© The Authors, 2024, Published by the Universidad del Zulia*Corresponding author: nieto_cesar@hotmail.com
Keywords:
Dry tropics
Rangeland
Sustainable livestock
Climate change
Typology of production units and livestock technologies for adaptation to drought in Sinaloa,
Mexico
Tipología de unidades de producción y tecnologías pecuarias de adaptación a la sequía en Sinaloa,
México
Tipologia de unidades de produção e tecnologias pecuárias para adaptação à seca em Sinaloa, México
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2024, 41(1): e244106
ISSN 2477-9407
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47280/RevFacAgron(LUZ).v41.n1.06
Socioeconomics
Associate editor: Dra. Fátima Urdaneta
University of Zulia, Faculty of Agronomy
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
Abstract
Drought as an eect of climate change aects the productivity and
sustainability of livestock systems. The objective of this study was to analyze
how technological land management for adaptation to climate change
adopted by livestock farmers in southern Sinaloa, Mexico, corresponds to
the typologies identied in the study area. A non-probabilistic sampling
was applied, selecting 50 production units (UP) in six municipalities of
Sinaloa, whose information was analyzed by cluster analysis and descriptive
statistics. It was identied three livestock typologies. Cluster 1 (46 %), was
dened as subsistence since its production units (PU) have few animals
and showed the smallest total surface area, the producers are the oldest and
use the shade in paddocks and the adjustment of stocking rates as drought
mitigation practices. Cluster 2 (46 %), showed the medium productive
behavior, conformed by younger producers whose PU showed a larger area
of crops and rangeland, this group adopted stocking rate adjustment, forage
conservation and species diversication as mitigation measures. Cluster 3 (8
%) showed the highest total area, livestock inventory and productivity levels;
drought mitigation decisions are focused on stocking rate adjustment and
forage conservation. The study identied mitigation practices related to land
use from the farmers’ point of view. These results can be used to conduct
studies in similar environments and to scale adaptation measures for climate
change from the local level and by type of farmer.
1
Campo
Experimental
Valle
de
México-INIFAP,
km.
13.5
carr.
Los
Reyes-Texcoco,
C.P.
56250.
Texcoco,
Estado
de
México.
2
Campo
Experimental
Valle
de
Culiacán-INIFAP.
carr.
Culiacán
a
El
Dorado
km.
17.5,
Costa
Rica,
C.P.
80130.
Culiacán, Sinaloa.
3
Department of Agricultural Sciences. Texas State University.
601 University Drive, San Marcos, Texas.
Received: 15-11-2023
Accepted: 01-02-2024
Published: 20-02-2024
Venancio Cuevas-Reyes
1
Alfredo Loaiza Meza
2
Obed Gutiérrez Gutiérrez
2
Germán Buendía Rodríguez
1
Cesar Rosales-Nieto
3*
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2024, 41(1): e244106. January-March. ISSN 2477-9407.2-6 |
Introduction
Droughts are recognized as an environmental disasters and occur
in almost all climate zones, both in areas with high and low rainfall,
and are primarily related to the reduction in the amount of precipitation
received over a prolonged period, such as a season or a year. (Mishra
and Singh, 2010). Globally, the projected eects of climate change
(CC), including higher temperatures, increased concentrations of
carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere, and changing rainfall
patterns, will aect the seasonal growth of pastures and livestock
production (Cullen et al., 2021). By 2100, CC will reduce grass
growth, which will aect annual meat and milk production, causing a
decline up to 24.9 % (Tapasco et al., 2019).
Drought has immediate eects on livestock, including depletion
of water resources, crop failure and an increase in food prices, health
eects, decreased production and death, in addition to a decrease in
prices of livestock prices (Girma and Zelalem, 2022). In Mexico,
the states with the highest general degree of vulnerability to drought
are especially those located in the northwest (Baja California, Baja
California Sur, Sonora and Sinaloa), as well as the north and some in
the south of the country (Ortega-Gaucin et al., 2018).
Livestock deaths have been observed from climate-induced
impacts such as recurrent droughts, which negatively aect the
livelihood security of farmers, pastoral and agropastoral communities
are particularly vulnerable to climate variability and changes due to
their dependence on livestock for food and sustenance (Habte et al.,
2022). In Sinaloa, livestock farming is associated with dry tropics
conditions, which reects seasonal changes in climate between the
dry and wet seasons in relation to the availability of moisture, there
may be up to eight months of drought a year in the north of the state
(Cuevas-Reyes and Rosales-Nieto, 2018).
The transition process from traditional extensive livestock farming
to sustainable livestock farming requires carrying out evaluations
related to the use of adaptation and mitigation measures specic to the
location and production system, in addition to policies that support
and facilitate their implementation (Rojas-Downing et al., 2017).
Several studies have proposed adaptation and mitigation measures
in the livestock sector (Gerber et al., 2013; FAO, 2018; Tapasco
et al., 2019). However, in Mexico, there is limited information
regarding the use of CC adaptation and mitigation technologies in
livestock farming from the producer’s perspective, and specically
to the problem of drought. The objective was to analyze how the
technological measures related to land use for adaptation to climate
change used by ranchers in southern Sinaloa, Mexico correspond to
the livestock typologies identied in the study area.
Materials and methods
Study zone
The research was carried out in 6 of the 18 Sinaloa state
municipalities (Rosario, Mazatlán, Concordia, Elota, San Ignacio and
Sinaloa de Leyva), and corresponds mainly to the central-southern
area of the state.
The study region borders the north with the municipalities of
Culiacán and Cósala, the east with Durango, the south with Nayarit,
and the west with the Pacic Ocean. 48 % of the state has a warm
subhumid climate, 40 % is a dry and semidry climate, 10 % is very
dry and is located in the northern area, the remaining 2 % is temperate
subhumid climate located in the high parts of the western Sierra
Madre (INEGI, 2023). The extreme geographical coordinates are as
Resumen
La sequía como efecto del cambio climático afecta la productividad
y
sustentabilidad
de
los
sistemas
pecuarios.
El
objetivo
de
este
estudio fue analizar cómo las medidas tecnológicas relacionadas con
el uso de la tierra para la adaptación al cambio climático utilizadas
por los ganaderos en el sur de Sinaloa, México se corresponden con
las tipologías identicadas en la zona de estudio. Se utilizó muestreo
no
probabilístico
seleccionándose
50
unidades
de
producción
(UP)
en
seis
municipios
de
Sinaloa,
cuya
información
fue
analizada
por
medio de análisis clúster y estadísticas descriptivas. Se identicaron
tres
tipologías
pecuarias.
El
clúster
1
(46
%),
denido
como
de
subsistencia,
tiene
pocos
animales
y
la
menor
supercie
total,
los
productores tienen la mayor edad y manejan la sombra en potreros y el
ajuste de la carga animal como prácticas de mitigación. El clúster 2 (46
%), de comportamiento productivo medio, son productores jóvenes
cuyas UP tienen mayor supercie total para la siembra y agostadero,
este
grupo
utiliza
el
ajuste
de
la
carga
animal,
la
conservación
de
forrajes y la diversicación de especies como medidas de mitigación.
El clúster 3 (8 %), presenta la mayor supercie, inventario pecuario y
niveles de productividad; las decisiones de mitigación a la sequía están
centradas en el ajuste de la carga y en la conservación de forrajes. El
estudio identicó prácticas de mitigación relacionadas con el uso de
la tierra desde la visión de los productores; resultados pueden servir,
para realizar estudios en entornos similares y escalar las medidas de
adaptación al cambio climático desde lo local y por tipo de productor.
Palabras
clave:
trópico
seco,
agostadero,
ganadería
sostenible,
cambio climático.
Resumo
A
seca,
como
efeito
das
alterações
climáticas,
afecta
a
produtividade e a sustentabilidade dos sistemas pecuários. O objetivo
deste estudo foi analisar como as medidas tecnológicas relacionadas
com o uso do solo para a adaptação às alterações climáticas utilizadas
pelos criadores de gado no sul de Sinaloa, México, correspondem às
tipologias identicadas na área de estudo. Utilizou-se uma amostragem
não probabilística, seleccionando 50 unidades de produção (UP) em
seis municípios de Sinaloa, cuja informação foi analisada por meio
de análise de clusters e estatística descritiva. Foram identicadas três
tipologias de gado. O cluster 1 (46 %), denido como de subsistência,
tem poucos animais e a menor área total, os produtores são os mais
velhos e utilizam a sombra nos piquetes e o ajuste das taxas de lotação
como práticas de mitigação. O cluster 2 (46 %), de comportamento
produtivo médio, é constituído por produtores jovens cujas UP têm
maior área total para sementeira e pastagem, este grupo utiliza como
medidas de mitigação o ajustamento do encabeçamento, a conservação
de forragens e a diversicação de espécies. O cluster 3 (8 %) tem a
área mais elevada, o inventário de gado e os níveis de produtividade;
as decisões de mitigação da seca centram-se no ajustamento da taxa
de povoamento e na conservação da forragem. O estudo identicou
práticas
de
atenuação
relacionadas
com
a
utilização
dos
solos
na
perspetiva
dos
agricultores;
os
resultados
podem
ser
utilizados
para realizar estudos em ambientes semelhantes e para aumentar as
medidas de adaptação às alterações climáticas a nível local e por tipo
de agricultor.
Palavras
chave:
trópico
seco,
pastagens,
pecuária
sustentável,
mudanças climáticas.
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Cuevas-Reyes et al. Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2024 40(1): e2441063-6 |
follows; to the north 27°02’32”, south 22°28’02” north latitude; to
the east 105°23’32”, to the west 109°26’52” west longitude (INEGI,
2021).
The type of vegetation existing in Sinaloa is known as “agostadero”
wich is a rangeland used by livestock and corresponds to the so-called
“tropical deciduous forest -BTC-” (Rzedowski, 1978), “seasonally
dry tropical forest” (Pennington et al., 2000), or also known as “Dry
Forests”. Mexico's dry forests (or BTC) represent 11.70 % of the
national territory and are distributed from the Mexican Pacic slope
to Central America (CONABIO, 2022).
Sample selection
A non-probabilistic and intentional sampling was used in order
to select the sample, (Quinn, 2002; Hernández, 2021). In the six
municipalities there are 7,533 production units with cattle that
correspond to 36.8 % of total state, thus the sample (n=50) reached
0.66 % of the total productive units in the study area (INEGI, 2022).
This type of sampling was used due to the high costs of carrying out
probabilistic sampling, in addition to avoiding or reducing the risk
of crime problems when applying the questionnaire. The criteria for
selecting the producers were the following: 1) they must be dual-
purpose livestock producers (representative system of Sinaloa), 2)
they agreed to answer the survey, 3) they have participated in state
government rural extension programs. After applying the criteria, 50
producers were interviewed.
Information collection techniques
A questionnaire was developed and applied to obtain information
related to the social characteristics of the producer, as well as aspects
related to the characterization of the production unit (PU): agricultural
resources for the production of forage (total area, sown, area of
rangeland), livestock inventory, milking days (refers to the number of
days that producers milk), productive aspects of livestock activity and
number of months that the PUs have a shortage of forage. To carry
out the Cluster analisys, 14 quantitative variables related to the social
aspects of the producer, agricultural resources, livestock inventory,
and production were selected (table 1). These variables, according to
the literature, inuence the use and adoption of technology (Feder et
al., 1985; McNamara et al., 1991).
Table 1. Variables used for cluster analysis.
Variables Units Media Mínimum Máximum
Estandar
Desviation
Age year
55.60 22.0 82.0 15.06
Children number
2.86 .0 9.0 1.916
Distance km
19.11 .0 70.0 18.95
Total area ha
53.80 .0 200.0 44.24
Sown area ha
18.00 .0 80.0 15.763
Rangeland
area
ha
27.70 .0 150.0 35.98
Sires number
1.58 .0 4.0 .90
Calved
cows
number
22.60 2.0 80.0 16.38
Herd number
62.08 10.0 206.0 46.47
Milking
cows
number
9.58 .0 50.0 11.42
Milk
Production
L
58.66 .0 300.0 79.41
Lengt of
milking
period
days
172.42 .0 365.0 164.55
Calves
produced
per year
number
11.90 .0 55.0 10.62
Forrage
shortage
months
3.64 .0 8.0 1.65
Source: own elaboration.
In addition, we asked which technological practices were used for
adaptation to drought conditions as a result of CC (we asked whether
they used: paddock shading, stocking rate adjustment, species
diversication, forage conservation and silvopastoral systems). Thus,
the indicators of the technology use for climate change adaptation
(drought) correspond to the percentages of PU where these practices
were performed. The eldwork was carried out during the rst quarter
of 2022.
Data analysis
The clustering criterion was Ward’s linkage method and the
measure of association was the squared Euclidean distance. In
Ward’s method, the distance between two clusters is calculated as the
sum of squares between groups, and seeks to minimize intragroup
variance and maximize homogeneity within groups (Vilà-Baños et
al., 2014). The standardization of the variables was performed using
the Z score in SPSS. When variables are recorded in dierent units,
a Z-score transformation will put the variables on a common scale to
compare sets of variables taken with dierent measurement systems
(Pérez, 2008). Subsequently, the dendrogram was elaborated and the
typologies were characterized. The description of the groups was
carried out using descriptive statistics. The analysis of the drought
adaptation technologies indicators was carried out by frequency
analysis. The analyses were performed with SPSS 27.0 Windows
software (IBM, 2022).
Results and discussion
Typology of Production Units
The cluster analysis allowed classifying the livestock production
units into three dierentiated groups: Cluster 1 (C1, n=23) comprises
46 % of PU, Cluster 2 (C2, n=23) represents 46 %, while Cluster 3
(C3, n=4) represents only 8 % of total analyzed sample (gure 1).
Figure 1. Dendrogram of livestock production unit typologies.
Social characteristics
The producer's age and the number of children in their families
were quite similar for the three clusters: farmers were under 60 years
old and had between two and three children. C1 producers were the
oldest on average, while C2 and C3 producers were the youngest,
with an averaging 54 years. The producers interviewed are relatively
young and may be more receptive to the use of new technologies.
Regarding the distance from the production unit to the municipality,
Cluster 1 is 12.5 km away, Cluster 2 is 23.6 km away and Cluster 3 is
30 km away (table 2).
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2024, 41(1): e244106. January-March. ISSN 2477-9407.4-6 |
Table 2. Social variables in the identied typologies (mean ± sd).
Clúster Age (year) Children (number) Distance (km)
C1
57.0 ± 7.0 2.8 ± 2.4 12.5 ± 13.9
C2
54.4 ± 12.8 2.8 ± 1.2 23.8 ± 21.2
C3
54.0 ± 17.9 3.0 ± 1.6 30.0 ± 21.6
Source: own elaboration
In this sense, a study on CC adaptation practices indicates that
young producers with more education and economic resources are
more likely to use CC adaptation practices (Ali and Erenstein, 2017).
Land use and forage shortage
C1 has a smaller total area (36.8 ha average), less sown area and
less grazing land than the other clusters. C2 has an average total area
of 53.5 ha for forage production, while C2 has 17.4 ha and 30.8 ha of
average sown and rangeland, respectively. In contrast, C3 shows an
average of 52 ha of total agricultural area, 52.5 ha for sowing and 90.2
ha of rangeland (table 3).
Table 3. Availability, land use and scarcity of forage (mean±de).
Clúster
Total área
(ha)
Sown area
(ha)
Rangeland
(ha)
Forrage shortage
(months)
C1
36.8±29.4 12.5±11.1 13.9±12.2 3.3±1.5
C2
53.5±33.1 17.4±11.0 30.8±35.5 3.9±1.7
C3
152.7±48.1 52.5±20.6 90.2±70.8 3.7±1.7
Source: own elaboration.
The planted area uses mainly dual-purpose (grain and forage)
sorghum Gavatero-203 and corn (Zea mays) to a lesser extent. The
sorghum variety (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) Gavatero-203 has an
average yield of 2,849 kg.ha
-1
of grain and 35,367 kg.ha
-1
of green
forage (Hernández et al., 2010). The herbaceous stratum plays an
important role in livestock feeding during the rainy season, with
species of the Acanthaceae family, commonly known as bull grass
because of its forage importance, and species like Carlowrightia
arizonica and Dicliptera resupinata, among others standing out in the
rangelands (Guízar et al., 1994).
This land utilization does not produce enough forage, so there
is a pasture shortage of 3.3 (C1), 3.9 (C2) and 3.7 (C3) months per
year, so producers are forced to buy forage in the dry season. Rojas-
Downing et al. (2017), point out that, the lack of forage produced
by environmental stress caused by events such as droughts, directly
aects pasture productivity as well as the physiological well-being of
animals and their reproductive health.
Total cattle in the production units
On average, C1 has 46.1 heads of total cattle (herd), C2 has 60,
and C3 has 165 heads of total cattle. Of all livestock heads, C1 and
C2 each have 18.8 and 20 adult cows on average, while C3 has 59
adult cows. The number of sires is relatively similar for C1 and C2,
while C3 has 3 on average (table 4). These values coincide with those
reported by Bautista-Martínez et al. (2021) who found three strata
and one of the main dierentiating characteristics was herd size and
structure. However, in our study, it has been found that in Cluster
3, the total number of sires can negatively inuence reproductive
parameters due to an inadequate sire-cow ratio.
Table 4. Heads of cattle in production units (mean ± de).
Clúster
Herd
(number of head)
Cows
(number)
Sires
(number)
C1 46.1 ± 29.0 20.0 ± 12.3 1.3 ± 0.7
C2 60.0 ± 37.8 18.8 ± 11.3 1.5 ± 0.8
C3 165.2 ± 49.1 59.0 ± 19.7 3.0 ± 0.8
Source: own elaboration.
Livestock productivity
Livestock productivity by groups is presented in table 5, it
is observed that C1 shows a daily milk production of 10.3 L, C2
produces 76.7 L and C3 has a production of 232.5 L.day
-1
; with this
information and the average number of milking cows, it is obtain a
daily average production per cow of 4.6 for C1, 6.0 for C2 and 7.0 for
C3. In Clusters C2 and C3, cows are milked for more than 9 months
a year (270 days a year), while in C1 only about one month a year is
milked (table 5).
Table 5. Livestock productivity in the identied groups (mean ± de).
Clúster
Milking cows
(number)
Milk
production
(L.day
-1
)
length of
milking period
(days)
Calves
produced
annually
(Number)
C1
2.2 ± 4.3 10.3 ± 22.4 33.7 ± 85.2 8.9 ± 7.3
C2
12.7 ± 9.1 76.7 ± 66.4 293.6 ± 118.8 13.0 ± 12.5
C3
33.2 ± 11.6 232.5 ±78.8 272.5 ± 109.5 22.7 ± 7.8
Source: own elaboration.
The number of calves produced ranged from 8.9 for C1 to 22.7
for C3. Milk production per cow (4 to 7 L.day
-1
) agrees with Juarez-
Barrientos et al. (2015) in a study conducted in dual-purpose systems
in Veracruz, Mexico.
Milking days are carried out during a certain time of the year (one
to ve months), however, the PUs that have fewer cows (such as C1),
leave the calf to consume the milk in order to sell it in a shorter time
(six months), with an average weight of 220 kg.
Livestock drought adaptation technologies
Adaptation of extensive livestock farming refers to the set of
measures and adjustments needed in production practices to reduce the
negative eects of climate change (CC) (Villavicencio et al., 2023).
Five drought adaptation measures or technologies used by the cattle
ranching groups in the study region are analyzed in table 6: paddock
shading (PS), stocking rate adjustment (SRA), species diversication
(SD), forage conservation (FC) and silvopastoral systems (SPS).
Table 6. Livestock drought adaptation technologies (%).
Clúster PS SRA SD FC SPS
C1
34.8 39.1 21.7 26.1 21.7
C2
34.8 47.8 43.5 47.8 34.8
C3 0
75.0 25.0 75.0 25.0
Source: own elaboration.
Pasture shade
The benet of having trees dispersed in the paddocks is reected
in obtaining various products such as wood, food, shade and fruit
for livestock (Esquivel-Mimenza et al., 2011). The use of SP was
reported by 34.8 % of the production units in C1 and C2; however,
producers of C3 do not use this practice. This measure uses the
resources available in the pasture in the state of Sinaloa, for cattle
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Cuevas-Reyes et al. Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2024 40(1): e2441065-6 |
feeding during the rainy season; the shrub layer and low trees,
smaller than ve meters (Guízar et al., 1994), which are found in
the BTC rangeland. According to Esqueda et al. (2011), the most
representative trees of the BTC in Mexico are copales (Bursera spp.),
pochotes (Ceiba spp.) and tepeguaje (Lysiloma sp.), as well as several
columnar cacti.
Adjustment of stocking rate
In Mexico, the number of cattle in at least 24 states is estimated to
be higher than the carrying capacity, depending on forage production
(Enríquez et al., 2021). The SRA is carried out to a greater extent
(75 %) by producers in C3 (this cluster shows the largest herd size),
followed by C2 (47.8 %) and nally 39.1 % in C1 production units. It
is important to mention that this activity is not carried out to seek less
overexploitation of forage resources, but as a subsistence strategy,
since the producers sell part of their herd (young animals or adult
cows) in order to purchase fodder for the dry season (Cuevas-Reyes
and Rosales-Nieto, 2018).
Species diversication
Biodiversity is essential for the functioning of ecosystems and
human well-being through the provision of environmental services
(Pimm et al., 2014). 43.5 % of C2 producers indicated having
conducted SD, followed by C3 producers with 25 % and in last place
with 21.7 %, were C1 producers. In the study area, local research
centers have focused on the diversication of forage species adaptable
to drought, such as pearl millet (Pennisetum americanum L. Leeke),
which has a higher eciency in the use of rainwater compared to
traditional crops such as corn or sorghum (Reyes et al., 2022). In
addition, several varieties of sorghum and grasses such as Pretoria
(Dichanthium annulatum (Forssk.) Stapf), Callie (Cynodon dactylon
(L.) Pers.), llanero grass (Andropogon gayanus Kunth) and buel
grass (Cenchrus ciliaris L.) are used (Loaiza, 2011).
Forage conservation
The practice of FC is performed by the three types of producers
(in C1 it is performed by 26.1 %; 47.8 % in C2 and 75 % in C3),
this activity requires having agricultural implements such as tractors,
trailers and silos to store forage. It is an activity that allows having
good quality forage for the dry season, however, it is mainly carried
out by producers owning the largest agricultural area (Cuevas-Reyes,
2019).
Silvopastoral systems
The establishment of SPS contributes to sustainable livestock
production because it reduces the impact on natural resources and
increases the eciency and protability of an area; in addition,
sanitary and phytosanitary measures improve food safety and animal
welfare (Chará et al., 2019). In 34.8 % of the production units of
C2 there are SPS, 25 % in C3 and 21.7 % in C1, as mentioned by
producers who implemented this technology. Generally speaking, it
was identied that two of the ve practices used (load adjustment and
species diversity) coincide with studies carried out in other research
projects. Abazinab et al. (2022) found that reduction of the population
size of livestock and diversication of the species for cattle are
measures of adaptation to CC applied by the ranchers.
Conclusions
Three typologies of livestock production units were identied.
Cluster one (C1) could be dened as subsistence, since its productive
results are very low, it was observed very few animals and the smallest
available total area (both sowing and rangeland); these producers are
the oldest of the three groups and use paddock shading and stocking
rate adjustment as drought mitigation practices.
Cluster two (C2), performed the medium behavior, it is formed
by youngest producers, whose cows showed an adequate length of
milking period and productive results (per milking cow) in the tipical
range reported for these production systems. This Cluster showed
a larger total area, with more planting and pasture available area;
it stands out due to adopting the most eective drought mitigation
practices: stocking rate adjustment, forage conservation and species
diversication.
Group three (C3) comprises the youngest producers, who have the
largest average livestock area and inventory. These are economically
active production units given their levels of productivity characteristic
of dual-purpose grazing systems of the Latin American tropics. The
drought mitigation decisions of these producers are focused on
stocking rate adjustment and forage conservation.
The study made it possible to identify, in the selected sample,
drought mitigation practices related to land use from the producers’
point of view. These results can serve as a reference to carry out studies
in similar environments to improve the use of technologies and scale
adaptation measures from the local level and by type of producer to
mitigate drought problems in pastoral livestock in tropical areas that
use tropical deciduous forest vegetation.
It is recommended that a probabilistic sampling and longitudinal
approach be used for future work to validate the results of this study
in relation to the use of adaptation measures throughout a production
cycle.
Source of nancing
The research was nanced by INIFAP through the SIGI project
14235135370: “Sustainable forage production under a context of
climate change and soil degradation in the dry tropics of Mexico”.
Literature cited
Abazinab, H., Duguma, B. & Muleta, E. (2022). Livestock farmers’ perception
of climate change and adaptation strategies in the Gera district, Jimma
zone, Oromia Regional state, southwest Ethiopia. Heliyon, 8(12), e12200.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12200
Ali, A. & Erenstein, O. (2017). Assessing farmer use of climate change adaptation
practices and impacts on food security and poverty in Pakistan.
Climate Risk Management, 16, 183-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
crm.2016.12.001
Bautista-Martínez, Y., Granados-Zurita, L., Joaquín-Cancino, S., Ruiz-Albarrán,
M., Garay-Martínez, J. R., Infante-Rodriguez, F., & Granados Rivera,
L. D. (2020). Factores que determinan la producción de becerros en el
sistema vaca-cría del Estado de Tabasco, México. Nova scientia, 12(25).
https://doi.org/10.21640/ns.v12i25.2117
Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO).
(2022). Selvas secas. https://www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/ecosistemas/
selvaSeca
Cullen, B., Ayre, M., Reichelt, N., Nettle, R., Hayman, G., Armstrong, D.P.,
Beilin, R. & Harrison, M.T. (2021). Climate change adaptation for
livestock production in southern Australia: transdisciplinary approaches
for integrated solutions. Animal Frontiers: The Review Magazine of
Animal Agriculture, 11, 30-39. https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfab046
Cuevas-Reyes, V. y Rosales-Nieto, C. (2018). Caracterización del sistema
bovino doble propósito en el noroeste de México: productores, recursos
y problemática. Revista MVZ Córdoba, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.21897/
rmvz.1240
Cuevas-Reyes, V. (2019). Factores que determinan la adopción del ensilaje en
unidades de producción ganaderas en el trópico Seco del Noroeste de
México. Ciencia y Tecnología Agropecuaria, 20(3), 467-477 https://doi.
org/10.21930/rcta.vol20num3art:1586
Chará, J., Reyes, E., Peri, P., Otte, J., Arce, E. & Schneider, F. (2019). Silvopastoral
Systems and Their Contribution to Improved Resource Use and
Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America. https://
www.fao.org/documents/card/fr?details=CA2792EN
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Cuevas-Reyes et al. Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2024 40(1): e2441066-6 |
territorio/clima.aspx?tema=me&e=25
Juárez-Barrientos, J. M., Herman-Lara, E., Soto-Estrada, A., Ávalos-de la Cruz,
D. A., Vilaboa-Arroniz, J. y Díaz-Rivera, P. (2015). Tipicación de
sistemas de doble propósito para producción de leche en el distrito de
desarrollo rural 008, Veracruz, México. Revista Cientíca, XXV(4), 317-
323. https://www.redalyc.org/comocitar.oa?id=95941173007
Loaiza, M.A. (2011). Tecnologías productivas para ganaderos de Sinaloa. México.
Fundación Produce Sinaloa. https://www.fps.org.mx/portal/index.php/
paquetes-tecnológicos/108-bovinos/1833tecnologias-productivas-para-
ganaderos-de-sinaloa
McNamara, K. T., Wetzstein, M. E. & Douce, G. K. (1991). Factors Aecting
Peanut Producer Adoption of Integrated Pest Management. Review of
Agricultural Economics, 13(1),129-139. https://doi.org/10.2307/1349563
Mishra, A.K. & Singh, V.P. (2010). A Review of Drought Concepts. Journal of
Hydrology, 391, 202-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.07.012
Ortega-Gaucin, D., Cruz-Bartolón, J., y Castellano-Bahena HV. (2018). Drought
Vulnerability Indices in Mexico. Water, 10(11), 1671. https://doi.
org/10.3390/w10111671
Pennington, R.T., Prado, D.E. & Pendry, C.A. (2000). Neotropical seasonally dry
forests and Quaternary vegetation changes. Journal of Biogeography, 27,
261–273. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2000.00397.x
Pérez, P.C. (2008). Técnicas de análisis multivariante de datos. Editorial Pearson.
Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N., Abell, R., Brooks, T. M., Gittleman, J. L., Joppa, L. N.,
Raven, P. H., Roberts, C. M. & Sexton, J. O. (2014). The biodiversity of
species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science,
344(6187), 1246752. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246752.
Quinn, M.P. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Sage
Publications.
Rzedowski, J. (1978). Vegetación de México. Editorial Limusa.
Reyes, J.J.E., Loaiza, M.A., Gutiérrez, G.O.G y Cuevas, R.V. (2022). Tecnología
de producción de mijo perla forrajero en Sinaloa. Campo Experimental
Valle de Culiacán. Folleto técnico, Núm. 71. México. INIFAP. https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/370252074_TECNOLOGIA_DE_
PRODUCCION_DE_MIJO_PERLA_FORRAJERO_EN_SINALOA
Rojas-Downing, M.M., Nejadhashemi, A.P., Harrigan, T. & Woznicki, S.A. (2017).
Climate change and livestock: Impacts, adaptation, and mitigation.
Climate Risk Management, 16, 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
crm.2017.02.001
Tapasco, J., LeCoq, J.F., Ruden A., Rivas, J.S. & Ortiz, J. (2019). The Livestock
Sector in Colombia: Toward a Program to Facilitate Large-Scale Adoption
of Mitigation and Adaptation Practices. Frontiers in Sustainable Food
Systems, 3,61. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00061
Vilà-Baños, R. Rubio-Hurtado, M. J., Berlanga-Silvente, V. y Torrado-Fonseca, M.
(2014). Cómo aplicar un cluster jerárquico en SPSS. Revista d’Innovació
i Recerca en Educació, 7 (1), 113-127. http://www.ub.edu/ice/reire.htm
Villavicencio, G.M.R., Salazar, V.M.P. y Campillo, J.M. (2023). Adaptación al
cambio climático con enfoque de economía circular para reducir la
vulnerabilidad del sector ganadero extensivo en México: estado del arte.
Regiones y Desarrollo Sustentable, 23(44). http://www.coltlax.edu.mx/
openj/index.php/ReyDS/article/view/252
Enríquez, Q.J.F., Esqueda, E.V.A. y Martínez, M.D. (2021). Rehabilitación
de praderas degradadas en el trópico de México. Revista Mexicana de
Ciencias Pecuarias, 12(Supl. 3), 243-260. https://doi.org/10.22319/
rmcp.v12s3.5876
Esquivel-Mimenza, H., Ibrahim, M., Harvey, C.A., Támara, B. & Sinclair, F.L.
(2011). Dispersed trees in pasturelands of cattle farms in a tropical dry
ecosystem. Tropical and subtropical agroecosystems, 14(3), 933-941.
https://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/tsa/v14n3/v14n3a6.pdf
Esqueda, C.M.H., Sosa, R.E.E., Chávez, S.A.H., Villanueva, A.F., Lara, R.M.J.,
Royo, M.M.H., Sierra, T.J.S., González, S.A. y Beltrán, L.C. (2011).
Ajuste de carga animal en tierras de pastoreo. Manual de capacitación.
Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias.
Folleto Técnico No. 4. https://redgatro.fmvz.unam.mx/publicaciones.
html#section3
FAO. (2018). Soluciones ganaderas para el cambio climático. https://www.fao.
org/3/I8098ES/i8098es.pdf
Feder, G., Just, R. & Zilberman, D. (1985). Adoption of Agricultural Innovations
in Developing Countries: A Survey. Economic Development and Cultural
Change, 33(2), 255-298. https://doi.org/10.1086/451461
Girma, A.S. & Zelalem, B.E. (2022). Drought vulnerability and impacts of
climate change on livestock production and productivity in dierent
agroEcological zones of Ethiopia. Journal of Applied Animal Research,
50(1), 471-489. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2022.2103563
Gerber, P.J., Hristov, A.N., Henderson, B., Makkar, H., Oh, J., Lee, C., Meinen, R.,
Montes, F., Ott, T., Firkins, J., Rotz, A., Dell, C., Adesogan, A.T., Yang,
W.Z., Tricarico, J.M., Kebreab, E., Waghorn, G., Dijkstra, J. & Oosting,
S. (2013). Technical options for the mitigation of direct methane and
nitrous oxide emissions from livestock: a review. Animal, 7(2), 220–234.
doi:10.1017/S1751731113000876
Guízar, N.E., González, E.A., Díaz, O.A. (1994). Composición Florística del
agostadero en las comunidades de El Huajote y Malpica, municipio de
Concordia, Sinaloa. Universidad Autónoma Chapingo.
Habte, M., Eshetu, M., Maryo, D. & Andualem, L.A. (2022). Eects of climate
variability on livestock productivity and pastoralist’s perception: the case
of drought resilience in Southeastern Ethiopia. Veterinary and Animal
Science, 16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vas.2022.100240
Hernández, G.O. (2021). Aproximación a los distintos tipos de muestreo no
probabilístico que existen. Revista Cubana de Medicina General
Integral, 37(3):e1442. http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_
arttext&pid=S0864-21252021000300002
Hernández, E.L.A., Moreno, G.T., Loaiza, M.A. y Reyes, J.J.E. (2010).
Gavatero-203, nueva variedad de sorgo forrajero para el estado de
Sinaloa. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas, 1(5), 727-731. https://
www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/remexca/v1n5/v1n5a13.pdf
IBM Corporation. (2022). SPSS software. https://www.ibm.com/mx-es/analytics/
spss-statistics-software
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, INEGI. (2021). Resumen
Sinaloa. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, INEGI (2022).
Censo Agropecuario 2022. https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/
ca/2022/#Tabuladoshttps://en.www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/app/
areasgeogracas/resumen/resumen_25.pdf
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, INEGI. (2023). Monografía,
clima. https://www.cuentame.inegi.org.mx/monograas/informacion/sin/
