid lands
Barro Colorado Island (Panama) 16.0 Eisenberg 1980 Perennial tropical forest
Barro Colorado Island (Panama) 9.3 Glanz 1982 Perennial tropical forest
Guyana region (Colombia) 0.05–0.24 Gomez & Montenegro 2012 Estimates are from two national parks
Masaguaral (Venezuela) 8.5 Eisenberg et al. 1979
Loreto Department (Peru) 0.21–9.93 Fang et al. 2008 Includes Yavari, Samiria, Tigre, and
Pucacuro rivers
Southern Amazon forest (Peru) 5.6 Emmons & Feer 1990
Samiria river basin (Peru) 0.05–0.23 Bodmer et al. 2014 Flooded forest
Amazon forest (Peru) 3.3 Bodmer 1989
Guatopo National Park (Venezuela) 1.9 Schaller 1983
Several sites Amazon forest (Brazil) 0.4–11.6 Peres 1996 Sites with different degrees of hunting
pressure
Cerrado (Brazil) 5.48 Keuroghlian et al. 2010 Cerrado shrubland
Southern Pantanal (Brazil) 0.71–3.7 Desbiez et al. 2009 Flooded grasslands
Southern Pantanal (Brazil) 6.64 Desbiez et al. 2009 Forested areas
Atlantic forest (Brazil) 5.9 (2.8–8.9) Keuroghlian et al. 2004 Fragments of Atlantic forest
Atlantic forest (Brazil) 6.4 (3.7–11.2) Cullen et al. 1997 Fragments of Atlantic forest
Hot and dry environment Chaco region
(Argentina)0.62–0.91 Altrichter 2005 The range goes from high to low hunt-
ing pressure sites
Neotropics in general 12.0 Robinson & Redford 1986 General estimate for all Neotropics.02612:46:11