Correction: Characterization of goat production systems in the Amazonian dry tropical forest of Peru through multivariate analysis

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. 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. 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.

Footnotes

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