Randomized trial investigates selective excavation patterns by aardvarks in a savanna landscape, indicating significant ecological implications.
Predator foraging patterns reflect how animals interact with spatially heterogeneous resources, yet how these patterns manifest across complex landscapes remains poorly understood. We investigated selective excavation of termite mounds by aardvarks Orycteropus afer in Gonarezhou National Park, examining how mound structural characteristics, size, spacing, and geology influence excavation patterns. Using a combination of descriptive statistics, spatial point‐pattern analyses, randomization tests, and generalized linear mixed models, we tested whether aardvarks excavate termite mounds selectively or non‐randomly. Excavated mounds were consistently larger and more widely spaced than non‐excavated mounds, indicating non‐random targeting of particular mound types rather than uniform or opportunistic use. Spatial analyses confirmed that excavated mounds followed the same overdispersed pattern as the overall mound distribution at scales < 50 m, consistent with selective use of large, widely spaced colonies within an already structured resource landscape. A one standard deviation increase in mound size more than doubled excavation odds (OR = 2.24), while greater nearest‐neighbour distances modestly increased excavation likelihood (OR = 1.25). In contrast, despite supporting larger mounds, granite substrate was associated with substantially lower excavation odds than basalt, with a 77% reduction in probability (OR = 0.23), indicating an independent substrate effect. These findings demonstrate that aardvark excavation of termite mounds is selective and spatially structured, with implications for termite colony dynamics, mound persistence, soil processes, and savanna ecosystem functioning. More broadly, our study illustrates how integrating spatial analyses with field observations can clarify patterns of animal‐driven ecosystem engineering in African savannas.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Muvengwi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: