Pastoralism Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice Pastoralism 2041-7136 Frontiers Media S.A. 16426 10.3389/past.2026.16426 Correction Correction: Characterization of goat production systems in the Amazonian dry tropical forest of Peru through multivariate analysis Rodríguez-Vargas et al. 10.3389/past.2026.16426 Rodríguez-Vargas Aníbal 1 * † Tafur-Gutiérrez Lucinda 2 † Sessarego Emmanuel Alexander 1 * † Alva Gudelio 2 † Castañeda-Palomino Katherine 1 † Haro-Reyes José Antonio 1 † Ruiz-Chamorro José 1 † Barrantes-Campos Cecilio 3 † Cruz Juancarlos Alejandro 1 † Dirección de Servicios Estratégicos Agrarios, Instituto Nacional de Innovación Agraria, Lima, Peru Estación Experimental Agraria Amazonas, Instituto Nacional de Innovación Agraria (INIA), Chachapoyas, Peru Programa de Investigación y Proyección Social en Animales Menores, Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, Lima, Peru 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

20 03 2026 2026 16 16426 16 02 2026 02 03 2026 Copyright © 2026 Rodríguez-Vargas, Tafur-Gutiérrez, Sessarego, Alva, Castañeda-Palomino, Haro-Reyes, Ruiz-Chamorro, Barrantes-Campos and Cruz. 2026 Rodríguez-Vargas, Tafur-Gutiérrez, Sessarego, Alva, Castañeda-Palomino, Haro-Reyes, Ruiz-Chamorro, Barrantes-Campos and Cruz https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 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. A Correction on Characterization of goat production systems in the dry tropical forest of Peru through multivariate analysis by 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 (2025). Pastoralism 15:14861. doi: 10.3389/past.2025.14861 typification goat farming multivariate analysis agricultural sustainability dry tropical forest

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.

Classification of variables used in the analysis of social, productive, and economic factors in goat raising in Amazonas.

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

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.

Comparison of categorical productive variables between goat production systems.

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  

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.

Edited by: Nathaniel Jensen, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom