ArticlePDF Available

Lama guanicoe

August 2016

DOI:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

Authors:

Ricardo Baldi

Centro Nacional Patagonico

Pablo Acebes

Autonomous University of Madrid

Erika Cuellar Soto

Sultan Qaboos University

Martin Funes

Wildlife Conservation Society

Show all 6 authorsHide

Content uploaded by Ricardo Baldi

Content may be subject to copyright.

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™

ISSN 2307-8235 (online)

IUCN 2008: T11186A18540211

Lama guanicoe, Guanaco

Assessment by: Baldi, R.B., Acebes, P., Cuéllar, E., Funes, M., Hoces, D., Puig, S.

& Franklin, W.L.

View on www.iucnredlist.org

Citation: Baldi, R.B., Acebes, P., Cuéllar, E., Funes, M., Hoces, D., Puig, S. & Franklin, W.L. 2016. Lama

guanicoe. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T11186A18540211.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written

permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.

Reproduction of this publication for resale, reposting or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written

permission from the copyright holder. For further details see Terms of Use.

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species Programme, the IUCN

Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership. The IUCN Red List Partners are: BirdLife

International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation International; Microsoft; NatureServe; Royal

Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; Wildscreen; and Zoological Society of London.

If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown in this document, please provide us with

feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided.

THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™

Taxonomy

Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family

Animalia Chordata Mammalia Cetartiodactyla Camelidae

Taxon Name:ÊÊLama guanicoe (P.L.S. Müller, 1776)

Synonym(s):

• Lama glama ssp. guanicoe (Müller, 1776)

Common Name(s):

• English: Guanaco

Taxonomic Notes:

There is strong morphological, chromosomal, molecular, and archaeological evidence demonstrating

that the Llama originally began with the domestication of the Guanaco in the Central Andes (Wheeler et

al. 2006, Marín et al. 2007), as indicated in the name Lama glama first suggested by Linneaus (1758) for

designating the Guanaco species (Grubb 2005). Today, the endorsement is clear that Lama guanicoe is a

valid species for the wild form (Gentry et al. 2004).

Throughout the first half of the 20th Century four morphological Guanaco subspecies (L. g. cacsilensis, L.

g. voglii, L. g. huanacus, and L. g. guanicoe) were described based upon subtle differences in cranium

biometrics, pelage colour, and body size (Wheeler 1995, González et al. 2006). However, analysis of

Guanaco mitochondrial-DNA markers failed to clearly differentiate four subspecies throughout the wide

geographic range of the species. Yet, genetic analysis did distinguish populations found in Peru and

northern Chile, compared to other populations in Argentina, Bolivia, and remainder of Chile (Marín et

al. 2008). Additional analysis with DNA-nuclear genes demonstrated the valid existence of two

subspecies (L. g. cacsilensis and L. g. guanicoe) with the presence of a geographical zone of hybrid

populations between both subspecies (Marín et al. 2013).

The Northwestern or cacsilensis subspecies is distributed on the western side of the Andes throughout

Perú to the northern extreme of Chile, whereas the Southeastern subspecies or guanicoe is found

throughout all of Patagonia to the extreme Austral end of the continent. Both lineages apparently

formed due to the presence of the Andean altiplano (plateau) that served as a biogeographical and

ecological barrier separating the populations to east and west of the Andean continental divide. The

hybrid zone came about through genetic flow between the two subspecies where a geographic contact

zone existed in the region south of the altiplano in Central Chile, in far northwestern Patagonia, and with

an extension northeast into northwestern Argentina and southern Bolivia (Marín et al. 2013). An

alternative to the classification of two subspecies is the possibility they could be considered

Evolutionary Significant Units (sensu Moritz 1994, Marín et al. 2013).

At the current population level at least eight, independent genetic and demographic or Management

Units (MUs, according to Moritz 1994 definition) have been identified that should be managed

separately in order to maintain their local genetic adaptiveness (Marín et al. 2013): 1) Peruvian Hyper-

Arid Desert, 2) Chilean Pre-Andean Altiplano, 3) Chilean Arid Zone and Pre-Puna, 4) Bolivian Chaco, 5)

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

North and Central Patagonia, 6) Patagonia Occidental, 7) Patagonia Austral, and 8) Fueguian Zone.

Guanaco populations in northeast and northcentral Argentina that were not included in Marín et al.

(2013) have yet to be assessed for MU classification.

Although previous taxonomic classification was based upon phenotypic characteristics (Wheeler 1995,

González et al. 2006), there have been no wide-scale studies dealing with morphological variations in

the species. Preliminary examination of Guanaco skulls at museums indicates a differentiation between

individuals across the continent in Bolivia, Chile, Patagonia, and Tierra del Fuego (Groves and Grubb

2011).

Identification Information:

Assessment Information

Red List Category & Criteria: Least Concern ver 3.1

Year Published: 2016

Date Assessed: February 3, 2016

Justification:

The species status is considered to be of Least Concern based upon its wide continental distribution

(around one million km2), its presumed total population size (around one million adults), and the

presence of numerous protected areas across its range of distribution (56 protected areas covering

around 146,000 km2). However, Guanaco actual conservation measures continue to be primarily based

upon recurring emergencies, specifically, severe local poaching, which do not fulfill the greater holistic

threats faced by the species. This is a result of its wide distribution existing in small-fragmented and

isolated populations, in contrast to some abundant populations that are locally and widely distributed.

Of grave concern at the national level is that Guanacos are likely to become extinct in three out of the

five countries where they were historically found and currently classified as Endangered: Paraguay,

Bolivia, and Peru. For this reason it is important to emphasize that future Guanaco management not

only address the poaching problem, but also focus upon the implementation of measures orientated to

the protection and conservation of those depressed populations, as well as, simultaneously expand the

sustained utilization of those recovered and abundant populations for benefit of local residents and

landowners. Accordingly, a more accurate classification of Guanaco, such as a Regional Assessment is

needed in order to reflect the actual heterogeneity of populations across its multi-country distribution.

Habitat degradation due to overgrazing, competition with introduced herbivores, and habitat

degradation due to extractive industries are the main threats to Guanaco (Wildlife Conservation Society

2012). Nevertheless, persistent illegal hunting is one of the historical threats to the species,

independent of population size that is strongly impacting small and low-density populations (González

2010a, Wildlife Conservation Society 2012). Equally important is the continued hunting of numerically

recovered populations (Lambertucci and Speziale 2011) based upon antagonism towards the species by

livestock and landowners who have put pressure on governments to control Guanaco numbers.

Examples of this situation occur in the Patagonia of Chile and Argentina, and populations in the Andes of

Central Chile.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

Human activities such as hunting, mining, oil exploration and extraction, livestock fencing, development

of infrastructure, and habitat loss, often impose barriers to migration and movement between

populations. The loss of connectivity has resulted in small, closed and isolated populations under

increasing risk of collapse due to the loss of genetic variation and environmental or demographic

stochasticity – the latter being highly relevant to inordinately small populations. Recent research,

however, on a small island population of Guanacos indicates that such isolation may not be the problem

of genetic-diversity loss in the short-term (70 years) as previously envisioned, yet long-term

consequences are inevitable (González et al. 2014).

Live-shearing of captured Guanacos is currently under development in Patagonia with Argentine-

government funding. If properly managed, these programmes can offer an alternative to local

economies and re-evaluation of negative attitudes by landowners towards the species (Franklin et al.

1997, Lichtenstein and Carmanchahi 2012, Lichtenstein 2013). More than 11,000 Guanacos had been

shorn between 2004-2008, yet today only a very small percentage of the total Guanaco population is

under such management (Lichtenstein 2013). The effects of sustained-fibre utilization are being

assessed and monitored, especially where Guanacos are concentrated in scattered high-density

populations (Ovejero et al. 2013, Carmanchahi et al. 2015). To encourage the marketing of Guanaco

products, Argentina is developing and promoting Guanaco yarn and thread.

Guanacos have been legally hunted in Chile since 2003, with pressure for similar management in the

Argentinean Patagonia in order to reduce density and conflicts with livestock production and forestry.

However, a recent study revealed that hunting adult Guanacos by itself does not reduce browsing

damage to Nothofagus regeneration in Tierra del Fuego, Chile (Martinez-Pastur et al. 2016). Still,

government sanctioned and organized harvesting of Guanacos has resulted in the exportation of meat,

contributed to the value of the species, and begun to reduce traditional conflict with sheep ranchers

and foresters.

Previously Published Red List Assessments

2008 – Least Concern (LC) – http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T11186A3260654.en

1996 – Lower Risk/least concern (LR/lc)

Geographic Range

Range Description:

The Guanaco is a widespread species with an extensive, although discontinuous, range from the

northern Peru (8°30’ S) to Navarino Island (55°S) in southern Chile, from the Pacific Ocean in the

northwest to the Atlantic Ocean in the southeast, and from the sea level to 5,000 meters elevation in

the Andean Mountains (Franklin 1982, González et al. 2006, González in prep.).

However, its distribution has been severely impacted by human beings. Constant hunting, human

occupation and fragmentation of habitat, competition with livestock, and the installation of fences

(Torres 1992, Franklin et al. 1997, González et al. 2006) have reduced the Guanaco’s distribution to only

26% of its original distribution (calculated by Ceballos and Ehrlich 2002, based upon Franklin 1982).

Clearly numerous local populations have become extirpated generating a distribution highly fragmented

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

in many regions (Housse 1930, MacDonagh 1949, Mann et al. 1953, Cunazza et al. 1995, Torres 1992,

González et al. 2006, Baigún et al. 2007).

In Peru the northernmost population of Guanacos in South America occurs at 8°30'S (Franklin 1975,

Linares et al. 2010) in the Calipuy National Reserve in the La Libertad Department. To the south,

populations reach the Salinas Aguada Blanca National Reserve in the departments of Arequipa and

Moquegua (16°10'S), and a Guanaco population has been recorded in the Nevado Salcantay area in the

Anta District (Wheeler 2006, Veliz and Hoces 2007).

In Bolivia, a relict population of Guanaco persists in the Chaco region (Cuéllar and Fuentes 2000) and

recent sightings have been reported in the southern highlands between Potosi and Chuquisaca (Nuñez

2008). Although Pinaya (1990) reported the presence of Guanacos in southeastern Tarija, these records

are in need of confirmation.

In Paraguay, a small relict population has been reported in the northwestern Chaco (Villalba 2004).

In Chile Guanacos occur from near Putre village at the northern border with Peru to Navarino Island in

the far southern Fueguian zone (González et al. 2013). The largest Guanaco populations in Chile are

concentrated in the Magallanes and Aysén regions in the far south. In the remainder of the country,

small and fragmented Guanaco populations occur in the Andean foothills of the extreme north,

scattered small pockets along the coast, the north-central zone in the lower Andes, and central Chile

exclusively in the Andes (González 2010a, González et al. 2013).

In Argentina most of the world’s remaining Guanacos are found. Although its range covers nearly all of

the Argentine Patagonia, Guanaco populations appear to be more scattered towards the northern

provinces of the country (Chubut, Río Negro, Neuquén, and Mendoza) compared to the southern region

(Santa Cruz and Tierra del Fuego; Baigun et al. 2007, Wildlife Conservation Society 2012). Throughout

northern Patagonia, distribution is highly fragmented in relict populations in the La Pampa and

southwestern Buenos Aires Provinces. In central and northern Argentina, Guanaco distribution is

restricted to the western half of the country along the pre-Andean and Andean mountains up to the

border with Bolivia (Baigún et al. 2007). Recently a relict population has been reported in the arid Chaco

of northwestern Córdoba (Schneider et al. unpublished data) and in Córdoba Guanacos have been

reintroduced (Barri and Cufré 2014).

Country Occurrence:

Native: Argentina; Bolivia, Plurinational States of; Chile; Paraguay; Peru

Introduced: Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

Distribution Map

Lama guanicoe

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

Population

It is estimated that Guanaco abundance has been reduced to only 3-7% of their original numbers when

Europeans arrived to South America and the total Guanaco population was between 30-50 million

animals (Raedeke 1979). Today, the total continental population of Guanacos is between 1,500,000-

2,200,000 with the estimated number of adults between 1,000,000-1,500,000 (calculated from life-

tables of Raedeke 1979; Fritz and Franklin 1994), two to three times greater than previously assessed

(Baldi et al. 2008). That number would be reduced if effective population size (Ne) is applied (Sarno et al.

2015). Some 81-86% of the Guanaco population is found in Argentina followed by Chile at 14-18%. The

total numbers in Peru, Bolivia, and Paraguay are less than 1% of the total. Differences in survey

methodologies and effort across such a vast area make it necessary to be cautious about population

numbers and should be taken only as references. Specifically, what is needed is a more reliable estimate

for the entire Argentine Patagonia (Schroeder et al. 2014, Travaini et al. 2015). For Chile the total

estimate is rather speculative as these numbers come from scattered information instead of planned

surveys. More accurate surveys will hopefully come from new methods applicable for population

estimation designed for large areas (González 2010a) or application of standard methodologies at broad

scale (Soto 2010). For Peru, Bolivia and Paraguay, most assessments have been based mainly on animal

counts because of the large and remote areas involved, possibly underestimating total population size.

Although Guanaco distribution in the Argentine Patagonia is rather continuous, densities are typically

low (<5 Guanacos/km2) and even very low in many parts of Chubut, Rio Negro and Neuquén Provinces

(<2 Guanacos/km2). High-density populations are actually scarce in the Patagonia of Argentina (Baldi et

al. 2001, 2010; Novaro et al. 2007; Puig et al. 1997, 2003). A recent estimate for Patagonia was reported

by Gavuzzo et al. (2015) applying aerial censuses techniques, but the numbers must be used for

reference because of problematic assumptions, and used with caution if management decisions are at

the local level (Schiavini and Rey 2015). Nevertheless, aerial surveys can agree with population

estimation by modelling, for example those from the Santa Cruz Province (Travaini et al. 2015). For the

rest of Argentina, population densities are below one Guanaco/km² and highly fragmented (Baigún et al.

2007, Puig and Videla 2007) with some relict populations in La Pampa, Córdoba and Buenos Aires

Provinces (Sosa and Sarasola 2005, Barri and Cufré 2014). Some high-density populations occur in

southern Chile reaching up to 43 Guanacos/km2 at Torres del Paine National Park (Sarno and Franklin

1999), but in the rest of Chile populations are small and widely scattered.

As a general rule, it is recommended to use the distance sampling methods either for ground or aerial

surveys for open and flat environments, as they are based upon more realistic assumptions than total

counts or fixed-width strip transect methods that tend to underestimate population numbers (Buckland

et al. 1993). However, where numbers are very low as in relict populations, total counts or less

systematic methods are appropriate as a first approach. Also, extrapolation of local densities to larger

areas must be cautiously applied according to sampling effort and based upon proper statistical design.

Some large-scale surveys are currently being conducted in Argentinean Patagonia, including modelling

(Schroeder et al. 2014) and aerial surveys using systematic, digital photographs taken along flight

transects. In Chilean mountainous environments survey techniques are in the experimental phase using

Monte-Carlo modelling and geostatistical-based estimates.

Guanaco population:

• Peru: 3,000

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

• Bolivia: 150-200

• Paraguay: 20-100

• Chile: 270,000-299,000

• Argentina: 1,225,000-1,890,000

Total Guanaco population: 1,498,170-2,192,300Trend: Increasing. Although the global population

estimate is higher than previous assessments, current approaches take into account new information

and methods of estimation (Schroeder et al. 2014, Zubillaga et al. 2014, Travaini et al. 2015). Under-

estimates and over-estimates have occurred in the past because of incomplete and inaccurate

population-survey methodologies, especially in low population densities over the vast areas involved.

Also, some large areas previously unknown have been recently surveyed. At the same time, high-

numbered populations in the Argentine and Chilean Patagonia have experienced significant growth in

the past number of years (Zubillaga et al. 2014). However, caution should be noted that although

numbers have seemingly increased in the far southern cone of South America, in the balance of the

Guanaco’s distribution, populations are small and in real decline or at best tenuously stable, such as in

Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, northern Chile, and Nnrthern Argentina (Wildlife Conservation Society 2012).

Current Population Trend:ÊÊIncreasing

Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)

The Guanaco is a wild ungulate found from sea level to over 5,000 meters elevation (González et al.

2006, González in prep.). At the continental and country levels, climate has mainly driven distributional

range of the species (González et al. 2013). Guanaco habitat is characterized by highly seasonal climates,

dry winters or snow covered, cold temperatures including below zero, winds from moderate to high

intensity and low precipitation combined with high evapotranspiration create arid conditions that in

general result in low plant productivity (Franklin, 1982, 1983; Wheeler 1995). In the sub-region of

Patagonia (Hershkovitz 1972) Guanacos inhabit four of the ten major environments described for South

America (González et al. 2006): 1) Desert and Xeric Shrublands, 2) Montane Grasslands, 3) Grasslands,

Savannas and Shrublands, and 4) Temperate Forests (Dinerstein et al. 1995). Phytogeographically,

Guanacos inhabit the provinces of the Monte and Patagonia, arid and semi-arid shrublands, and

grasslands comprising around 1,000,000 km² (Wildlife Conservation Society 2012). On a smaller scale,

the presence or absence of this species can be explained by altitude, vegetation, topography, and the

occurrence of livestock (Travaini et al. 2007, Acebes et al. 2010, Iranzo et al. 2013, González et al. 2013).

Both migratory and sedentary populations exist across the Guanaco range. Migration is mainly driven by

winter forage supply and snow depth as observed for Andean and some Patagonian population before

and after the reproductive season (Ortega and Franklin 1995). A minimal annual home range reported

for the species is 2-9 km2 in sedentary animals (Marino and Baldi 2008), whereas in migratory

populations they can reach up to 900 km2 in the Andes (González et al. 2008) and around 40 km2 in

Tierra del Fuego during winter (Moraga et al. 2015).

The Guanaco’s primary natural predator is the Puma (Puma concolor; Franklin et al. 1999) and

secondarily the Andean Fox (Lycalopex culpaeus; Novaro et al. 2009). Its distribution overlaps

marginally with other native ungulates such as Huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus) in Patagonia, Taruka

(Hippocamelus anticensis) in mountains of the central Andes, and the Vicuña (Vicugna vicugna) in some

parts of the altiplano (Luccherini 1996, Díaz and Smith-Flueck 2000, Rundel and Palma 2000).

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

Adult Guanacos weigh 80-120 kg (Wheeler 1995, González et al. 2006) and their breeding system is

based upon resource defence polygyny, i.e. an adult male defends a territory where birthing and mating

occur and a group of females and their offspring (chulengos) feed freely from the intrusion of other

males (Franklin 1982, 1983). The Family Group is the basic social unit that occupies a Feeding Territory

defended by the resident adult male. Other units found during the reproductive season, include Solo

Males that defends a territory without females, and non-territorial Male Groups composed of males of

various ages (Franklin 2011). In migratory populations outside the reproductive season, large Mixed

Groups can be observed composed of both sexes of all ages (Ortega and Franklin 1995).

Vigilance and foraging accounted for almost 90% of the diurnal time budget for male and female

Guanacos in Family Groups, where animals benefited from living in groups as individual foraging time

increased with group size, as well as, collective vigilance against predators (Marino and Baldi 2008).

Territoriality apparently limits population density, reaching lower K (equilibrium density) when

contrasted with models based on individual forage intake (Marino et al. 2015). Empirical field data has

also shown that Family Group size is positively correlated with forage production within Feeding

Territories (Franklin et al. in press).

Guanacos are generalist herbivores of intermediate selectivity, i.e. their diets include large proportions

of both grasses and shrubs (Raedeke and Simmoneti 1988; Fraser 1998; Puig et al. 1997, 2011, 2014;

Baldi et al. 2004). Domestic sheep was the main ungulate introduced across the Guanaco’s range,

reaching 22 million within 50 years after its introduction in the Argentine Patagonia in the late 1800s.

Guanacos and sheep largely overlap in their forage preferences as much as 80% in some areas (Puig et

al. 2001). Although both species can include some 100 plant species in their diets, only 17 species make

up 80% of the diets, and in Patagonia two grass species represent 40% for both Guanaco and sheep

diets (Baldi et al. 2004). Other introduced ungulates found in Guanaco habitat are goats, cattle, donkeys,

and horses, but few studies have assessed their diet overlap with the Guanaco. A preliminary study in

the Bolivian Chaco showed that the Guanaco is a generalist feeder, responding to the seasonal

availability of fruits, flowers and leaves, including a variety of cacti (Cuéllar, unpublished data). In that

same region Guanacos mainly compete for forage and spatial resources with cattle and horses.

Competition with livestock, hunting, and habitat modification has often resulted in Guanacos occupying

marginal, low quality lands in terms of vegetation cover and the availability of preferred plant species

caused by sheep monopolizing the most productive areas (Baldi et al. 2001, Iranzo et al. 2013). A spatial

segregation has been found in northern Chile between Guanacos and Donkeys Equus asinus (Malo et al.

2016).

Systems:ÊÊTerrestrial

Use and Trade

The call for the management and wise use of Guanaco products (fine undercoat/fiber and meat) put

forth over the past several decades as an alternative approach to traditional conservation and strict

protection (Franklin and Fritz 1991, Franklin et al. 1997) is now in the pioneering stages trying to

establish itself as a wildlife production system (Hudson 1989). Research and application of meat harvest

programs have been conducted on Tierra del Fuego, Chile, after monitoring population (Skewes et al.

1999, Skewes et al. 2000, Soto 2010). Nearly 23,000 animals have been harvested for meat between

2003 and 2015 in Chilean Tierra del Fuego with products primarily exported or used in the local market

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

(N. Soto, pers. com. 2016). Fiber utilization was achieved initially from Guanaco farm individuals

captured in the wild as newborns and raised in captivity during the 1980s and 1990s (Bas and González

et al. 2000), but this approach has largely been discontinued because of high husbandry costs and world

instability in the specialty-fiber market. Another approach, as mentioned above, holds more long-term

promise from capturing, shearing and releasing of individuals in wild populations in programs being

developed in Argentina. Finally, non-consumptive use, such as tourism, has also helped promote the

aesthetic value of the species, especially in wild protected areas (Franklin et al. 1997).

A major management program funded by the government is currently being developed in the Patagonia

of Argentina for fine-fiber utilization of wild-live captured animals on protected areas. This type of

management was at its height during the last decade between 2004-2008 when some 11,000 Guanacos

were shorn (Baldi et al. 2010, Lichtenstein 2013). Since then the number of animals has decreased due

to international price variations for crude fiber. As a result, there has been a strong incentive to generate

Guanaco fiber products as the local level, including yarn and thread (Lichtenstein pers. comm.).

Ecosystem Services and Values

The importance of the Guanaco is based upon a multiple set of values (González 2010b). The most basic

is its ecocentric or intrinsic value, that is, as a species its right to live, to exist, independent of the

importance of the species to humans. This is an ethical base tangentially related to different groups and

non-government organizations within the protective laws of each country.

There are a myriad of anthropocentric values that refer to the importance of a species to humans. The

species provides multiple benefits to society, or ecosystem services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

2005) that are imparted to different segments of human society (Ojasti 2000). Guanacos provide

regulating, supporting, provisioning and cultural services at different time and space scales. The benefits

of the Guanaco to humans can be assessed by a number of values:

• Existence Value that can be achieved through investment or payment to insure the existence of

Guanaco populations without assumptions for its later use, is still in the beginning stages for this

species. Nevertheless, the work of private organizations like Wildlife Foundation, Patagonia

Conservation, and the Wildlife Conservation Society have indirectly assured the Guanaco’s future by

acquiring large-land holdings for the conservation of ecosystems that include the species.

• Evolutionary Value, through the Guanaco’s heritage of nearly 40 million years of evolution from its

ancestors in North American (Franklin 1982, in press) and its anatomical and physiological adaptations

(González et al. 2006), its adaptiveness has enabled the species to become the dominate-wild mammal

in Patagonia and parts of the Andean mountains of South America (Franklin 2011). This value is

important when management is planned and its use is assessed, especially when contrasted with

introduced-exotic animals.

• Ecological Value, the Guanaco has a major role and broad component in the trophic and ecological

network of the South American Andean, Patagonia, and aridland ecosystems. It has been observed that

in the absence of this large herbivore, the Puma will consume other prey that are of importance to

humans, namely domestic sheep (Novaro et al. 2000, Laguna et al. 2015). The Guanaco modifies plant

growth in such a way that reduces dry matter prone to fire (Fuentes and Muñoz 1995) and disseminates

seeds through the use of dung piles that promotes the recycling of nutrients and colonization of

degraded soils (Cortés et al. 2003, Henríquez 2004, Cavieres and Fajardo 2005). In addition, the padded

feet of Guanacos do far less damage to soft soils compared to cloven hoofed livestock (König et al. 2003,

König et al. 2015). They are also an important prey of predators and their remains are significant to

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

scavenging animals, all of which contribute to ecosystem health and cycles.

• Productive Value, applies to a number managed Guanaco populations for the important production of

fibre (hair) and meat (see section on Use and Trade). Guanaco fibre is extremely fine (14-16 microns)

and potentially economically valuable, as currently being obtained from live capture and release

programs in the Patagonia of Argentina. Also, the value of its meat is being harvested from populations

in Tierra del Fuego, Chile.

• Ethnic Value of the Guanaco is high as an invaluable species that has permitted the existence of

humans in a variety of remote and dry environments of South America (Franklin 1982). All indigenous

cultures associated with the deserts, Andean mountains, and the Patagonian and Fuegian zones utilized

the Guanaco, and in some cases depended upon the species for food, clothing, shelter, and artistic and

spiritual inspiration (Miller 1982). Its ethnic value was paramount, thanks to the process of

domestication in the Central Andes, in the creation of the domestic Llama (Wheeler 1995). The Guanaco

has also been seen to have local aesthetic value (Barkmann et al. 2005, Cerda et al. 2014).

• Conservation Value of the Guanaco has been successfully used as an indicator, sentry, flag, and

charismatic species (Noss 1990) in several parts of its distribution (Chehebar et al. 2013). It has also

been used to justify the creation of wild areas and for environmental variations as a “sensitive species”

for monitoring changes in land use (González et al. 2008).

• Restoration Value is the examination of costs for preventing the Guanaco’s disappearance and/or the

costs of re-establishing extirpated populations, as was the case in Argentina (Barri and Cufré 2014).

• Option Value is the costs of determining the attitudes of people or society to pay for Guanaco

conservation as a potential resource for future use, of which, has not yet been assessed.

• Recreational-Tourism Value, whereas the Guanaco is an animal of large-showy size in open

ecosystems, with its gregarious habits, tolerance and habituation to people when not under persecution

makes the species an important attraction for tourists who visit wild-protected national parks and

refuges (Franklin et al. 1997, Cerda and De la Maza 2015).

• Historic Value, for having been recognized in stories of early arriving Europeans, historians, and

naturalists, such as Charles Darwin who was surprised by the large numbers of Guanacos, its habits, and

widespread occurrence across different areas of South America, the species is historically important.

• Artistic and Literary Value, because the Guanaco has been mentioned by historical and contemporary

writers, for example Gabriel Garcia Marquez who at the time of receiving the Nobel prize of Literature in

1982, used the description done by A. Pigaffeta of the Guanaco in 1521 as an example of Magical

Realism. Also, Pablo Neruda in his work “Canto General” (General Song in English) of 1950, dedicated

words to the Guanaco in several of his poems. In addition, the Guanaco has been featured in major

popular magazine articles and a number of television specials and documentaries by Nova, Nature,

Discovery and National Geographic seen by multi-millions of people (see for details

http://www.camelidosgecs.com.ar/pdf/listado_guanaco_2014.pdf).

Threats (see Appendix for additional information)

Guanacos are still numerous and widely distributed but continue their decline initiated in the 19th

century in Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, and major parts of Chile. Over-hunting, range degradation from

livestock overgrazing, and interspecific competition for forage have all played significant and long-time

roles in the demise of Guanacos all across their distributional range (Raedeke 1979; Franklin 1982; Miller

et al. 1983; Cunazza et al. 1995; Cuellar and Fuentes 2000; Puig et al. 2001; Baldi et al. 2001, 2004).

Currently, the main threats are still widespread, but mining and energy projects are also becoming a

factor. Of special concern is the recent and rapid development of unconventional oil and gas exploration

across large areas of the Guanaco’s distribution.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

In Peru Guanacos are seriously affected by poaching and subsistence hunting. Habitat degradation due

to extractive industries and livestock overgrazing has been identified as major threats for the few

remaining subpopulations (Wildlife Conservation Society 2012).

In Bolivia the current major threat is habitat loss due to overgrazing by livestock. Although sport hunting

was halted in 2001 (Cuéllar, unpublished data), poaching is still common.

In Chile and Argentina, recreational hunting and poaching are major threats. In northern Chile at the

local level, feral dogs are reducing Guanaco populations within and outside protected areas, and

hybridism with Llamas is common in areas with low Guanaco densities. Mining and oil extraction along

with photovoltaic and wind parks have expanded with the demand for increased production, resulting in

habitat loss and fragmentation of populations in both countries. In addition, in northern Chile and the

Argentine Patagonia infrastructure development has caused road kills and entrapment within barriers

lining highways causing local isolation and limiting population movements (Rey et al. 2012). Finally, in

Chile and Argentina where numbers have recovered due to government sponsored management

programs and Guanaco populations coexist with ranching and forestry practices, there has been a return

to public resentment towards Guanacos as occurred in historical times. Demonstrated-sustained

programs of Guanacos utilization that benefit the local economy and lower population numbers are

needed if Guanaco are to be maintained.

Health studies conducted in mainland Patagonia have shown that Guanaco populations are relatively

disease-free, but susceptible to common diseases from domestic sheep, cattle, and horses (Karesh et al.

1998, Beldomenico et al. 2003, Uhart et al. unpub. data). Castillo (2006) came to a similar conclusion

based upon studies of parasite load in free ranging Peruvian Guanacos. Recently, scabies has been

reported to affect Guanacos in northern Chile causing mortality in low-density populations. It is also a

common disease in Guanacos inhabiting Tierra del Fuego, Chile (Skewes pers. comm.).

Today the Guanaco occupies only 26% of its original range (calculated by Ceballos and Ehrlich 2002,

based upon Franklin 1982). Specifically, range distribution has been reduced by 58% in Argentina, 75% in

Chile, and over 90% in Perú, Bolivia, and Paraguay (Cunazza et al. 1995, Ceballos and Ehrlich 2002).

Moreover, distribution has become fragmented into smaller, relatively isolated populations. Although

the species is not threatened with demographic extinction at a continental scale, it is predicted that the

northern subspecies L. guanicoe cacsilensis will become extinct in Peru within 30 years if current-

hunting mortality rates are not curtailed (www.conopa.org). Guanacos are ecologically extinct in most of

their remaining range (Novaro et al. 2000), with some southern populations at serious risk of local or

even regional extirpation (Cunazza et al. 1995). Spatial fragmentation in general is a threat to Guanaco

populations (Wildlife Conservation Society 2012). Recent findings suggest that inbreeding or aberrant

mutations may lead to reproductive failure and congenital malformations (Franklin and Grigione 2005,

Zapata et al. 2008, González et al. 2014).

Increasing pressure from private landowners in Patagonian rangelands may result in a threat to the

remaining high-density Guanaco populations if management is not properly planned and implemented.

Live-shearing and subsequent release of wild Guanacos could contribute to their conservation only if the

effects of this activity are properly assessed and management is applied accordingly. If not ecologically

sustainable, the viability of the most important Guanaco populations will be at risk. Careful evaluation of

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

current management practices involving live shearing is currently in progress, but a long-term

assessment is necessary. For Guanaco populations under a hunting strategy of use, information about

habitat preferences, flight distance, individual and population movement, group composition, and the

effect on neighbouring populations are urgently needed for proper assessment of this kind of productive

system.

Land desertification due to overgrazing coupled with more severe and frequent droughts caused by

climate change/variation are potential threats of great concern to Guanaco abundance throughout its

range. Severe droughts can have drastic effects on local Guanaco populations as documented in eastern

Patagonia (Baldi et al. 2010). In addition, models on climate change predict a sharp decrease in rain

precipitation within the next 50 years in arid-southern South America (Nohara et al. 2006). Therefore, it

is crucial to favor the ecological functionality of Guanaco populations through adequate management as

a step to mitigate additional effects of climate change.

Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)

The Guanaco occurs in a number of protected areas and is included in Appendix II of CITES, thus

regulating its international commerce of meat and fine-fiber products to insure that such trade does not

threaten the Guanaco’s survival. In selected areas the sale of Guanaco products in local and

international markets has contributed to its “species value” in recovered populations that can be used

for reducing human-Guanaco conflict with ranchers and forestry production. Precaution needs to keep

in mind for numerically depressed populations where consumptive and commerce use could irreversibly

affect population stability; because of such potential problems, national legislation and international

control via CITIES and other programs are relevant and important.

• Peru. Recent legislation ratifies the alarming status of the Guanaco in Peru classifying it as Critically

Endangered (Ministerio de Agricultura y Riego 2014). Governmental management of populations has

been changed from CONACS (Consejo Nacional de Camélidos Sudamericanos = National Council for

South American Camelids) to SERFOR (Servicio Forestal = Forestry Service) and local communities.

• Bolivia. The government is working with local NGOs and authorities to strengthen the management of

protected areas for the species. The government has issued an official notice to law enforcement offices

in relevant regions concerning the protection of the Guanaco. The main conservation aim has been

achieved thanks to the permanent presence of trained indigenous parabiologists and park rangers in the

remaining range of the species (Cuéllar unpub. data). The situation is similar in Paraguay were the

population is very small and the local NGOs and governmental institutions are working to maintain and

protect the last remaining populations of Guanacos in the country.

• Chile. The species is protected by the National Hunting Law (Ley de Caza) that regulates hunting,

breeding, and in situ use. However, personnel for law enforcement are insufficient. Only 4% of the

country’s Guanaco habitat has effective protection (8,354 km2 in 8 National Parks and 4 Reserves).

Additionally, there are fiscal and private areas where hunting is prohibited, either with relict populations

(7,750 km2) or that directly protect the species (1,212 km2). A National Management Plan does not exist,

but regionally a Conservation Plan has been developed for northern and central Chile (Grimberg 2010).

Finally, Guanacos have been classified as Vulnerable in northern and central Chile and Least Concern in

southernmost Chile by the Environmental Ministry (Ministerio del Medio Ambiente 2012), where the

Guanaco is included in environmental assessment of investment projects such as mining, energy,

infrastructure, and others.

• Argentina. A National Management Plan (Plan Nacional de Manejo del Guanaco, Baldi et al. 2006) was

prepared in 2006 and endorsed by the provinces with the highest Guanaco densities. The plan was

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

coordinated by the Federal Wildlife Agency (Dirección de Fauna Silvestre) involving local institutions

with its main focus on the Patagonia. The Federal Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley Nacional de

Conservación de la Fauna) and various provincial acts provide a legal basis for the protection and use of

the species. In Patagonia, Guanaco conservation measures include sustainable use of the species in the

wild, regulation of hunting, and closing of some access routes and oil trails. Nevertheless, law

enforcement capacity is low since most provinces lack sufficient personnel and equipment to control

vast areas. Protected areas in the Patagonian steppe would encompass 10% of the Guanaco population

if effective, but most protected areas are rather nominal as they contain livestock, lack wildlife guards,

and poaching is common. The percentage of the area under effective protection in the Patagonian

steppe is estimated at a disconcerting level of less than 1% (Walker et al. 2004). In the central provinces

there are eleven protected areas (national, provincial and private). In general, progress has been made

in legislation and management tools, but implementation is needed.

Credits

Assessor(s): Baldi, R.B., Acebes, P., Cuéllar, E., Funes, M., Hoces, D., Puig, S. & Franklin, W.L.

Reviewer(s): González, B.A. & Lichtenstein, G.

Contributor(s): Soto, N., Cerda, C. & Villalba, L.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

Bibliography

Acebes, P., Traba, J., Malo, J.E., Ovejero, R. and Borghi, C.E. 2010. Density and habitat use at different

spatial scales of a guanaco population (Lama guanicoe) in the Monte desert of Argentina. Mammalia

74(1): 57 – 62.

Amaya, J.N., von Thüngen, J. and Delamo, D.A. 2001. Relevamiento y distribución de guanacos en la

patagonia. Informe final. Comunicación Técnica Nº 111. Área Recursos Naturales, EEA-Bariloche/ GTZ.

INTA EEA Bariloche – C.C. Nº 277 (8400), Bariloche, Río Negro, Argentina.

Baigún, R., Bolkovic, M.L., Aued, M B., Li Puma, M.C., Scandalo, R., Nugent, P. and Ramadori D. 2007.

Censo de Camélidos Silvestres al Norte del Río Colorado. Dirección de Fauna Silvestre. Secretaría de

Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Baldi, B., Lichtenstein G., González, B., Funes, M., Cuéllar, E., Villalba, L., Hoces, D. and S. Puig. 2008.

Lama guanicoe. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T11186A3260654.en.

(Accessed: 29 February 2016).

Baldi, R., Albon, S.D. and Elston, D.A. 2001. Guanacos and sheep: evidence for continuing competition in

arid Patagonia. Oecologia 129: 561-570.

Baldi, R., De Lamo, D., Failla, M., Ferrando, P., Funes, M., Nugent, P., Puig, S., Rivero, S. and J. von

Thüngen. 2006. Anexo I: Plan Nacional de Manejo del Guanaco. Dirección de Fauna Silvestre. Secretaría

de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable., Buenos Aires.

Baldi, R., Novaro, A., Funes, M., Walker, S., Ferrando, P., Failla, M. and Carmanchahi, P. In press. Guanaco

management in Patagonian rangelands. In: J. du Toit, R .Kock and J. Deutsch (eds), Conservation Science

and Practice: Conserving Rangelands, Blackwell Publishing.

Baldi, R., Pelliza-Sbriller, A., Elston, D. and Albon, S. D. 2004. High potential for competition between

guanacos and sheep in Patagonia. Journal of Wildlife Management 68(4): 924-938.

Bas, F., and González, B. 2000. Current advances in research and management of the guanaco (Lama

guanicoe) in Chile. Ciencia e Investigación Agraria 27(1): 51-65.

Beldoménico, P.M., Uhart, M., Bono, M.F., Marull, C, Baldi, R. and Peralta, J.L. 2003. Internal parasites of

free-ranging guanacos from Patagonia. Veterinary Parasitology 118: 71-77.

Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R. Burnham, K.P. and Laake, J.L. 1993. Distance Sampling: Estimating

Abundance of Biological Populations. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.

Carmanchahi, P.D., Schroeder, N.M., Bolgeri, M.J., Walker, R.S., Funes, M., Berg, J., Taraborelli, P.,

Ovejero, R., Gregorio, P., Moreno., P. and Novaro, A.J. 2015. Effects of live-shearing on population

parameters and movement in sedentary and migratory populations of guanacos Lama guanicoe. Oryx

49: 51-59.

Castillo, V.H. 2006. Contribución al estudio del parasitismo gastrointestinal en guanacos (Lama guanicoe

cacsilensis) silvestres del Perú. Resúmenes y Trabajos del IV Congreso Mundial sobre Camélidos.

Cavieres, L.A. and Fajardo, A. 2005. Browsing by guanaco (Lama guanicoe) on Nothofagus pumilio forest

gaps in Tierra del Fuego, Chile. Forest Ecology and Management 204: 237-248.

Ceballos, G. and Ehrlich, P.R. 2002. Mammal population losses and the extinction crisis. Science

296(5569): 904-907.

Cerda, C. and De La Maza, C.L. 2015. Evaluación de Servicios Ecosistémicos proporcionados por Áreas

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

Protegidas, Aproximaciones a Áreas Protegidas Chilenas. CFCN, MINAGRI, CONAF.

Cerda, C., Barkmann, J and Marggraf, R. 2014. Non-market economic valuation of the benefits provided

by temperate ecosystems at the extreme south of the Americas. Regional Environmental Change 14:

1517-1531.

Chehebar,C., Novaro, A., Iglesias, G., Walker, S., Funes, M., Tammone, M. and K. Didier. 2013.

Identificación de áreas de importancia para la biodiversidad en la estepa y el monte de Patagonia.

Administración de Parques Nacionales, Wildlife Conservation Society and The Nature Conservancy. 112

pp.

Cortés, A., Miranda, E., Rau, J.R. and Jiménez, J.E. 2003. Feeding habits of guanacos Lama guanicoe in

the high Andes of north-central Chile. Acta Theriologica 48: 229-237.

Cuéllar, E. and Fuentes, A. 2000. Censo aéreo de guanacos Lama guanicoe en el Chaco cruceño. Revista

Boliviana de Ecología y Conservación Ambiental 8: 83-90.

Cuéllar, E., Noss, A. and Cuéllar, R. L. 2001. Imminent Infamy? Wildlife Conservation Magazine, USA.

Cunazza, C., Puig, S. and Villalba, L. 1995. Situación actual del guanaco y su ambiente. In: S. Puig (ed.),

Técnicas para el Manejo del Guanaco. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Franklin, W.L. 1982. Biology, ecology, and relationship to man of the South American camelids. In: M.

Mares and H. Genoways (eds), Mammalian biology in Soth America. Special publication series

Pymatuning laboratory of ecology, pp. 457-489. University of Pittsburgh.

Franklin, W.L. 1983. Contrasting socioecologies of South America’s wild camelids: The vicuña and the

guanaco. In: J.F. Eisemberg and D.G Kleiman (eds), Advances in the Study of Mammalian Behavior, pp.

573-629. The American Society of Mammalogists.

Franklin, W. L. and Grigione, M. M. 2005. The enigma of guanacos in the Falkland Islands: the legacy of

John Hamilton. Journal of Biogeography 32: 661-675.

Franklin, W. L, Bas F., Bonacic, C. F., Cunazza, C. and Soto, N. 1997. Striving to manage Patagonia

guanacos for sustained use in the grazing agroecosystems of southern Chile. Wildlife Society Bulletin

25(1): 65-73.

Fraser, M.D. 1998. Diet composition of guanacos (Lama guanicoe) and sheep (Ovis aries) grazing in

grasslands communities typical of UK uplands. Small Ruminant Research 29: 201-212.

González, B.A., Palma, R.E., Zapata, B. and Marín, J. C. 2006. Taxonomic and biogeographical status of

guanaco Lama guanicoe (Artiodactyla, Camelidae). Mammal Review 36(2): 157-178.

IUCN. 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-1. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org.

(Accessed: 30 June 2016).

Kadwell, M., Fernandez, M., Stanley, H., Baldi, R., Wheeler, J. C., Rosadio, R. and Bruford, M. 2001.

Genetic analysis reveals the wild ancestors of the llama and alpaca. Proceedings of the Royal Society of

London B Biological Sciences 268: 2575-2584.

Karesh, W., Uhart, M., Dierenfeld, E., Braselton, W., Torres, A., House, C., Puche, H. and Cook, R. 1998.

Health evaluation of free-ranging guanaco (Lama guanicoe). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 29:

134–141.

Krumbiegel, I. 1944. Die neuweltlichen Tylopoden. Zoologischer Anzeiger 145: 45–70.

Laguna, M.F., Abramson, G., Kuperman, M.N, Lanata, J.L. and Monjeau, J.A. 2015. Mathematical model

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

of livestock and wildlife: Predation and competition under environmental disturbances. Ecological

Modelling 309-310: 110-117.

Lichtenstein, G. 2013. Guanaco Management in Argentina: Taking a Commons Perspective. Journal of

Latin American Geography 12(1): 187-213.

Lichtenstein, G. and Carmanchahi, P.D. 2012. Guanaco management by pastoralists in the Southern

Andes. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice 2: 16.

Lönnberg, E. 1913. Notes on guanacos.

Luccherini, M. 1996. Group size, spatial segregation and activity of sympatric vicuñas Vicugna vicugna

and guanacos Lama guanicoe. Small Ruminant Research 20: 193-198.

Marín, J.C., Spotorno, A. and Wheeler, J. 2006. Sistemática molecular y filogeografía de camélidos

Sudamericanos: implicancias para su conservacion y manejo. In: B. Vilá (ed.), Investigacion, conservacion

y manejo de vicuñas, pp. 85–100. Proyecto MACS Manejo Sostenible de Camélidos, Buenos Aires,

Argentina.

Marín J.C., Spotorno, A.E., González, B.A., Bonacic, C., Wheeler, J. C., Casey, C.S., Bruford, M.W., Palma,

R.E. and Poulin, E. 2008. Mitochondrial DNA variation and systematics of the guanaco (Lama guanicoe,

ARTIODACTYLA: CAMELIDAE). Journal of Mammalogy 89(2): 172-184.

Marino, A. and Baldi, R. 2008. Vigilance patterns of territorial guanacos (Lama guanicoe): the role of

reproductive interests and predation risk.

Miller, S.D., Rottmann, J., Raedeke, K.J. and Taber, R.D. 1983. Endangered mammals of Chile: status and

conservation. Biological Conservation 25: 335-352.

Molina, G.I. 1782. Saggio Sulla Storia Naturale del Chili. Tomasso d’Aquino, Bologna, Italy.

Müller, P.L.S. 1776. Erste Classe, Säugende Thiere. Des Ritters Carl von Linné vollständiges Naturalsystem

nach der zwölften Lateinischen Ausgabe, 1773–1776 36: 1–62.

Nohara, D., Kitoh, A., Osaka, M. and Oki, T. 2006. Impact of climate change on river discharge projected

by multimodel ensemble. Journal of Hydrometeorology 7: 1076-1089.

Novaro, A. J., Funes, M. C. and Walker, R. S. 2000. Ecological extinction of native prey of a carnivore

assemblage in Argentine Patagonia. Biological Conservation 92: 25-33.

Novaro, A., Walker, S., Funes, M., Radovani, N., Bolgeri, M., Puig, S. and Videla, F. 2007. Estrategia de

conservación de guanacos en Patagonia norte, basada en la conectividad del paisaje. III. Reunión

Binacional de Ecologia, La Serena, Chile.

Pinaya, I. 1990. Informe inspección ocular proyecto de Decreto Supremo, creación Reserva Biológica

Cordillera de Sama. DVSPN y C. CDF, M.A.C.A. Marzo de 1990.

Puig, S. 1995. Abundancia y distribución de las poblaciones de guanacos. In: S. Puig (ed.), Técnicas para

el Manejo del Guanaco, pp. 57-70. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Puig, S. and Videla, F. 2007. Distribución, densidades y estado de conservación de los camélidos. In: E.

Martínez Carretero (ed.), Diversidad Biológica y Cultural de los Altos Andes Centrales de Argentina. Línea

de Base de la Reserva de Biósfera San Guillermo, pp. 199-223. Univ Nac San Juan, San Juan.

Puig, S., Ferraris, G., Superina, M. and Videla, F. 2003. Distribución de densidades de guanacos (Lama

guanicoe) en el norte de la Reserva La Payunia y su área de influencia (Mendoza, Argentina). Multequina

(Latin American Journal of Natural Resources) 12: 37-48.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

Puig S., Videla, F. and Cona, M. 1997. Diet and abundance of the guanaco (Lama guanicoe Müller 1776)

in four habitats of Northern Patagonia, Argentina. Journal of Arid Environments 36: 343-357.

Puig, S., Videla, F., Cona, M.I. and Monge, A. 2001. Use of food availability by guanacos (Lama guanicoe)

and livestock in northern Patagonia (Mendoza, Argentina). Journal of Arid Environments 47: 291-308.

Raedeke, K. and Simonetti, J. 1988. Food habits of Lama guanicoe in Atacama desert of northern Chile.

Journal of Mammalogy 69: 198–201.

Raedeke, K.J. 1979. Population dynamics and socioecology of the guanaco (Lama guanicoe) of

Magallanes, Chile. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Washington.

Sarno, R. and Franklin, W.L. 1999. Population density and annual variation in birth mass of guanacos in

southern Chile. Journal of Mammalogy 80: 1158-1162.

South American Camelid Specialist Group/Grupo Especialista en Camélidos Sudamericanos. Available at:

http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/sgs/gecs.

Torres, H. 1992. South American Camelids: An Action Plan for their Conservation. IUCN/SSC South

American Camelids Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland.

Véliz, C. and Hoces, D. 2007. Distribución potencial del guanaco y de la vicuña en el Perú. XII Reunión del

Seminario Permanente de investigación Agraria SEPIA. Tarapoto, Perú.

Villalba, L. 2004. Monitoreo de la población de Lama guanicoe voglii. Technical Report. DesdelChaco

Foundation, Loma Plata, Paraguay.

Villalba, L. 2008. Informe Proyecto Guanacos. DesdelChaco Foundation, Loma Plata, Paraguay.

Walker, S., Novaro, A., Funes, M., Baldi, R., Chehebar, C., Ramilo, E., Ayesa, J., Bran, D., Vila, A. and

Bonino, N. 2004. Rewilding Patagonia. Wild Earth 15: 32-37.

Wheeler, J.C. 1995. Evolution and Present Situation of the South-American Camelidae. Biological Journal

of the Linnean Society 52: 271–295.

Wheeler, J.C. 2006. Guanaco 1: Working to Save Peru’s Endangered Guanacos. Camelid Quarterly 5(1):

39-42.

Zapata, B., González, B.A., Marin, J.C., Cabello, J.L., Johnson, W. and Skewes, O. 2008. Finding of

polydactyly in a free-ranging guanaco (Lama guanicoe). Small Ruminant Research 76: 220-222.

Citation

Baldi, R.B., Acebes, P., Cuéllar, E., Funes, M., Hoces, D., Puig, S. & Franklin, W.L. 2016. Lama guanicoe.

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T11186A18540211.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

Disclaimer

To make use of this information, please check the Terms of Use.

External Resources

For Images and External Links to Additional Information, please see the Red List website.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

Appendix

Habitats

(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)

Habitat Season Suitability Major

Importance?

3. Shrubland -> 3.5. Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry - Suitable Yes

3. Shrubland -> 3.7. Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical High Altitude - Suitable Yes

4. Grassland -> 4.5. Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry - Marginal -

4. Grassland -> 4.7. Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical High Altitude - Suitable Yes

Threats

(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)

Threat Timing Scope Severity Impact Score

10. Geological events -> 10.1. Volcanoes Past,

unlikely to

return

- - -

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion

1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.1.

Housing & urban areas

Ongoing - - -

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion

1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.2.

Droughts

Ongoing - - -

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.3.

Temperature extremes

Ongoing - - -

Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.4. Storms

& flooding

Ongoing - - -

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual &

perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.2. Small-holder

farming

Ongoing - - -

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion

1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual &

perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.3. Agro-industry

farming

Ongoing - - -

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion

1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming

& ranching -> 2.3.1. Nomadic grazing

Ongoing - - -

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion

1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming

& ranching -> 2.3.2. Small-holder grazing, ranching or

farming

Ongoing - - -

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion

1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming

& ranching -> 2.3.3. Agro-industry grazing, ranching

or farming

Ongoing - - -

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion

1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

3. Energy production & mining -> 3.2. Mining &

quarrying

Ongoing - - -

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion

1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

4. Transportation & service corridors -> 4.1. Roads &

railroads

Ongoing - - -

Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping

terrestrial animals -> 5.1.1. Intentional use (species is

the target)

Ongoing - - -

Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping

terrestrial animals -> 5.1.2. Unintentional effects

(species is not the target)

Ongoing - - -

Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping

terrestrial animals -> 5.1.3. Persecution/control

Ongoing - - -

Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

6. Human intrusions & disturbance -> 6.1.

Recreational activities

Ongoing - - -

Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance

6. Human intrusions & disturbance -> 6.3. Work &

other activities

Ongoing - - -

Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance

7. Natural system modifications -> 7.1. Fire & fire

suppression -> 7.1.3. Trend Unknown/Unrecorded

Ongoing - - -

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

7. Natural system modifications -> 7.2. Dams & water

management/use -> 7.2.11. Dams (size unknown)

Ongoing - - -

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion

1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

7. Natural system modifications -> 7.3. Other

ecosystem modifications

Ongoing - - -

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes &

diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien

species/diseases -> 8.1.1. Unspecified species

Ongoing - - -

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes &

diseases -> 8.2. Problematic native species/diseases

-> 8.2.1. Unspecified species

Ongoing - - -

Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

Conservation Actions in Place

(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)

Conservation Actions in Place

In-Place Research, Monitoring and Planning

Action Recovery plan: Yes

Systematic monitoring scheme: No

In-Place Land/Water Protection and Management

Conservation sites identified: Yes, over entire range

Occur in at least one PA: Yes

Percentage of population protected by PAs (0-100): 11-20

Area based regional management plan: No

Invasive species control or prevention: No

In-Place Species Management

Harvest management plan: Yes

Successfully reintroduced or introduced beningly: Yes

Subject to ex-situ conservation: No

In-Place Education

Subject to recent education and awareness programmes: Yes

Included in international legislation: Yes

Subject to any international management/trade controls: Yes

Conservation Actions Needed

(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)

Conservation Actions Needed

1. Land/water protection -> 1.1. Site/area protection

1. Land/water protection -> 1.2. Resource & habitat protection

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

Conservation Actions Needed

2. Land/water management -> 2.1. Site/area management

2. Land/water management -> 2.3. Habitat & natural process restoration

3. Species management -> 3.1. Species management -> 3.1.1. Harvest management

3. Species management -> 3.1. Species management -> 3.1.2. Trade management

3. Species management -> 3.2. Species recovery

4. Education & awareness -> 4.1. Formal education

4. Education & awareness -> 4.2. Training

4. Education & awareness -> 4.3. Awareness & communications

5. Law & policy -> 5.1. Legislation -> 5.1.3. Sub-national level

5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.2. National level

5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.3. Sub-national level

Research Needed

(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)

Research Needed

1. Research -> 1.2. Population size, distribution & trends

1. Research -> 1.3. Life history & ecology

1. Research -> 1.5. Threats

1. Research -> 1.6. Actions

2. Conservation Planning -> 2.1. Species Action/Recovery Plan

3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends

Additional Data Fields

Distribution

Estimated area of occupancy (AOO) (km²): 1000000

Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO): No

Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO): No

Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) (km²): 1000000

Continuing decline in extent of occurrence (EOO): No

Extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence (EOO): No

Number of Locations: 40

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

Distribution

Continuing decline in number of locations: No

Extreme fluctuations in the number of locations: No

Lower elevation limit (m): 0

Upper elevation limit (m): 5000

Population

Number of mature individuals: 1000000

Continuing decline of mature individuals: No

Extreme fluctuations: No

Population severely fragmented: Yes

No. of subpopulations: 7

Continuing decline in subpopulations: Yes

Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations: Yes

All individuals in one subpopulation: Yes

Habitats and Ecology

Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat: Yes

Generation Length (years): 4-5

Movement patterns: Altitudinal Migrant

Congregatory: Congregatory (and dispersive)

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™

ISSN 2307-8235 (online)

IUCN 2008: T11186A18540211

The IUCN Red List Partnership

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species

Programme, the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership.

The IUCN Red List Partners are: BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International;

Conservation International; Microsoft; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of

Rome; Texas A&M University; Wildscreen; and Zoological Society of London.

THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T11186A18540211.en

Paleodiet of Lamini camelids (Mammalia: Artiodactyla) from the Pleistocene of southern Brazil: insights from stable isotope analysis (δ 13 C, δ 18 O)

Article

Apr 2022

Camelids (Camelidae) were a diverse and widely distributed group in South America during the Pleistocene. According to the fossil record, three species inhabited southern Brazil in the recent past: Hemiauchenia paradoxa , Lama guanicoe , and Vicugna vicugna . The analysis of carbon and oxygen stable isotope ratios in bioapatite provides insight into the paleobiology of nonliving animals and the environment they used to inhabit. We applied this tool to investigate the diet of camelids from two geological localities in southern Brazil: Touro Passo and Santa Vitória Formations ( H. paradoxa , n = 7; L. guanicoe , n = 6; V. vicugna , n = 4). Carbon stable isotopes from enamel, dentin, and bone indicated that H. paradoxa and L. guanicoe had diets comprising mostly C 3 grasses, but the latter showed a broader diet due to one individual with a mixed diet, whereas V. vicugna had a mixed C 3 –C 4 diet. These different foraging behaviors may have minimized interspecific competition and favored niche partitioning and the coexistence of related species. Combined oxygen and carbon isotope data showed a consistent diet according to climate, probably due to the greater availability in glacial periods of cool-season grasses, which mainly use the C 3 photosynthetic pathway. Given their adaptations to grazing, the climate amelioration, followed by the loss of grasslands, likely had a great impact on camelid populations, leading to their extinction in southern Brazil. These results, therefore, contribute to the understanding of the dynamics of paleocommunities in this region.

Camelid diet through microhistological and palynological analyses of feces and coprolites from Parque Nacional Perito Moreno, Patagonia, Argentina

Article

Oct 2024

Several palynological and microhistological studies have demonstrated the potential of coprolites analyses for understanding paleodiets and paleoenvironmental reconstructions of species of archaeological interest, such as Lama guanicoe (guanaco). The guanaco was the main food resource for hunter-gatherers from Patagonia, and this predator–prey relationship probably influenced their geographical and seasonal distribution during the Holocene. The aim of this study was to identify the food items consumed by camelids inhabiting the Parque Nacional Perito Moreno, Argentina. This study was carried out through the analysis of plant remains and pollen in modern feces and coprolites. The samples were collected from the Alero Destacamento Guardaparque archaeological site. Although plant remains and pollen in the modern feces were well preserved, the coprolites showed signs of poor preservation and exhibited fungal spores in all samples. The food items detected in the modern feces were similar with remains from the middle and late Holocene coprolites. They coincide with the current vegetation of the grass-shrub steppe. Plant species identified in the coprolites included Armeria maritima, Clinopodium darwinii, Colobanthus lycopodioides, Perezia recurvata, Senecio cuneatus, and various species of Poaceae, including Bromus setifolius, Deschampsia antarctica, Festuca pallescens, Nassella tenuis, Pappostipa chrysophylla, P. speciosa, Poa ligularis, and Rytidosperma sp. These results provide information about the diet of L. guanicoe which inhabited the area near the Alero Destacamento Guardaparque site. In addition, new detailed information for the reconstruction of paleoenvironments during the middle and late Holocene in the PNPM was obtained, which is crucial for ecological niche reconstructions.

δ18O variability in guanaco bone bioapatite in Southern Patagonia: Implications for paleoecological and paleoenvironmental studies

Article

May 2024
JASR

The guanaco (Lama guanicoe) is the largest and the most widely distributed ungulate in South America since the Pleistocene and constituted the main prey for hunter-gatherers in Southern Patagonia (Argentina) in the past. An isomorphic relationship has been suggested between the mobility of these animals and that of human groups that inhabited the region, which presents altitudinal differences. On the one hand, we seek to understand the spatial dynamics of guanaco populations and their interaction with hunter-gatherer societies. On the other hand, to evaluate the utility of archaeological herbivores’ values as paleoenvironmental proxies that allow addressing the environmental variations during the Holocene in the region. We present the results of the analysis of δ18O in bioapatite of Lama guanicoe bone specimens from the area located in the central-western area of the province of Santa Cruz, between 70 and 72 degrees west longitude. We analyzed 41 samples. 22 of them correspond to modern individuals, while the remaining 19 were recovered from Holocene archaeological sites. The carbonatephosphate and estimated water equations will be used to compare with pre-existing data of δ18O in the waters of the region. Results showed that the mean value of δ18O of the pooled samples was 􀀀 6.5 ‰ ± 1 ‰. Even though some differences were detected, both, between archaeological vs. modern and between highlands vs. lowlands samples, no statistically significant differences were obtained in either case. In general terms, the data respond to what was expected regarding the complex nature of the water intake behaviors of these animals. The data presented in this paper constitutes a first approximation to the expected values of δ18O for guanacos in the region, its relationship with the hydrological cycle and human populations.

Dietary change of North Patagonian guanacos: A historical ecology perspective through the study of stable isotopes

Article

Feb 2024
HOLOCENE

This paper presents the results of a study on the isotopic ecology of guanacos in central western Argentina. We examine the historical population ecology of guanacos using stable isotope analysis of bone collagen from pre-Hispanic and modern guanaco populations (n = 129), considering variability in two ecoregions: the Monte hot desert and the Andean-Patagonian cold desert. Our study addresses the consistency of guanaco diets over time, evaluating palaeoecology to provide information for conservation of this taxon. We found significant differences in isotopic niche size between modern and archaeological guanacos. When analyzed by ecoregion, there were significant differences in niche size through time, indicating that guanacos had distinctive dietary habits and occupied different ecological niches across the ecoregions. Comparing Standard Ellipse Areas (SEA) through time and across space, we observed that the archaeological SEA for guanacos is smaller than its modern counterpart in the Andean-Patagonia ecoregion. Conversely, in Monte, the archaeological SEA is larger than the one established for modern samples. The contrast between pre-Hispanic and modern populations highlight the impact of human activity and conservation efforts on the distribution and ecology of guanacos. These findings have important implications for understanding guanaco ecology with consequences for conservation policies.

Conflict between Farmers and Guanacos (Lama guanicoe cacsilensis): Field Surveys, Remote Sensing, and Interviews Provide Information for Conservation of a Critically Endangered Species in Southern Peru

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2024

Simple Summary The South American landscape has changed since the Spanish conquest, largely due to the introduction of foreign plants and animals, often at the expense of native species. In the south, Patagonia became a world-class sheep production center, and the native guanaco has almost disappeared. In Peru, guanacos are critically endangered, and an important local increase in their numbers is presently causing a conflict with local farmers in two southern communities. We studied guanaco movements in the area over a year using information from field surveys and remote sensing data from GPS-collared animals. We found that guanaco family groups did not invade agricultural fields, but free-ranging bands of young males and single adults did, perhaps pushed by the greater number of animals and decreased food resources. Information about the losses suffered by the farmers was obtained through interviews. The vast majority felt that guanacos are a problem to be resolved by building better fences, increasing security, or even illegal hunting. Although they are aware that guanacos are protected by law, 92% saw no present or future value in protecting the guanaco. These results show how much research and public education remain to be done to protect the Peruvian guanaco. Abstract The Peruvian guanaco (Lama guanicoe cacsilensis) is classified as being “in critical danger of extinction” by the government. In this study, we evaluate how the conflict between farmers and guanacos in the Susapaya and Estique Districts, Tacna Department (Southern Peru) may represent a threat to their survival. To evaluate the situation, we 1. Conducted field surveys to monitor guanaco presence, 2. Used available remote sensing data to map guanaco movement, and 3. interviewed the impacted farmers concerning their losses. Remote sensing data showed that sedentary guanaco family groups located in prime steppe vegetation habitats never entered agricultural areas, while field surveys showed that bachelor bands and solitary individuals did, perhaps seeking forage due to growing population pressure. Interview data found that 90% of community farmers felt that guanacos were a problem best resolved by better fencing (45%), hunting (19%), or increased security (16%), and 92% saw no value in the conservation of the species. Hunting is illegal, given the critically endangered status of guanacos in Peru, so additional efforts are needed to both educate those who feel guanacos are a menace and involve them in efforts to preserve the species.

Lessons for the Future of Conservation and Sustainable Use of Guanacos

Chapter

Aug 2022

This chapter summarizes some of the key findings with policy impact mentioned in this book and draws lessons and opportunities for the conservation and sustainable use of the guanacos in Patagonia. Social-ecological systems (SES) are those that include social (human) and ecological (biophysical) sub-systems in two-way feedback interactions. In this chapter, we apply the concepts of “coupling” and “decoupling” social-ecological systems to the relationship between guanacos and people along the time. We suggest that the present desertification process is a result of “decoupling”. On the other hand, guanaco sustainable use is a way to recouple social-ecological systems in Patagonia, to restore the cultural heritage of stewardship traditions, and to achieve habitat and species conservation. The experience with the update of the Guanaco Management Plan revealed that guanaco conservation and management requires an integrated approach that includes research across a wide range of academic and applied disciplines for decision-making and strengthening participatory processes involving all relevant stakeholders. Such schemes should have an adaptive management approach and knowledge co-production. We conclude that it is time for policy-makers to start envisaging natural resource use and management holistically in terms of linked social-ecological systems, and to embrace transdisciplinary perspectives.

Historical Perspective and Current Understanding of the Ecology, Conservation, and Management of the Guanaco in the Chilean Patagonia

Chapter

Aug 2022

Following a drastic population decline of guanaco populations throughout the 1970s in Argentina and the Chilean Patagonia, the Chilean government, in collaboration with national and international researchers, accrued increased scientific knowledge of the species. These efforts contributed to meaningful protection and conservation measures, initially in the Magallanes district of Chile, and later throughout the country. Following sustained population growth during the last four decades in the Chilean Patagonia, the guanaco is now managed for meat production in some areas. This has bestowed a value on guanacos that was not originally appreciated by sheep ranchers. These experiences have provided a clearer understanding of the ecological relationships and the economic and social conflicts that exist between the guanaco and the livestock sector under paradigms of sustainable wildlife use and wildlife-human conflicts resolution. Recent research and varied management practices are providing new insights and perspectives, including information that complements the vast biological and ecological data that have been previously published on the guanaco, primarily in Patagonian protected areas. In this chapter we compile, summarize, and analyze previously reported information on the social structure, behavior, population dynamics and genetics that provides a full and nuanced summary of our current understanding of the historical and modern biogeographic status of the guanaco in the Chilean Patagonia.

Taxonomy, Distribution, and Conservation Status of Wild Guanaco Populations

Chapter

Aug 2022

The taxonomy and phylogeny of this species have been the subject of several published studies, including the use of genetic and genomic tools, which has allowed new advances in this topic. This chapter presents a summary of the names by which this species was called by the different cultures that lived in close relationship with the guanaco. Then, aspects related to the guanaco’s taxonomy and phylogeny are discussed based on recently published advances. An update on the present distribution range in South America is given, and an approximation of the conservation status of wild populations is established. Finally, we discuss the main threats and challenges to conserving this unique camelid in Patagonia.

Guanaco colonisation of Tierra del Fuego Island from mainland Patagonia: Walked, swam, or by canoe?

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2022

William L. Frankllin

Addressed here is the biogeographical‐vexing question of why the guanaco (Lama guanicoe) is the only large mammal on the big island of Tierra del Fuego, answered by comparing alternative colonisation hypotheses. A multidisciplinary examination was conducted into the archaeological, ecological, evolutionary, geographical, genomic, glacial and zoological past, plus distribution of native terrestrial vertebrates in the Patagonia of southern South America. Notable disparities exist between main Patagonia (2.5 species/10,000 km2) compared with Tierra del Fuego (1.8). In the similar‐sized area of mainland Patagonia just north of the Strait of Magellan there are 12 reptiles, 7 amphibians and 34 mammals = 53 total species; Tierra del Fuego has 13. Despite being the size of Switzerland and only 3.1 km from the mainland, Tierra del Fuego has no species of snakes, salamanders, frogs or turtles, only one lizard, one toad, nine small mammals, one carnivore and one ungulate, the Guanaco. An innovative proposal is made contrary to traditional thinking: Tierra del Fuego has relatively few native‐terrestrial vertebrates because they were decimated by major tephra‐ash fallout (2 to >15 cm) from the Holocene 7750 YBP (years before present) Hudson volcano, the biggest and most destructive eruption in Patagonia during the past 10,000 years that eradicated indigenous peoples, most terrestrial vertebrates and all Guanacos. Neither terrestrial vertebrates nor man were replenished from the adjacent mainland for 1000 years because the Strait of Magellan was a complete biogeographical barrier. Guanacos on Tierra del Fuego have lower genetic diversity compared with the mainland, suggesting it is a younger population. Empirical evidence and pivotal events of Patagonia's prehistory support one of three hypotheses: guanacos were introduced to Tierra del Fuego by early Holocene, guanaco‐dependent, indigenous peoples from the mainland who repopulated Tierra del Fuego utilising the newly invented, skilfully crafted, seaworthy bark canoe (Appendix S1–Resumen en Español). A geographical and biological puzzle that has perplexed scientists since the late 1800s working in southern South America: why are there so few vertebrates on the island of Tierra del Fuego compared to the adjacent Patagonia mainland, including the absence of the ubiquitous Guanaco (Lama guanicoe), wild camelid of the south? An interdisciplinary search favors the hypothesis that the Guanaco, most other wildlife, and early man were decimated by an early Holocene volcano and not replenished for a 1000 years because of the physical barrier Strait of Magellan. But then with the local invention of the bark canoe, an indigenous stone‐age, hunter‐gather culture not only crossed the Strait and re‐inhabited the island, but introduced their primary game animal, the Guanaco.

Diet of the puma (Puma concolor) in the alpine highlands of the Salinas y Aguada Blanca National Reserve, Peru

Article

Mar 2022

The puma (Puma concolor) is widely distributed in the alpine highlands of the Andes, but its diet has rarely been described in ecosystems above 4300 m. We collected and examined 21 puma scats from the Salinas y Aguada Blanca National Reserve (RNSAB) between 2013 and 2015. We identified 10 species of prey, in addition to unidentified birds and small rodents. Small and medium animals were the most frequent prey, although wild camelids contributed the greatest proportion of biomass. We also recorded the presence of mesopredators and domestic dogs in puma scats. Our results suggest that the puma could play a key role in the configuration of trophic networks in the RNSAB, and that this can contribute considerably to the ecosystem balance.

High potential for competition between guanacos and sheep in Patagonia

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2004

Population Density and Annual Variation in Birth Mass of Guanacos in Southern Chile

Article

Full-text available

Nov 1999

We investigated the influence of population density and meteorological conditions on annual birth mass of guanacos in Torres del Paine National Park, Chile, from 1987 to 1996. Between 1987 and 1990, density of guanacos on the study area nearly tripled from 16 to 43 animals/km2. Mean birth mass was significantly different across years, and there was a strong negative correlation between mean yearly birth mass and population density. There was no correlation between mean yearly birth mass and mean temperature or total precipitation in either winter or spring during this period. Since 1990, density of guanacos has decreased, which we suspect is the result of degraded range conditions, partly due to overgrazing. Population censuses from other sectors of the park and the adjacent sheep ranch revealed increasing numbers of guanacos, and the movement of tagged animals out of the study area into surroundings with lower guanaco density.

Red list of threatened species. Version 2013.2 <www.iucnredlist.org

Article

Jan 2013

I.U.C.N. IUCN

Biology, Ecology, and Relationship to Man of the South American Camelids

Article

Jan 1982

W.L. Franklin

Notes on guanacos

Article

Jan 1913

E. Lönnberg

Abundancia y distribución de las poblaciones de guanacos

Article

Jan 1995

Silvia Puig

Striving to manage Patagonia guanacos for sustained use in the grazing agroecosystems of southern Chile

Article

Mar 1997

Contrasting socioecologies of South America's wild camelids: The vicu??a and the guanaco

Article

Jan 1983

W.L. Franklin

Food Habits of Lama guanicoe in the Atacama Desert of Northern Chile

Article

Feb 1988

Guanaco Management in Argentina: Taking a Commons Perspective

Article

Jan 2013
J Lat Am Geogr

Gabriela Lichtenstein

This paper deals with wildlife as a non-conventional common-pool resource (CPR) in a country, Argentina, which is poorly represented in the commons literature. Many of Argentinás public policies regarding natural resource management reflect the historical denial of indigenous and low-income rural communities by the State and the promotion of private property over common property. This paper discusses the challenges facing live shearing programs for guanaco (Lama guanicoe) in Argentinian Patagonia and the potential for incorporating lessons from the commons in order to promote sustainable use. Resumen: Este trabajo analiza la vida silvestre como un bien común no convencional en Argentina, un país poco representado en la literatura sobre los bienes comunes. Se sugiere que en este país las políticas públicas con respecto al manejo de los recursos naturales reflejan, en general, el relegamiento histórico de las comunidades indígenas y rurales así como la promoción de la propiedad privada sobre la propiedad comunal. El estudio discute los desafíos que presentan las experiencias de esquila de guanacos (Lama guanicoe) en Patagonia y la potencial incorporación de enseñanzas sobre los bienes comunes para promover el uso sustentable de la especie.

Lama guanicoe

Recommended publications

Llama Destroys the World by Jonathan Stutzman

Pedro Páramo y el llano en llamas / Juan Rulfo

Contribución al estudio del parasitismo gastrointestinal en guanacos (Lama guanicoe cacsilensis)

El espacio doméstico como espacio épico en la vida de Miguel de Castro