Advertisement

Acta Theriologica

, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 115–124 | Cite as

Distribution and use of burrows and tunnels ofChaetophractus villosus (Mammalia, Xenarthra) in the eastern Argentinean pampas

  • Agustín M. Abba
  • Daniel E. Udrizar Sauthier
  • Sergio F. Vizcaíno
Article

Abstract

Burrows and tunnels built byChaetophractus villosus (Desmarest, 1804) (hairy armadillo) were studied in a farming area located in the Argentinean pampas, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina. Fifty-six structures were selected and carefully excavated for this study. Data on diameter, form, and orientation of the entrance, angle, length, and depth of the galleries, and spatial distribution of the structures were recorded. The structures were separated into two types: simple and complex, both located in high terrain. Simple structures are shorter than complex ones and are built when animals are in search of food or as temporary shelters. Complex structures are built as home burrows. The orientation of the entrances of both kinds of burrows is related to the prevalent wind direction.

Key words

Chaetophractus villosus Argentinean pampas burrows and tunnels 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Azara F. de. 1802. Viajes por la América Meridional. Ediciones El Elefante Blanco, Buenos Aires: 1: 238.Google Scholar
  2. Boily P. 2002. Individual variation in metabolic traits of wild nine-banded armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus), and the aerobic capacity model for the evolution of endothermy. The Journal of Experimental Biology 205 (20): 3207–3214.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolkovic M. L., Affanni J. M. and Ghersa C. M. 1999. El peludoChaetophractus villosus y la mulitaDasypus hybridus en agroecosistemas de la pampa interior. XIV Jornadas Argentinas de Mastozoología. Salta, 8–10 de noviembre. Libro de resúmenes: 15.Google Scholar
  4. Cabrera A. L. and Zardini E. M. 1978. Manual de la flora de los alrededores de Buenos Aires. Editorial Acme, Buenos Aires, Argentina 1: 755. Cabrera A. and Yepes J. 1940. Mamíferos Sud-Americanos (vida, costumbres y descripción). Historia Natural Ediar, Compañía Argentina de Editores, Bs. As.: 1–270.Google Scholar
  5. Carlini A. A. and Vizcaíno S. F. 1987. A new record of the armadilloChaetophractus vellerosus (Gray, 1865) (Mammalia, Dasypodidae) in the Buenos Aires province of Argentine: possible causes for the disjunct distribution. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 22: 53–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carter T. S. and Encarnaçao C. D. 1983. Characteristics and use of burrows by four species of armadillos in Brazil. Journal of Mammalogy 64: 103–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casanave E. B., Manfredi M. C. and Luengos Vidal E. M. (in press). Ecología comportamental de los armadillos en un pastizal serrano. EDIUNS 1: 8.Google Scholar
  8. Cavallotto J. L. 2002. Evolución holocena de la llanura costera del margen sur del Río de La Plata. Revista de la Asociación Geológica Argentina 57(4): 376–388.Google Scholar
  9. Crespo J. A. 1944. Contribución al conocimiento de la ecología de algunos dasypodidos (Edentata) argentinos. Revista Argentina Zoogeografia, Buenos Aires 4: 7–39.Google Scholar
  10. Galliari C. A., Berman W. D. and Goin F. J. 1991. Situación ambiental de la provincia de Buenos Aires. A. Recursos y rasgos naturales en la evaluación ambiental. Mamíferos CIC. Año I 5: 3–35.Google Scholar
  11. Ghersa C. M., Martinez Ghersa M. A. and Leon R. J. C. 1998. Cambios en el paisaje pampeano y sus efecto sobre los sistema de soporte de la vida. [In: En hacia una agricultura más productiva y sostenible en la pampa Argentina: una visión general prospectiva interdisciplinaia. O. T. Solbrig and L. Vainesman, eds]. David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies and Consejo Professional de Ingeniería Agronómica, Buenos Aires: Vol. 3: 38–71.Google Scholar
  12. González E. M., Soutullo A. and Altuna C. A. 2001. The burrow ofDasypus hybridus (Cingulta: Dasypodidae). Acta Theriologica 46: 53–59.Google Scholar
  13. Grassé P. P. 1955. Ordre des Edentés, Ordre des Pholidotes. [In: Traité de Zoologie: anatomie, systématique, biologie]. Masson Press, Paris: vol. 17, 2: 1182–1284.Google Scholar
  14. Greegor D. H. Jr 1980. Preliminary study of movements and home range of the armadilloChaetophractus vellerosus. Journal of Mammalogy 61: 334–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greegor D. H. Jr 1985. Ecology of the little hairy armadilloChaetophractus vellerosus. [In: The evolution and ecology of armadillos, sloths and vermilinguas. G. G. Montgomery, ed]. SmithsonianInstitution Press, Washington, D.C.: 397–405.Google Scholar
  16. Hudson W. H. 1892. El Naturalista en el Plata. Ediciones El Elefante Blanco. Buenos Aires, Argentina: 1–311.Google Scholar
  17. MacNab B. K. 1980. Energetics and the limits to a temperate distribution in armadillos. Journal of Mammalogy 61: 606–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. MacNab B. K. 1985. Energetics, population biology, and distribution of xenarthrans, living and extinct. [In: The evolution and ecology of armadillos, sloths and vermilinguas. G. G. Montgomery, ed]. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.: 219–232,Google Scholar
  19. Nowak R. M. 1991. Walker’s Mammals of the World. 6th edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, Vol. 1: 1–642.Google Scholar
  20. Redford K. H. 1985. Foods habits of armadillos (Xenarthra: Dasypodidae). [In: The evolution and ecology of armadillos, sloths and vermilinguas. G. G. Montgomery, ed]. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.: 429–437,Google Scholar
  21. Redford K. H. and Eisenberg J. F. 1992. Mammals of the Neotropics. Vol. 2. The southern cone. University of Chicago Press, Chicago: 1–430.Google Scholar
  22. Sánchez R. O., Ferrer J. A., Duymovich O. A. and Hurtado M. A. 1976. Estudio pedológico integral de los partidos de Magdalena y Brandsen (Provincia de Bs. As.). LEMIT, Anales, Serie II, 310: 3–127.Google Scholar
  23. Sokal R. R. and F. J. Rohlf 1995. Biometry. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York: 1–887.Google Scholar
  24. Taber F. W. 1945. Contribution on the life history and ecology of the nine-banded armadillo. Journal of Mammalogy 26: 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Talmage R. V. and Buchanan G. D. 1954. The armadillo (Dasypus nomemcinctus). A review of its natural history, ecology, anatomy and reproductive physiology. Rice Institute Pamphlet, Monographs in Biology 41(2): 1–135.Google Scholar
  26. Vizcaíno S. F. 1990. Sistemática y evolución de los Dasypodinae bonaparte, 1838 (Mammalia, Dasypodidae). PhD thesis. Resúmenes 1986–1990. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Tesis 553: 327–331.Google Scholar
  27. Wetzel R. M. 1985. Taxonomy and distribution of armadillos, Dasypodidae. [In: The evolution and ecology of armadillos, sloths and vermilinguas. G. G. Montgomery, ed]. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.: 23–46.Google Scholar
  28. Yepes J. 1928. Los “Edentata” argentinos: sistemática y distribución. Revista de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, Series 2, Sec. 5, 1: 461–515.Google Scholar
  29. Zimmerman J. W. 1990. Burrow characteristics of the nine-banded armadillo,Dasypus novemcintus. The Southwestern Naturalist 35: 226–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mammal Research Institute, Bialowieza, Poland 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Agustín M. Abba
    • 1
  • Daniel E. Udrizar Sauthier
    • 1
  • Sergio F. Vizcaíno
    • 1
  1. 1.División Zoología VertebradosFacultad de Ciencias Naturales y MuseoPaseo del Bosque s/n La PlataArgentina

Personalised recommendations