In the funding statement, An incorrect number was provided for Instituto Nacional de Innovación Agraria (INIA). The correct number is CUI 2506684.
There was a mistake in Table 1 as published. Incorrect scientific names were included in the categories for “Preferred forage shrub” variable in the “Productive” component. The corrected Table 1 appears below.
TABLE 1
| Component | T | Variables | Categories and/or units |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economic | S | Age of those driving the property | Years |
| O | Farmer’s level of education | No education, incomplete primary, complete primary, incomplete secondary, complete secondary, complete higher education | |
| S | Family members per household | Number | |
| B | Access to electricity | Yes/No | |
| N | Source of income | Agriculture, livestock, commerce | |
| O | Monthly household income (S/.) | Less 500, 501 to 1,000, 1,001 to 2,000 | |
| N | Month of sale | January–March, April–June, July–September, October–December | |
| O | Age of sale | 1–3 months, 4–8 months, over 9 months | |
| S | Sales weight of the goat | Kg | |
| N | Reason for raising | For family tradition, for being a breeding area, for low investment, for market for sale, for other reasons | |
| Productive | O | Land area (ha) | <0.5, 0.5–2.0, >2.0 |
| O | Rearing area (ha) | <1.0, 1.0–2.0, >2.0 | |
| B | Access to irrigation system | Yes/No | |
| B | Performs mixed breeding | Yes/No | |
| O | Aging time (years) | <5, 5–10, 11–20, >20 | |
| N | Productive breeding months | January–March, April–June, July–September, October–December | |
| O | Dedication to parenting (hours) | <3, 3–6, >6 | |
| S | Goat herd size | Number | |
| S | Goat population | Number | |
| N | Preferred forage shrub | Huarango (Vachellia aroma var. Huarango), huarango and Peruvian mesquite (Prosopis pallida), faique (Vachellia macracantha) and Peruvian mesquite | |
| N | Month of calving | January–March, April–June, July–September, October–December | |
| N | Installation types | Only corrals, corrals and sheds, corrals and others | |
| B | Corrals shared with other species | Yes/No | |
| B | Perform deworming | Yes/No | |
| B | Technical assistance received | Yes/No |
Classification of variables used in the analysis of social, productive, and economic factors in goat raising in Amazonas.
T = variable type; O = ordinal; N = nominal; E = scalar; B = binary. The goat population ranged from 8 to 160 animals. According to the INEI (2012), the goat population in the area was 2,616.
There was a mistake in Table 5. In the column “categories” row “Preferred shrub”, “carob” should be replaced with “Peruvian mesquite.”
The correct Table 5 appears below.
TABLE 5
| Variables | Categories | SEM (cluster 1) | SET (cluster 2) | Chi-square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | p-value | ||
| Area of the property | <0.5 ha | 28 | 82.4 | 25 | 96.2 | 0.004150906** |
| 0.5–2 ha | 2 | 5.8 | 0 | 0.0 | ||
| >2 ha | 4 | 11.8 | 1 | 3.8 | ||
| Breeding area | <1 ha | 4 | 11.8 | 1 | 3.8 | 0.100877276 |
| 1–2 ha | 2 | 5.8 | 2 | 7.7 | ||
| >2 ha | 28 | 82.4 | 23 | 88.5 | ||
| Irrigation system | Yes | 5 | 14.7 | 1 | 3.8 | 0.007808996** |
| No | 29 | 85.3 | 25 | 96.2 | ||
| Mixed breeding | Yes | 20 | 58.8 | 22 | 84.6 | 5.1224E-05*** |
| No | 14 | 41.2 | 4 | 15.4 | ||
| Parenting time | <5 years | 16 | 47.1 | 17 | 65.5 | 0.00651954*** |
| Form 5 to < 10 years | 4 | 11.7 | 5 | 19.2 | ||
| From 10 to <20 years old | 5 | 14.7 | 1 | 3.8 | ||
| >20 years | 9 | 26.5 | 3 | 11.5 | ||
| Months of parturition | January – March | 6 | 17.6 | 8 | 30.8 | 0.019458991* |
| April – June | 13 | 38.3 | 9 | 34.6 | ||
| July – September | 8 | 23.5 | 7 | 26.9 | ||
| October – December | 7 | 20.6 | 2 | 7.7 | ||
| Time dedicated to goat rearing | <3 | 7 | 20.6 | 3 | 11.5 | 0.000381104*** |
| 3 to 6 | 9 | 26.5 | 14 | 53.9 | ||
| 6 to 9 | 18 | 52.9 | 9 | 34.6 | ||
| Preferred shrub | Faique and Peruvian mesquite | 7 | 20.5 | 2 | 7.7 | 2.38275E-08*** |
| Huarango | 19 | 55.9 | 24 | 92.3 | ||
| Huarango and Peruvian mesquite | 4 | 11.8 | 0 | 0.0 | ||
| Others | 4 | 11.8 | 0 | 0.0 | ||
| Month of calving | January – March | 4 | 11.8 | 0 | 0.0 | 3.66504E-06*** |
| April – June | 17 | 50 | 9 | 34.6 | ||
| July – September | 10 | 29.4 | 16 | 61.6 | ||
| October – December | 3 | 8.8 | 1 | 3.8 | ||
| Facilities | Single pens | 22 | 64.7 | 22 | 84.6 | 0.00017188*** |
| Unique corrals with shed | 7 | 20.6 | 4 | 15.4 | ||
| Corrals and other environments | 5 | 14.7 | 0 | 0.0 | ||
| Shared corrals | Yes | 19 | 55.9 | 22 | 84.6 | 9.0313E-06*** |
| No | 15 | 44.1 | 4 | 15.4 | ||
| Deworming | Yes | 9 | 26.5 | 2 | 7.7 | 0.000414376*** |
| No | 25 | 73.5 | 24 | 92.3 | ||
| Technical assistance | Yes | 7 | 20.6 | 4 | 15.4 | 0.338530296 |
| No | 27 | 79.4 | 22 | 84.6 | ||
Comparison of categorical productive variables between goat production systems.
n: number of observations; SEM: enhanced extensive system; SET: traditional extensive system; (*) p-value <0.05; (**) p-value <0.01; (***) p-value <0.001.
Throughout the article the term “carob” or “carob tree” was inaccurate, instead “Peruvian mesquite” should have been used. Corrections have been made to the following sections:
In the Results, Analysis of socioeconomic and productive component of categorical variables section, sixth paragraph:
“SET depends mainly on huarango (Vachellia aroma var. Huarango) as a forage resource (92.3% vs. 55.9% in SEM; p < 0.001), while SEM diversifies with faique and Peruvian mesquite (20.5%).”
In the Results, Socioeconomic and productive segmentation in goat systems (clusters) section, second paragraph:
“Fodder is diversified (faique, Peruvian mesquite, and huarango), and the infrastructure is more advanced, with a predominance of individual corrals.”
In the Discussion, Analysis of socioeconomic and productive component of categorical variables section, seventh paragraph:
“Regarding forage management, SET relies mostly on huarango (92.3%), while SEM diversifies with faique and Peruvian mesquite (20.5%), which provides greater resilience (Sarria et al., 2014; Contreras et al., 2023).”
The incorrect scientific name for Huarango was used.
A correction has been made to the Results, Analysis of socioeconomic and productive component of categorical variables section, sixth paragraph:
“Differences in management are notable. SET depends mainly on huarango (Vachellia aroma var. Huarango) as a forage resource (92.3% vs. 55.9% in SEM; p < 0.001), while SEM diversifies with faique and Peruvian mesquite (20.5%).”
An incorrect forage species was indicated as predominant in the region.
A correction has been made to the Results, Descriptive analysis section, third paragraph:
“Ninety percent of the farms do not have irrigation systems, and 73.3% use corrals. The principal tree/shrub forage species is huarango (71%). In terms of animal management, 95% do not use identification methods, and 100% visually select the animals. Sales are mainly motivated by economic needs (36.7%).”
The original version of this article has been updated.
Summary
Keywords
typification, goat farming, multivariate analysis, agricultural sustainability, dry tropical forest
Citation
Rodríguez-Vargas A, Tafur-Gutiérrez L, Sessarego EA, Alva G, Castañeda-Palomino K, Haro-Reyes JA, Ruiz-Chamorro J, Barrantes-Campos C and Cruz JA (2026) Correction: Characterization of goat production systems in the Amazonian dry tropical forest of Peru through multivariate analysis. Pastoralism 16:16426. doi: 10.3389/past.2026.16426
Received
16 February 2026
Accepted
02 March 2026
Published
20 March 2026
Volume
16 - 2026
Edited by
Nathaniel Jensen, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Rodríguez-Vargas, Tafur-Gutiérrez, Sessarego, Alva, Castañeda-Palomino, Haro-Reyes, Ruiz-Chamorro, Barrantes-Campos and Cruz.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Aníbal Rodríguez-Vargas, rodriguezvargasraul01@gmail.com; Emmanuel Alexander Sessarego, e.sessarego14@gmail.com
ORCID: Aníbal Rodríguez-Vargas, orcid.org/0000-0003-0248-163X; Lucinda Tafur-Gutiérrez, orcid.org/0000-0002-5287-2615; Emmanuel Alexander Sessarego, orcid.org/0000-0003-2968-9270; Gudelio Alva, orcid.org/0009-0008-5500-876X; Katherine Castañeda-Palomino, orcid.org/0009-0006-8358-4073; José Antonio Haro-Reyes, orcid.org/0000-0003-0272-5593; José Ruiz-Chamorro, orcid.org/0009-0007-4363-9719; Cecilio Barrantes-Campos, orcid.org/0000-0002-0509-5091; Juancarlos Alejandro Cruz, orcid.org/0000-0003-1169-440X
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.