Are Patagonia grasslands being overgrazed? A response to Marino et al. (2020)

Autores
Oliva, Gabriel Esteban; Paredes, Paula Natalia; Ferrante, Daniela; Cepeda, Carla Tamara; Rabinovich, Jorge Eduardo
Año de publicación
2020
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Based upon primary productivity estimates, Oliva et al. (2019) concluded that, at the end of last century and after long periods of overgrazing, Patagonia's domestic stocks adjusted to regional‐scale herbivore carrying capacity. Populations of guanaco, a native camelid, increased thereafter, driving combined grazing pressures once again over carrying capacity in some areas. Marino et al. (2020) argued that grazing is not really at equilibrium because domestic stocks are concentrated in areas that remain overgrazed. They support the ideas that guanaco density is auto‐regulated by resource‐defence territoriality, and that guanacos are weak competitors with domestic stock, occupying only marginal areas. In their view, Oliva et al. (2019) put guanacos in the role of scapegoats, leaving domestic stocks unchecked. Equilibrium at regional scale does not preclude overgrazing and under‐grazing at local scales. By separating areas with and without domestic stocks, Marino et al. (2020) estimated overgrazing at 28% in Chubut Province and 73% in Santa Cruz Province. Our recalculations show 28% and 47% domestic overgrazing, respectively. However, when combined with guanaco densities, these increase to 48% for Chubut and 108% for Santa Cruz. We question the hypothesised lack of competitive value and efficient self‐regulating mechanisms that would prevent guanaco populations from overshooting carrying capacity. A dataset of 13 sheep farms showed mean density of 26 ± 3.8 guanacos/km2 and high combined grazing pressures. This was also observed in a protected area of Chubut that reached 42 guanacos/km2 and crashed during drought, with 60% mortality. Thereafter, guanacos increased to 70 guanacos/km2, with recruitment rates that showed a complex response of density dependence but remained relatively elevated at densities above the estimated carrying capacity. Synthesis and applications. Marino et al. (2020) are right to question the apparent equilibrium of domestic stocks that are concentrated in areas that may be still overgrazed. But ground data show that guanaco populations have inefficient density population regulation and can reach densities well over carrying capacity, even in the presence of sheep. This does not mean that the main control should be on growing guanaco populations but it stresses our conclusion that joint management of the native‐domestic herbivore system is urgently needed. Joint management can be effected through local plans, as current guanaco management permits can only be issued in areas that are not overgrazed by sheep. Farm management plans may in this way transform an apparent competitor into a valuable resource, complementary to sheep raising.
EEA Santa Cruz
Fil: Oliva, Gabriel Esteban. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral. Unidad Académica Río Gallegos; Argentina
Fil: Paredes, Paula Natalia. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral. Unidad Académica Río Gallegos; Argentina
Fil: Ferrante, Daniela. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral. Unidad Académica Río Gallegos; Argentina
Fil: Cepeda, Carla Tamara. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina
Fil: Rabinovich, Jorge Eduardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - la Plata. Centro de Estudios Parasitologicos y de Vectores. Universidad Nacional de la Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. Centro de Estudios Parasitológicos y de Vectores; Argentina
Fuente
Journal of Applied Ecology (First published: 20 September 2020)
Materia
Pastoreo
Grazing
Overgrazing
Grasslands
Sobrepastoreo
Praderas
Región Patagónica
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Repositorio
INTA Digital (INTA)
Institución
Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
OAI Identificador
oai:localhost:20.500.12123/8031

id INTADig_9bb4a3a59b04e39745fbf4d526894966
oai_identifier_str oai:localhost:20.500.12123/8031
network_acronym_str INTADig
repository_id_str l
network_name_str INTA Digital (INTA)
spelling Are Patagonia grasslands being overgrazed? A response to Marino et al. (2020)Oliva, Gabriel EstebanParedes, Paula NataliaFerrante, DanielaCepeda, Carla TamaraRabinovich, Jorge EduardoPastoreoGrazingOvergrazingGrasslandsSobrepastoreoPraderasRegión PatagónicaBased upon primary productivity estimates, Oliva et al. (2019) concluded that, at the end of last century and after long periods of overgrazing, Patagonia's domestic stocks adjusted to regional‐scale herbivore carrying capacity. Populations of guanaco, a native camelid, increased thereafter, driving combined grazing pressures once again over carrying capacity in some areas. Marino et al. (2020) argued that grazing is not really at equilibrium because domestic stocks are concentrated in areas that remain overgrazed. They support the ideas that guanaco density is auto‐regulated by resource‐defence territoriality, and that guanacos are weak competitors with domestic stock, occupying only marginal areas. In their view, Oliva et al. (2019) put guanacos in the role of scapegoats, leaving domestic stocks unchecked. Equilibrium at regional scale does not preclude overgrazing and under‐grazing at local scales. By separating areas with and without domestic stocks, Marino et al. (2020) estimated overgrazing at 28% in Chubut Province and 73% in Santa Cruz Province. Our recalculations show 28% and 47% domestic overgrazing, respectively. However, when combined with guanaco densities, these increase to 48% for Chubut and 108% for Santa Cruz. We question the hypothesised lack of competitive value and efficient self‐regulating mechanisms that would prevent guanaco populations from overshooting carrying capacity. A dataset of 13 sheep farms showed mean density of 26 ± 3.8 guanacos/km2 and high combined grazing pressures. This was also observed in a protected area of Chubut that reached 42 guanacos/km2 and crashed during drought, with 60% mortality. Thereafter, guanacos increased to 70 guanacos/km2, with recruitment rates that showed a complex response of density dependence but remained relatively elevated at densities above the estimated carrying capacity. Synthesis and applications. Marino et al. (2020) are right to question the apparent equilibrium of domestic stocks that are concentrated in areas that may be still overgrazed. But ground data show that guanaco populations have inefficient density population regulation and can reach densities well over carrying capacity, even in the presence of sheep. This does not mean that the main control should be on growing guanaco populations but it stresses our conclusion that joint management of the native‐domestic herbivore system is urgently needed. Joint management can be effected through local plans, as current guanaco management permits can only be issued in areas that are not overgrazed by sheep. Farm management plans may in this way transform an apparent competitor into a valuable resource, complementary to sheep raising.EEA Santa CruzFil: Oliva, Gabriel Esteban. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral. Unidad Académica Río Gallegos; ArgentinaFil: Paredes, Paula Natalia. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral. Unidad Académica Río Gallegos; ArgentinaFil: Ferrante, Daniela. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral. Unidad Académica Río Gallegos; ArgentinaFil: Cepeda, Carla Tamara. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; ArgentinaFil: Rabinovich, Jorge Eduardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - la Plata. Centro de Estudios Parasitologicos y de Vectores. Universidad Nacional de la Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. Centro de Estudios Parasitológicos y de Vectores; ArgentinaWiley2020-10-09T17:26:15Z2020-10-09T17:26:15Z2020-09info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/8031https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2664.137531365-2664https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13753Journal of Applied Ecology (First published: 20 September 2020)reponame:INTA Digital (INTA)instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariaenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)2025-10-16T09:29:54Zoai:localhost:20.500.12123/8031instacron:INTAInstitucionalhttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/oai/requesttripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:l2025-10-16 09:29:54.972INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Are Patagonia grasslands being overgrazed? A response to Marino et al. (2020)
title Are Patagonia grasslands being overgrazed? A response to Marino et al. (2020)
spellingShingle Are Patagonia grasslands being overgrazed? A response to Marino et al. (2020)
Oliva, Gabriel Esteban
Pastoreo
Grazing
Overgrazing
Grasslands
Sobrepastoreo
Praderas
Región Patagónica
title_short Are Patagonia grasslands being overgrazed? A response to Marino et al. (2020)
title_full Are Patagonia grasslands being overgrazed? A response to Marino et al. (2020)
title_fullStr Are Patagonia grasslands being overgrazed? A response to Marino et al. (2020)
title_full_unstemmed Are Patagonia grasslands being overgrazed? A response to Marino et al. (2020)
title_sort Are Patagonia grasslands being overgrazed? A response to Marino et al. (2020)
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Oliva, Gabriel Esteban
Paredes, Paula Natalia
Ferrante, Daniela
Cepeda, Carla Tamara
Rabinovich, Jorge Eduardo
author Oliva, Gabriel Esteban
author_facet Oliva, Gabriel Esteban
Paredes, Paula Natalia
Ferrante, Daniela
Cepeda, Carla Tamara
Rabinovich, Jorge Eduardo
author_role author
author2 Paredes, Paula Natalia
Ferrante, Daniela
Cepeda, Carla Tamara
Rabinovich, Jorge Eduardo
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Pastoreo
Grazing
Overgrazing
Grasslands
Sobrepastoreo
Praderas
Región Patagónica
topic Pastoreo
Grazing
Overgrazing
Grasslands
Sobrepastoreo
Praderas
Región Patagónica
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Based upon primary productivity estimates, Oliva et al. (2019) concluded that, at the end of last century and after long periods of overgrazing, Patagonia's domestic stocks adjusted to regional‐scale herbivore carrying capacity. Populations of guanaco, a native camelid, increased thereafter, driving combined grazing pressures once again over carrying capacity in some areas. Marino et al. (2020) argued that grazing is not really at equilibrium because domestic stocks are concentrated in areas that remain overgrazed. They support the ideas that guanaco density is auto‐regulated by resource‐defence territoriality, and that guanacos are weak competitors with domestic stock, occupying only marginal areas. In their view, Oliva et al. (2019) put guanacos in the role of scapegoats, leaving domestic stocks unchecked. Equilibrium at regional scale does not preclude overgrazing and under‐grazing at local scales. By separating areas with and without domestic stocks, Marino et al. (2020) estimated overgrazing at 28% in Chubut Province and 73% in Santa Cruz Province. Our recalculations show 28% and 47% domestic overgrazing, respectively. However, when combined with guanaco densities, these increase to 48% for Chubut and 108% for Santa Cruz. We question the hypothesised lack of competitive value and efficient self‐regulating mechanisms that would prevent guanaco populations from overshooting carrying capacity. A dataset of 13 sheep farms showed mean density of 26 ± 3.8 guanacos/km2 and high combined grazing pressures. This was also observed in a protected area of Chubut that reached 42 guanacos/km2 and crashed during drought, with 60% mortality. Thereafter, guanacos increased to 70 guanacos/km2, with recruitment rates that showed a complex response of density dependence but remained relatively elevated at densities above the estimated carrying capacity. Synthesis and applications. Marino et al. (2020) are right to question the apparent equilibrium of domestic stocks that are concentrated in areas that may be still overgrazed. But ground data show that guanaco populations have inefficient density population regulation and can reach densities well over carrying capacity, even in the presence of sheep. This does not mean that the main control should be on growing guanaco populations but it stresses our conclusion that joint management of the native‐domestic herbivore system is urgently needed. Joint management can be effected through local plans, as current guanaco management permits can only be issued in areas that are not overgrazed by sheep. Farm management plans may in this way transform an apparent competitor into a valuable resource, complementary to sheep raising.
EEA Santa Cruz
Fil: Oliva, Gabriel Esteban. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral. Unidad Académica Río Gallegos; Argentina
Fil: Paredes, Paula Natalia. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral. Unidad Académica Río Gallegos; Argentina
Fil: Ferrante, Daniela. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral. Unidad Académica Río Gallegos; Argentina
Fil: Cepeda, Carla Tamara. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina
Fil: Rabinovich, Jorge Eduardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - la Plata. Centro de Estudios Parasitologicos y de Vectores. Universidad Nacional de la Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. Centro de Estudios Parasitológicos y de Vectores; Argentina
description Based upon primary productivity estimates, Oliva et al. (2019) concluded that, at the end of last century and after long periods of overgrazing, Patagonia's domestic stocks adjusted to regional‐scale herbivore carrying capacity. Populations of guanaco, a native camelid, increased thereafter, driving combined grazing pressures once again over carrying capacity in some areas. Marino et al. (2020) argued that grazing is not really at equilibrium because domestic stocks are concentrated in areas that remain overgrazed. They support the ideas that guanaco density is auto‐regulated by resource‐defence territoriality, and that guanacos are weak competitors with domestic stock, occupying only marginal areas. In their view, Oliva et al. (2019) put guanacos in the role of scapegoats, leaving domestic stocks unchecked. Equilibrium at regional scale does not preclude overgrazing and under‐grazing at local scales. By separating areas with and without domestic stocks, Marino et al. (2020) estimated overgrazing at 28% in Chubut Province and 73% in Santa Cruz Province. Our recalculations show 28% and 47% domestic overgrazing, respectively. However, when combined with guanaco densities, these increase to 48% for Chubut and 108% for Santa Cruz. We question the hypothesised lack of competitive value and efficient self‐regulating mechanisms that would prevent guanaco populations from overshooting carrying capacity. A dataset of 13 sheep farms showed mean density of 26 ± 3.8 guanacos/km2 and high combined grazing pressures. This was also observed in a protected area of Chubut that reached 42 guanacos/km2 and crashed during drought, with 60% mortality. Thereafter, guanacos increased to 70 guanacos/km2, with recruitment rates that showed a complex response of density dependence but remained relatively elevated at densities above the estimated carrying capacity. Synthesis and applications. Marino et al. (2020) are right to question the apparent equilibrium of domestic stocks that are concentrated in areas that may be still overgrazed. But ground data show that guanaco populations have inefficient density population regulation and can reach densities well over carrying capacity, even in the presence of sheep. This does not mean that the main control should be on growing guanaco populations but it stresses our conclusion that joint management of the native‐domestic herbivore system is urgently needed. Joint management can be effected through local plans, as current guanaco management permits can only be issued in areas that are not overgrazed by sheep. Farm management plans may in this way transform an apparent competitor into a valuable resource, complementary to sheep raising.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-10-09T17:26:15Z
2020-10-09T17:26:15Z
2020-09
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/8031
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2664.13753
1365-2664
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13753
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/8031
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2664.13753
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13753
identifier_str_mv 1365-2664
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Applied Ecology (First published: 20 September 2020)
reponame:INTA Digital (INTA)
instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
reponame_str INTA Digital (INTA)
collection INTA Digital (INTA)
instname_str Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
repository.name.fl_str_mv INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
repository.mail.fl_str_mv tripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.ar
_version_ 1846143528886861824
score 12.712165