A forest mineral lick with exposed soil, wet ground, and dense vegetation.

Drivers of geophagy of large-bodied Amazonian herbivorous and frugivorous mammals

Camera traps and soil analyses from 52 mineral licks show that mammals use the same forest resource for different nutritional and ecological reasons.

Forest trails converge on a mineral lick used by several mammal species.

Griffiths, B. M., Hansbrough, G., Griffiths, L. G., Valderrama, D., & Gilmore, M. P.

Scientific Reports · 2024 · DOI 10.1038/s41598-024-80237-0

Read paper ↗

Key findings

01 · Question

Why do Amazonian mammals consume soil?

The study tested mineral supplementation, toxin adsorption, and habitat-based explanations across six common mineral-lick visitors.

02 · Result

Diet helped explain why species used mineral licks.

Frugivores showed greatest support for mineral supplementation, while the folivorous Brazilian porcupine showed greatest support for toxin adsorption.

03 · Significance

One resource provides different services.

The varied species responses emphasize why mineral licks are important, localized resources for mammal conservation.

Exposed mineral-rich soil at a forest lick in the Sucusari River basin.

Brief Background

Mineral licks are places where mammals and birds consume soil, potentially gaining minerals missing from their diets or clays that adsorb dietary toxins. Because these sites are remote and difficult to find, many studies have examined few licks or only a subset of soil characteristics. We combined camera-trap records and soil analyses from 52 licks in one Peruvian Amazon watershed to test why six mammal species selected and repeatedly visited particular sites.

Methods

Camera trapping and soil chemistry across one mineral-lick network

01 · Visitation

Independent visits at 52 licks

Cameras monitored mineral licks in four rotations from August 2018 through June 2019. Visits by the same species were independent when separated by at least one hour, and frequency was standardized per 100 camera nights.

02 · Soils

Consumed and control samples

Researchers collected consumed soil and nearby control soil, then measured physical and chemical properties. Repeated samples were averaged within lick and sample type.

03 · Models

Species-specific zero-inflated models

Binomial components estimated whether a site was visited; Poisson components estimated visit frequency. Backward model selection compared scaled soil and habitat covariates.

Results

Different diets were associated with different drivers of geophagy

01 · Frugivores

Mineral supplementation

Agouti, paca, and red howler monkey showed the strongest support for mineral supplementation, including responses consistent with sodium limitation.

02 · Folivore

Toxin adsorption

Brazilian porcupine use was most consistent with toxin adsorption, including selection for high-clay soils and strong responses to soil pH.

03 · Mixed diets

Multiple benefits

Collared peccary responses were most consistent with habitat selection, while tapir responses supported both mineral supplementation and toxin adsorption.

Publication Data Explorer · Figure 2

Copper effects depend on iron, zinc, and species

These are model-predicted relationships, not raw observations. Each panel varies copper across the inner quartile range used by a species while holding other covariates at their mean. Select species to compare their responses across the nine iron-zinc combinations.

Species
Hover or focus a line to inspect a modeled value.
Accessible model summaries

Published Figure 2 reconstruction. Predicted visit frequency is measured in visits per 100 camera nights. Iron, zinc, and copper are measured in ppm.