Chapter 25: White-lipped peccary Tayassu pecari (Link, 1795)273
Figure 25.6 Heads of white-lipped peccary left behind by poachers in
Corcovado National Park, Costa Rica (photo by Park rangers, Corcovado
National Park). (A black and white version of this figure will appear in some formats.
For the colour version, please refer to the plate section.)foremost wide-scale habitat destruction and degradation, com-
mercial harvesting, unsustainable levels of subsistence hunting
(Figure 25.6), and zoonotic diseases likely spread from domestic
livestock (Keuroghlian et al. 2012). This species is particularly at
risk in more xeric ecosystems, especially the Caatinga, Cerrado,
and Pampas (Altrichter et al. 2012). Forest fragmentation makes
white-lipped peccary populations highly vulnerable to extinc-
tion because of the species’ requirement for high habitat diversity
(Keuroghlian & Eaton 2008b), sources of water always available
(Beck et al. 2010; Reyna-Hurtado et al. 2012), diversity and abun-
dance of fruiting sources (Beck 2005, 2006; Keuroghlian et al.
2009), and relatively large home ranges (Fragoso 1998; Almeida-
Jacomo 2004; Reyna-Hurtado et al. 2009). In addition, the
white-lipped peccary’s social behaviour of ‘protection in groups’
makes it easy for hunters to spot and kill numerous individuals
of the same group, especially with modern weapons (Peres 1996;
Altrichter & Almeida 2002). The vulnerability of the species to
human disturbance is especially problematic given the expand-
ing industrial agriculture frontier and elongating road networks
across the Neotropics that cause forest loss and fragmentation
and allow hunters to access remote areas (Rivera 2014).Status in Captivity
White-lipped peccaries are commonly kept in captivity primar-
ily in the countries of origin (Nogueira et al. 2015), but rarely
elsewhere, mainly because of stronger veterinary regulations
regarding animal welfare and hospitality. Furthermore, most
other countries have a significant domestic pork industry with
strong regulations. Numerous zoos around the world have
small groups on display, and there are some private ranching
initiatives in Brazil where hundreds of white-lipped peccaries
are kept in semi-extensive systems of captivity with the purpose
of meat production (Andrade-Figueira et al. 2003). However,
unlike with collared peccaries, it is much more difficult to breed
white-lipped peccaries in captivity because of their aggressive
behaviour. Thus, there are currently no programmes established
for captive breeding and future reintroduction.group size was correlated with rainfall or resource productivity.
A compilation of white-lipped peccary herd sizes across its dis-
tribution under different degrees of human disturbance shows
an average group size of 76.4 in less disturbed sites versus 39.9 in
disturbed sites (Table 25.3 in Reyna-Hurtado et al. 2015).
Parasites and Diseases
Systematic research on ecto- and endoparasites and diseases
of peccaries are still scarce. One challenge is that autopsies and
necropsies are logistically difficult and thus there is a dearth of
data. Most of what is known was derived from captive or hunted
collared peccaries in North America (Sowls 1997). Ectoparasites
found on white-lipped peccaries include ticks (Amblyomma
pecarium, Fairchild et al. 1966), among others.
Using a polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based detection test
to estimate infection rate of various sympatric mammal species
within the Brazilian Pantanal, Herrera et al. (2005) discovered
Trypanosoma evansi DNA in 24.4 per cent of the tested white-
lipped peccaries and in 30.7 per cent of feral pigs (Sus scrofa).
Herrera et al. (2008) found that collared and white-lipped pecca-
ries, as well as feral pigs, were hosts for Trypanosoma evansi and
T. cruzi in the Pantanal, but only white-lipped peccaries suffered
from health impairment (Herrera et al. 2008). Freitas et al. (2010)
tested blood serum from 71 free-ranging white-lipped peccaries
from the Pantanal for evidence of Leptospira interrogans. They
found that over 70 per cent of the individuals tested positively, inde-
pendent of gender, but with an increase by age of the individuals.
Because of expanding livestock practices, populations of
white-lipped peccaries are coming into more frequent con-
tact with domesticated species. The potential reciprocal trans-
mission of diseases, their spread, and infection of wildlife and
humans are major concerns for conservation, human welfare,
and the economy of many countries. More funding and legisla-
tive support should be made available to address these funda-
mental concerns.
Status in the Wild
Currently the species is listed in Appendix II of the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES) and classified as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List
(Keuroghlian et al. 2012, 2013). The white-lipped peccary is pres-
ently considered as Endangered, or Critically Endangered, for some
areas of Brazil and for all of Mexico by the environmental institu-
tions of these countries (Brazil: Keuroghlian et al. 2012; Mexico:
Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 2010).
The range of white-lipped peccary has been reduced by
20.5 per cent from its historic distribution over the last 100 years
(http://maps.iucnredlist.org/map.html?id=41778), including
extirpations from entire countries, i.e. El Salvador and Uruguay
(Altrichter et al. 2012). In another 48 per cent of its current
range, the white-lipped peccary remains, but with reduced abun-
dance and a low to medium probability of long-term survival.
There have been major range declines in Argentina, Paraguay,
southern Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, north-east Brazil,
Mexico, and Costa Rica (Altrichter et al. 2012; Keuroghlian
et al. 2012). The species faces multiple threats across its range,
.02712:46:17