10.57647/jrs-2026-1601.10

Pampa Galeras Vicuña Reserve a New Equilibrium State? Range Condition and Ecological Carrying Capacity

PDF
  • Remzi Foresto Zárate*1,
  • Enrique Ricardo Flores1,
  1. Laboratory of Ecology and Range Management, UNA La Molina, Lima, Peru

Received: 2025-01-10

Revised: 2025-03-18

Accepted: 2025-06-28

Published in Issue 2026-03-31

Copyright (c) 2025 Remzi Foresto Zárate, Enrique Ricardo Flores (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Zárate, R. F., & Flores, E. R. (2026). Pampa Galeras Vicuña Reserve a New Equilibrium State? Range Condition and Ecological Carrying Capacity. Journal of Rangeland Science, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.57647/jrs-2026-1601.10
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 207

Abstract

The rangelands of the Pampa Galeras National Reserve (Peru) span 22,231 hectares (ha), of which 7,932 ha constitute the rigid zone—an area exclusively for vicuña (Vicugna vicugna mensalis) grazing—while the remaining 14,299 ha serve as a buffer zone for mixed vicuña–cattle grazing. Since the 1960s, this landscape has played a pivotal role in the recovery of the vicuña population from near extinction, offering a valuable opportunity for research on its ecology and management. Previous inventories indicated that the rangelands remained in poor conditions for vicuña grazing, despite relatively stable population densities. This study evaluated the ecological status and estimated the vicuña units (UV) that the rigid zone could support using an ecological site framework. Fifteen ecological sites were identified using geographic information systems and remote sensing, and each was assessed for floristic composition, rangeland condition, and trends. Results indicated that 86% of the sites were in poor conditions, and 35% exhibited a negative trend—evidenced by the presence of pedestalled plants, invasive species, and low litter—suggesting that many sites may have crossed abiotic thresholds and shifted into alternative stable states. The current ecological carrying capacity (Ck) of the rigid zone was estimated at 3,763 UV (0.47 UV/ha/year), which is below the potential carrying capacity (Cp) of 4,982 UV (0.60 UV/ha/year). Notably, when Ck was exceeded, vicuña numbers plummeted from 4,987 to 2,218 UV, indicating low resilience in the rangeland–vicuña system. Multiple limiting factors were identified, including interspecific competition, poor soil potential, harsh weather, and the lack of an adaptive rangeland-wildlife management strategy. Establishing an adaptative monitoring and management program based on key and reference areas is strongly recommended.

Keywords

  • Vicuña,
  • Rangeland,
  • Carrying capacity,
  • Condition,
  • Resilience
PDF

References

  1. Begon, M., Mortimer, M., Thompson, D.J., 1996. Population ecology: a unified study of animals and plants. 3rd ed. Blackwell Science. ISBN 9780632034789.
  2. Begon, M., Townsend, C.R., Harper, J.L., 2006. Ecology: From individuals to ecosystems. 4th ed. Blackwell Publishing, ISBN-13: 1-4051-1117-8, 978-1-4051-1117-1, 752 p. Available at: https://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Ecology-From-Individuals-to-Ecosystems-by-Michael-Begon--2006-.pdf.
  3. Bestelmeyer, B., Duniway, M., James, D., Burkett, L., Havstad, K., 2013. A test of critical thresholds and their indicators in a desertification-prone ecosystem: More resilience than we thought. Ecology Letters, 16 (3), 339–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12045.
  4. Bonacic, C., 2000. Population dynamics of the vicuña (Vicugna vicugna) and determination of carrying capacity in the province of Parinacota - Chile. In: Sustainable Management of Vicuña and Guanaco: Proceedings of the International Seminar, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile, pp. 88–92. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14001/28523.
  5. Brack, A., 1980. Vicuña conservation in Peru: Special project for the rational use of vicuña. Ministry of Agriculture and Food, National Agricultural Library, Lima, Peru.
  6. Bradford, P., Wilcox, F.C., Fraga, V.B., 1987. An evaluation of range condition on one range site in the Andes of central Peru. Journal of Range Management, 40 (1), 41-45. https://doi.org/10.2307/3899359.
  7. Capuñay, K., 2022. Composition of the vicuña diet (Vicugna vicugna) using fecal microhistology techniques. Scientific Repository of the Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, Lima, Peru, pp. 140. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12996/5588.
  8. Cordova, F., Wallace, J., Pieper, R., 1978. Forage intake by grazing livestock: A review. Journal of Range Management, 31 (6), 430–438. https://doi.org/10.2307/3897201.
  9. Cox, N.D., 2005. Rangeland trend: Quality vs quantity. Rangelands, 27 (4), 12–14. https://doi.org/10.2111/1551-501X(2005)27[12:RTQVQ]2.0.CO;2.
  10. Flores, E. R., 1991. In: S. Fernández-Baca, ed., Advances and perspectives of the knowledge of South American camelids, pp. 191–212. FAO Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean.
  11. Flores, E. R., Tácuna, R. E., Calvo, V., 2014. Conceptual and methodological framework for estimating the health status of wetlands (Technical Note 9). Ministry of the Environment. Available at: http://biblioteca.cehum.org/handle/CEHUM2018/1341.
  12. Florez, A., Malpartida, E., 1980. Determination of the carrying capacity of the natural rangelands of the rigid zone of Pampas Galeras (Bulletin No. 21). Forage Program, Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, Lima, Perú.
  13. Gutiérrez, J., Hernández, I., 1996. Runoff and interrill erosion as affected by grass cover in a semi-arid rangeland of northern Mexico. Journal of Arid Environments, 34 (3), 287–295. https://doi.org/10.1006/jare.1996.0110.
  14. Hofmann, R., Otte, K., Ponce, C., Rios, M., 1983. The management of the wild vicuña. German Society for Technical Cooperation, Volume I, pp. 173–217. Eschborn.
  15. Laca, E., Shipley, L., Reid, E., 2001. Structural anti-quality characteristics of range and pasture plants. Journal of Range Management. 54(4), 413-419. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.2307/4003112.
  16. Lepak, N., Moffitt, J., Toledo, D., Newingham, B., Laurence-Traynor, A., Jost, B., Coultrap, D., Herrick, J., 2024. Describing indicators of rangeland health (Technical Reference 1734-9). U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center. Available at: https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2024-08/TR_1734-09.pdf.
  17. Lichtenstein, G., Oribe, F., Grieg-Gran, M., Mazzucchelli, S., 2002. Community vicuña management in Peru: Case study of community wildlife management (PIE Series No. 2). International Institute for Environment and Development. Retrieved from: https://www.iied.org/es/9158iied.
  18. Lubbering, J.M., Stuth, J.W., Mungall, E.C., Sheffield, W.J., 1991. An approach for strategic planning of stocking rates for exotic and native ungulates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 29 (1-4), 483–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(91)90267-2.
  19. Mandujano, S., 2011. Population ecology applied to wildlife management: Four concepts (N, ʎ, MSY, PE). Wildlife Management Collection No. 3. Instituto Literario de Veracruz S.C., Xalapa, Ver., 102 pp. ISBN: 978-607-7536-12-3.
  20. MINAM., 2022. Master Plan of the Pampa Galeras Bárbara D'Achille National Reserve 2022-2026. National Service of Natural Areas Protected by the State (SERNANP), Peru. Retrieved from: https://www.gob.pe/institucion/sernanp/normas-legales/2779680-069-2022-sernanp.
  21. Oscanoa, L., Flores, E.R., 2019. Effect of rangeland ecohydrological improvement techniques on the water yield of the Urpay high Andean micro-basin. Applied Ecology, 18 (1), 1–9. https://dx.doi.org/10.21704/rea.v18i1.1303.
  22. Pastor, J., 2008. Mathematical ecology of populations and ecosystems. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN: 978-1-4051-7795-5, 978-1-4051-8811-1.
  23. Pyke, D.A., Herrick, J.E., Shaver, P., Pellant, M., 2002. Rangeland health attributes and indicators for qualitative assessment. Journal of Range Management, 55 (6), 584–597. https://doi.org/10.2307/4004002.
  24. Sasaki, T., 2010. Paradigm Integration between Equilibrium and Non-Equilibrium Concepts for Evaluating Vegetation Dynamics in Rangeland Ecosystems. Global Environmental Research, 14:17– 22.
  25. SERFOR., 2022. Guide for the identification of palatability grass species for vicuñas. Lima, Peru, 96 pp. Retrieved from: https://www.gob.pe/institucion/serfor/informes-publicaciones/3311474-guia-para-la-identificacion-de-especies-de-pastos-con-palatabilidad-para-vicunas.
  26. SERNANP., 2023. Pampa Galeras National Reserve - Servicio Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas por el Estado (SERNANP) geo Server. Retrieved from: https://geo.sernanp.gob.pe/visorsernanp/.
  27. Shaw, A., Galaz, J., Marquet, P., 2012. Population dynamics of the vicuña (Vicugna vicugna): Density-dependence, rainfall and spatial distribution. Journal of Mammalogy, 93 (3), 658–666. https://doi.org/10.1644/11-MAMM-A-257.1.
  28. Sotelo, J.H., 1980. Method of evaluation of pasture productivity. Technical Publication No. 2. Ministry of Agriculture and Food of Peru, Peru.
  29. Stuth, J.W., Sheffield, W.J., 1986. Determining carrying capacity for combinations of livestock, white-tailed deer, and exotic ungulates. Proceedings of the 1986 International Rancher's Roundup, pp. 241–254. Texas Agricultural Extension Service.
  30. Sullivan, S., Rohde, R., 2002. Guest editorial: On non-equilibrium in arid and semi-arid grazing systems. Journal of Biogeography, 29 (12), 1595–1618. http://www.jstor.org/stable/827333.
  31. Tácuna, R. E., Aguirre, L., Flores, E. R., 2021. Changes in vegetation structure and hydrologic function in response to rangeland rest. Applied Ecology, 20 (2), 127–136. https://dx.doi.org/0.21704/rea.v20i2.1803.
  32. Tapia, E., Aguirre, L., 1982. The native species of the rangelands of southern Peru. Mimeo. PISCA PROJECT, IICA-ICIDCuzco. Available at: https://sisbib.unmsm.edu.pe/BVRevistas/rcs/n06_1988/contenido.htm.
  33. Tito, E. E., Aguirre, L., Flores, E. R., 2024. Impact of grazing intensity on the vigor and weight of Festuca Humilior (Nees & Meyen) and Calamagrostis vicunarum (Weddell). Applied Ecology, 23 (1), 81–85. https://doi.org/10.21704/rea.v23i1.2167
  34. Torres, H., 1983. Distribution and conservation of the vicuña (Vicugna vicugna). International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland. ISBN 2-88032-903-5. Retrieved from: https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/1983-001.pdf.
  35. Tovar, O., 1973. Plant communities of the Pampa Galeras Vicuñas National Reserve, Ayacucho, Peru. Publ. Mus. Hist. Nat. "Javier Prado", Ser. B, Bot., 27, 1–32.
  36. Tuppia, M., Aliaga, J., Malpartida, E., Arias, J., 1997. Evaluation of vegetation indices and carrying capacity of the native rangelands of Pampa Galeras. Scientific Repository of the Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina: Scientific Annals, 32, 15–26.
  37. Trillo, F., Nuñez, J., Aguirre, L., Barrantes, C., Flores, E. R., 2020. Comparison of autoecological indicators in growth dynamics of Festuca dolichophylla (Presl, 1830) and Festuca humilior (Nees & Meyen, 1841). Journal of Veterinary Research of Peru, 31 (3), e18743. https://doi.org/10.15381/rivep.v31i3.18743.
  38. USDA, Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2022. National range and pasture handbook (Title 190, Handbook Number 645, Subpart D – Conservation Planning on Grazing Lands). U.S. Department of Agriculture.
  39. Zárate, R., Flores, E, R., 2023. Rangeland health status and condition: Two different yet complementary concepts: National Reserve Pampa Galeras Bárbara D'Achille case. IGC Proceedings (1993-2023), 14. Retrieved from:
  40. https://doi.org/10.13023/xaft-s498