1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

中文翻译：

---

巴塔哥尼亚草原是否过度放牧？对马里诺等人的回应。（2020年）

1. 根据基本生产力估算，Oliva等人。（2019）得出结论，在上世纪末和长期放牧之后，巴塔哥尼亚的国内种群已根据区域规模的草食动物的承载能力进行了调整。此后，原产骆驼科的骆驼种群增加了，使放牧综合压力再次超出了某些地区的承载能力。
2. Marino等。（2020）认为，放牧并不是真正的均衡，因为国内种群集中在仍然过度放牧的地区。他们支持这样的观点，即骆驼密度由资源防御区域自动调节，而骆驼是国内股票的弱竞争者，仅占据边缘区域。他们认为，奥利瓦（Oliva）等人。（2019）将鬣蜥作为替罪羊，让国内股票不受控制。
3. 区域规模的均衡并不排除局部规模的过度放牧和放牧不足。通过将有或没有国内库存的地区分开，Marino等人。（2020年）估计丘布特省的放牧率为28％，圣克鲁斯省为73％。我们的重新计算显示，国内过度放牧分别为28％和47％。但是，与羊驼毛密度结合使用时，丘布特的密度增加到48％，圣克鲁斯的密度增加到108％。
4. 我们质疑假设的缺乏竞争价值和有效的自我调节机制，这些机制会阻止骆马种群过度承载能力。13个养羊场的数据集显示平均密度为26±3.8 guanacos / km ²，联合放牧压力较高。在丘布特（Chubut）保护区也观察到了这一情况，该保护区达到42 guanacos / km ²并在干旱期间坠毁，死亡率为60％。此后，鬣蜥增加到70 guanacos / km ²，其招募率显示出对密度依赖性的复杂响应，但在高于估计承载能力的密度下仍然相对较高。
5. 综合与应用。Marino等。（2020）是正确的质疑集中在可能仍然过度放牧的地区的国内股票的表观均衡。但是地面数据表明，即使在有绵羊的情况下，骆驼科种群的种群密度调节效率也不高，甚至可以超过承载能力达到密度。这并不意味着主要的控制应针对不断增长的骆驼种群，但它强调了我们的结论，即迫切需要对本土-食草动物系统进行联合管理。联合管理可以通过地方计划来实现，因为当前的骆马之类的管理许可只能在没有被绵羊过度放牧的地区签发。农场管理计划可以通过这种方式将明显的竞争者转变为有价值的资源，作为养羊的补充。