| Literature DB >> 29228062 |
Quentin Struelens1,2, Karina Gonzales Pomar3, Susi Loza Herrera3,4, Gaby Nina Huanca3, Olivier Dangles1,5, François Rebaudo1,2.
Abstract
Grazing areas management is of utmost importance in the Andean region. In the valleys of the Bolivian Cordillera Real near La Paz, pastoralism constitutes the traditional way for people to insure food security and economical sustainability. In these harsh mountains, unique and productive wetlands sustained by glacial water streams are of utmost importance for feeding cattle herds during the dry season. After the colonization by the Spanish, a shift in livestock species has been observed, with the introduction of exotic species such as cows and sheep, resulting in a different impact on pastures compared to native camelid species-llamas and alpacas. Here we explored some of the social-economical and environmental drivers that motivate Bolivian pastoralists to prefer exotic over native livestock species, based on 36 household surveys in the Cordillera Real. We constructed a Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Model in order to assess the relationships between these drivers. Our results suggest that the access to market influenced pastoralists to reshape their herd composition, by increasing the number of sheep. They also suggest that community size increased daily grazing time in pastures, therefore intensifying the grazing pressure. At a broader scale, this study highlights the effects of some social-economical and environmental drivers on mountain herding systems.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29228062 PMCID: PMC5724826 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189409
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Bofedales at the foot of the Huayna Potosi mountain (above) and alpaca grazing on bofedales (below).
Reprinted from http://www.biothaw.ird.fr/ under a CC BY license, with permission from Olivier Dangles, original copyright 2015.
Fig 2Location and livestock quantities for surveyed communities in the Cordillera Real, Bolivia.
Livestock quantity from the 36 households is expressed in Livestock Equivalent Units (see text for details). Background imagery was taken from the USGS National Map Viewer (public domain).
Theoretical and logical justifications of the pathways included into the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Model.
| Pathway | Theoretical justification | Logical justification |
|---|---|---|
| [ | Human settlements have taken place where wetlands were larger because of the availability of water. | |
| [ | Primary resources availability limits livestock population, with specificity for each livestock species. | |
| Market access -> Community size (Number of households) | [ | Proximity to the market attracts pastoralists that are willing to sell. |
| Market access -> Livestock | [ | Better market access influences pastoralists to become market-oriented. |
| Community size (Number of households) -> Livestock | [ | Human resources living in the community decide of the quantity of livestock (LU) that is manageable (llamas and alpacas need more grazing time; different foraging niches and bite rates between livestock species; llamas are better adapted to drier regions). |
| Community size (Number of households) -> Grazing duration | [ | Tragedy of commons concept: The size of the group using the common-pool resource influences the collective use of this resource, as decisions regarding collective use are decided locally. |
a) Study from another area.
b) Study about another similar driver.
Fig 3Structural model of the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Model showing most probable relationships between latent drivers (ellipses) constructed from indicator variables (rectangles).
R-squared values for endogenous latent variables show the amount of variation explained. Negative path weights are shown as dashed lines, positive correlations as plain lines. Line widths are proportional to the path weights. * p-value < 0.05; ** p-value < 0.01; *** p-value < 0.005. Note that indicators are not shown for latent drivers constructed from one indicator variable only.
Summary of the indicators variables used in the Structural Equation Modeling and how they were collected.
Ha = hectares, km = kilometers, LU = Livestock Equivalent Units (1 llama = 72 kg = 1 LU; 1 alpaca = 0.805 LU; 1 sheep = 0.444 LU; 1 cow = 3.89 LU), min = minutes and d = day, GIS = Geographic Information System, sd = standard deviation, based on the 36 interviews analyzed. Range is followed by average value per valley (Hichu Khota, Huayna Potosi, Palcoco, Tuni, respectively).
| Indicator variable | Justification | Source | Range | Mean (sd) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distance to El Alto (km) | Market access variable | GIS data | 5.70–60.00; (51; 23; 50; 51) | 47.50 (8.70) |
| Availability of grazing areas | GIS data | 55.71–84.33; (77.8; 80.9; 55.7; 84.33) | 68.44 (11.62) | |
| Relative | Proportion of grazing areas available during the dry season | GIS data | 0.42–2.67; (1.15; 0.42; 2.61; 1.20) | 1.80 (0.85) |
| Number of households/community | Grazing areas management | Social survey | 2–17; (8.2; 3.8; 8.3; 6.0) | 12.31 (5.01) |
| Native livestock (LU/household) | - | Social survey | 0–100; (20; 17; 34; 64) | 26.25 (21.66) |
| Exotic livestock (LU/household) | - | Social survey | 0–127.78; (29; 32; 42; 16) | 27.92 (25.85) |
| Alpacas (LU/household) | - | Social survey | 0–48.33; (5; 0; 6; 10) | 6.13 (12.44) |
| Llamas (LU/household) | - | Social survey | 0–70; (15; 17; 28; 55) | 18.53 (21.19) |
| Sheep (LU/household) | - | Social survey | 0–88.89; (11; 8; 23; 9) | 15.17 (19.46) |
| Cows (LU/household) | - | Social survey | 0–46.67; (18; 23; 18; 7) | 12.75 (14.09) |
| Daily grazing duration in | Dependence and access to grazing areas | Social survey | 10–600; (298; 80; 406; 120) | 330.3 (208.02) |