Skip to main content
PMC home page
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Dec 1;17(12):e0278691. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278691

Short report: Spatial distribution and growth of sheep farming in Brazilian Amazon

Andréia Santana Bezerra 1,*, Caio Cezar Ferreira de Souza 2, Marcos Antônio Souza dos Santos 3, Cyntia Meireles Martins 3, Maria Lúcia Bahia Lopes 2, Alfredo Kingo Oyama Homma 4, José de Brito Lourenço Júnior 1
Editor: Antonio Humberto Hamad Minervino5
PMCID: PMC9714815  PMID: 36455057

Abstract

Sheep farming has grown substantially in the Brazilian Amazon over the previous three decades. This article analyzes the spatial distribution and the dynamics of sheep herd growth using data from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics—IBGE from 1990 to 2020. The sheep herd growth rates and densities were estimated to assess its dynamics. Maps were then drawn up to show the spatial dynamics of these variables. The highest concentration of herds in the last decade (2010) occurred in Pará, Mato Grosso, and Maranhão states. For each decade there were different growth patterns, but for the entire period (1990 to 2020), there was growth in Mato Grosso, Pará, Maranhão, Tocantins, and Amazonas micro-regions states. The highest density of herd (animals per area) was observed in Maranhão. The potential points for development identified in this study may support strategic planning aimed at strengthening the activity in the region.

Introduction

The Amazon Forest is a tropical forest located in the northern region of South America. Brazil has the largest part of this biome on the continent, which is equivalent to more than 60% [1]. In the Amazon biome area belonging to Brazil, there is a political delimitation called Legal Amazon, corresponding to the Superintendence for the Development of the Amazon (SUDAM) action area [2]. This region is composed of 52 municipalities in Rondônia, 22 in Acre, 62 in Amazonas, 15 in Roraima, 144 in Pará, 16 in Amapá, 139 in the Tocantins, 141 in Mato Grosso, as well as 181 municipalities in Maranhão State located west of the 44th meridian [3]. Sheep are mainly located in the northeast region of Brazil (14.56 million head), representing 70.59% of the country [4].

However, production systems are extensive and of low technological level [5, 6]. On the other hand, in the South, which has the second-largest herd (3.86 million), constituting 18.75% of total population, sheep production is more specialized, with significant improvement in productivity [7]. Then, there is the Midwest with 4.92% (1.01 million) and the Southeast with 2.99% of the sheep population (616.52 thousand). Finally, the North part, with all the territory integrating the Brazilian Amazon, has the lowest sheep number (571.26 thousand), representing 2.77% of the country [4]. In this context, the increasing pressure against deforestation in the Amazon region has stimulated the search for animal protein production activities that use minor land extensions. The farming of meat producing sheep could serve as an alternative because it is a medium-sized animal species that need less space than cattle which is historically extensively bred in native and cultivated pastures in the Amazon region [8, 9]. It is noteworthy that sheep farming in Brazil is predominantly performed by family farms, which has relevance in maintaining the traditional population in the region. The fact that this species is a smaller animal facilitates the insertion of small producers in the activity, even for subsistence, preventing the loss of their land to large farms [5, 6, 10]. In addition, these populations use alternative feed sources such as agroindustrial fruit residues and forage adapted to the region (spineless cactus), generating a bioeconomic context for these animals [11, 12].

Moreover, sheep farming has potential for growth instead of increased demand for meat in the domestic market that has been supplied by imported meat, with a quantity of 3.2 thousand tons recorded in the year 2020 [13]. The knowledge about sheep herd growth in Amazon and its distribution would enable public institutions to identify potential growth points. Then, they could elaborate on strategic planning to strengthen the activity in the region and, thus, rationally allocate resources. Therefore, this study was developed to evaluate the sheep herd growth trend and its distribution in the Brazilian Amazon.

Materials and methods

The research was conducted with data from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics website from 1990 to 2020. 107 micro-regions of Acre, Amazonas, Roraima, Rondônia, Mato Grosso, Tocantins, Pará, Amapá, Maranhão states were considered, obtaining the herd of the established period (1990–2020) by state and micro-region. The Roraima state was inserted only in 2013 due to lack of information in previous years, and the Maranhão was inserted in its entirety for a complete analysis of the herd dynamics.

The sheep herd density per km2 in each micro-region was calculated by dividing the total existing sheep population by the area in km2.

For producing the herd size and density maps, the categorization by decade was performed by obtaining four maps (1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020 decades) for each variable studied.

For evaluating the sheep herd growth in each legal Amazon state, the growth rates were estimated by regression, using the semi-logarithmic model proposed by Gujarati and Porter [14]. The geometric growth rate (GGR) resulted in four maps. The data were classified into high growth (GGR > 15% per year), moderate growth (8 < GGR ≤ 15% per year), low decrease (-6.49 ≤ GGR ≤ 1 per year) and high decrease (GGR < -6.49% per year).

All maps were made with QGIS software (version 3.16.13).

Results

Sheep herd growth

The sheep herd had considerable growth in the legal Amazon from 1990 to 2010 (from 514.9 thousand heads to 1.37 million heads), corresponding to an increase of 62.28%. However, from 2010s to 2020s there was a slight decrease of 2.88%.

Sheep herd was most concentrated in Maranhão and Pará states and over decades began to concentrate in Mato Grosso state (Fig 1).

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Sheep herd distribution in the Legal Amazon (a.1990, b.2000, c.2010, d.2020). RO, Rondônia; AC, Acre; AM, Amazonas; RR, Roraima; PA, Pará; AP, Amapá; TO, Tocantins; MA, Maranhão; MT, Mato Grosso.

In the 1990s, the activity was not very representative in the Amazon region (514.95 thousand heads), because the most representative herd numbers were concentrated in some micro regions of the state of Pará (Óbidos, Santarém, Altamira and Ariri) and in some micro regions of the state of Maranhão (Chapada das Mangabeiras, Chapadas do Alto Itapecuru, Baixo Parnaíba Maranhense, Pindaré and Baixada Maranhense). However, the number of sheep has been growing over the years in the Brazilian Amazon, with the occupation of most micro-regions in Mato Grosso, Acre, those located in the southeast and southwest of Pará, as well as much of those in Rondônia state. As for the 2020s, a larger quantity of animals was concentrated in a part of the Maranhão and Tocantins states. On the other hand, since the 1990s, the activity in the western Amazon states (Acre, Amazonas, Rondonia, and Roraima) is not extensive, with the participation of the four states not reaching 20% of the regional sheep herd in 2020 (Fig 1).

Analyzing the herd geometric growth rate, it is clear that there was a slowdown in the expansion of the herds, showing a decrease in the last decade (2010 to 2020). Regarding the total period (1990 to 2020), a moderate to low growth in eight micro-regions belonging to Mato Grosso state, the majority located in northern Mato Grosso (Aripuanã, Alta Floresta, Parecis, Arinos, Alto Teres Pires, Sinop, Paranatinga) and one in southeastern Mato Grosso (Alto Guaporé) is observed (Fig 2).

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Geometric growth rate of sheep herd in Legal Amazon (a.1990-1999, b.2000-2009, c.2010-2020, d.1990-2020). RO, Rondônia; AC, Acre; AM, Amazonas; RR, Roraima; PA, Pará; AP, Amapá; TO, Tocantins; MA, Maranhão; MT, Mato Grosso.

There was also an increase in sheep population in most of Southeast Pará, with emphasis on the Tucuruí, São Felix do Xingu, Parauapebas and Marabá microregions; as well as in the imperatriz (Western Maranhão), Bico do Papagaio (Tocantins) and Rio Preto da Eva (Amazonas) microregions. In past decades (1990 to 1999), the growth was more generalized, reaching a large area of the states of Amazonas, Mato Grosso, Amapá, Acre, and southeastern Pará (Fig 2).

In the entire evaluated period (1990 to 2020), in the Legal Amazon, the geometric growth rate was positive (3.82) but low, classified as low growth (between 1.01 and 8%). The highest rates were found for the Mato Grosso, Acre, and Tocantins states.

Sheep herd distribution

In general, the density of animals per land area is very low, indicating that this activity is not developed in the Amazon. However, from the 2010s to the 2020s, there was an increase in density in the Maranhão state (Fig 3). It can also be highlighted in Fig 4.

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

Sheep herd density per km2 in Legal Amazon (a.1990, b.2000, c.2010, d.2020). RO, Rondônia; AC, Acre; AM, Amazonas; RR, Roraima; PA, Pará; AP, Amapá; TO, Tocantins; MA, Maranhão; MT, Mato Grosso.

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

Sheep herd density per km2 by state (1990–2020). RO, Rondônia; AC, Acre; AM, Amazonas; RR, Roraima; PA, Pará; AP, Amapá; TO, Tocantins; MA, Maranhão; MT, Mato Grosso.

Discussion

The meat sheep farming scenario in the Brazilian Amazon displayed a potential growth since it showed a growth of 62.26% from 1990 to 2010. This activity could be possibly affected by the pandemic (covid-19) because this crisis affected mainly small producers, and considering that sheep farming in the Brazilian Amazon is predominantly family-based [5, 6, 15–18], sheep farming tended to feel the negative impacts caused by it. The consequences come from sanitary restrictions that triggered the closure of traditional markets (such as open fairs) [19, 20]. In addition, their productions were affected by transportation issues, marketing and storage difficulties, availability of inputs, and access to rural credit [21]. All these variables contributed to an impact on the income of these farmers [22], who may not be able to supply the farm’s other activities. However, a more detailed analysis of the impacts of the pandemic on sheep farming in the Amazon region will only be possible in subsequent years, not yet visualized in the analyzed period of this study.

Despite the highest concentration of sheep both in number and density, as well as the growth rate in Mato Grosso, the production of this state is still characterized as being of low technological level [23], with a lack, especially, of appropriate sanitary practices, which decreases productivity. This activity in central Brazil, as well as in all states of the Brazilian Amazon, has been historically developed as secondary to beef cattle farming, and the animals are raised more for subsistence [15, 24].

Moreover, when the producers applied the same handlings as those performed in cattle, they created high productive and income expectations that often were not achieved. As a result, the abandonment of the activity, criticism, and a concept of low profitability in the sector were observed [25]. The socioeconomic profile of farmers in the region with low educational levels and a high degree of illiteracy is also a factor that makes it difficult to obtain information about technological tools and innovations that can contribute to the productive increment [26].

From 1990 to 2010, McManus et al. [27] stated that the high prices of agricultural commodities, environmental restrictions, and high land prices in the Brazilian Midwest region triggered a migration of cattle towards the North of the country. These factors may also have influenced the increasing adoption of sheep farming, especially in Mato Grosso (Midwestern region of the country), since it would generate animal protein that would occupy a minor extension of land for being a smaller animal [9].

Since most producers secondarily raise sheep in their cattle production [16, 18], this may also have encouraged farmers to adopt sheep farming in the North of the country (especially in the Pará state). It can occur when they moved to the region for better system conditions, seeking greater profitability.

However, the same production model adopted in beef cattle also has been attributed to sheep farming, with extensive rearing and low productivity. Thus, despite being an activity of considerable social and economic importance to the local population, it has low profitability linked to a lack of training for producers and specialized technical assistance [18]. Moreover, sheep farming lacks more investments with the objective to improve reproductive, sanitary and nutritional conditions [16]. Among the management practices, sanitary handling is one of the most challenging in the Brazillian northern region since the general environmental conditions of high rainfall, temperature, and humidity favor infection by gastrointestinal nematodes [28]. The control of these endoparasites is essential because they promote economic losses and damage to the activity, triggered by the mortality of young animals, low weight gain, and increase in feed conversion [29]. Thus, producers need to adopt specific sanitary practices for the soil and climate characteristics of the region to obtain productive success.

Maranhão state has also a significant contribution to sheep production in the Amazon. This state is part of Northeast Brazil, which represents the largest sheep herd [30], accounting for 70.6% of the total sheep in the country [31]. In this region, a semi-arid climate predominates, with long periods of drought and irregular rainfall [32]. Nevertheless, the use of breeds adapted to local conditions has contributed to the growth of production [31]. The rusticity of the species combined with a less demanding zootechnical handling makes them suitable for the system with a low technical level of production. However, productivity is affected by losses in profitability [5, 6], which differs from the production systems adopted in South and Southeastern Brazil that have considerable gains by using specialized breeds and crossbreeds as well as the application of technologies and innovations [7, 33, 34]. The activity in the Northeast is, therefore, characterized by a low technological level, being performed mainly by small producers who practice it in a subsistence format [5, 6]. There is also a great demand for specialized technical assistance and difficulties faced in nutritional management [10]. The fact that this activity is performed by small producers, who have small land extensions, often unsuitable for cultivation, made them use sheep for several decades because they did not have many options [9].

Even though in extensive systems the demand for labor is increased, family farmers seek other ways to supplement income, such as employment outside their property, which helps these families keep their farms running [35]. The participation of small producers in associations and cooperatives makes them more competitive, especially in the midst of crises, such as the one experienced by the pandemic of the covid-19 virus. They provide better infrastructure, elaborate contingency plans, and increase the ability to mitigate the shock of the crisis to their members [20]. They also promote cost reduction and increased profit margin by eliminating intermediaries, adding value to products, and buying and selling in concert [36]. There is also sharing of information [37] to increase production and ease of obtaining rural credit for investments and increased productivity [36]. However, there is a lack of collectivism in some regions of the country, such as the North and Northeast, with the disappointment of many cooperative members to previous experiences, which generates the tendency to individualism [26].

Despite the identification of areas with higher prevalence and potential for sheep herd growth, this activity in the Brazilian Amazon still has a low technological level [5, 6, 15–18, 23], which has restricted its growth. This can be changed with the joining of forces of universities, public agencies, and technical assistance companies in the elaboration of a strategic growth plan to help these family producers, especially in the identified potential points. Thus, bringing to their knowledge both technological tools to increase production and the alternatives for them to obtain rural credit and sell their products.

Conclusion

The highest prevalence of sheep herds in the last decade (2020) is found almost everywhere in the states of Pará, Mato Grosso, and Maranhão, and a few micro-regions in Acre, Tocantins, and Rondônia, but Maranhão stood out with the highest density of herd (number of animals per area). Through these results, public policies may be encouraged in these potential points to boost the sector in the Amazon region.

There was a slowdown in the expansion of the herd, tending to decline in the last decade. However, when evaluating the entire period (1990 to 2020) it is possible to identify a tendency for the activity to grow in microregions of the state of Mato Grosso (Aripuanã, Alta Floresta, Parecis, Arinos, Alto Teres Pires, Sinop, Paranatinga, Alto Guaporé), Pará (Tucuruí, São Felix do Xingu, Parauapebas and Marabá), Maranhão (Imperatriz), Tocantins (Bico do Papagaio) and Amazonas (Rio Preto da Eva), requiring, however, a look aimed at implementing technological tools to leverage production.

The association of sheep farmers to cooperatives would be a promising alternative capable of boosting productivity growth in this region, given its benefits. Thus, the state incentive is essential and should create methods to clarify to small producers the advantages of this collective organization.

Data Availability

The data used are available from the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/pesquisa/ppm/quadros/brasil/2020). Data set name: "Pesquisa da Pecuária Municipal" (table number: 3939). The authors had no special access privileges to the data others would not have.

Funding Statement

This study received financial support for publication fee from Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação (PROPESP/UFPA). Also, the first author received scholarship from the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) – Brasil (Finance Code 001). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

Decision Letter 0

Antonio Humberto Hamad Minervino

2 Jun 2022

PONE-D-22-15390Spatial distribution and growth of sheep farming in Brazilian Amazon PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bezerra,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 17 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Antonio Humberto Hamad Minervino, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"This study received financial support for publication fee from Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação (PROPESP/UFPA). Also, the first author received scholarship from the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) – Brasil (Finance Code 001)."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3.In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. We note that Figures 1, 2 and 3 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 2 and 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors,

Before I can send the manuscript for peer review, some minor issues must be addressed. Please correct all the issues and send back the manuscript.

1- References: there are too many congress citations. According to PLoS One guidelines, this kind of citation is only permitted if they are present online, and must have direct link (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines)

Exemple from PLoS website:

Online articles

Huynen MMTE, Martens P, Hilderlink HBM. The health impacts of globalisation: a conceptual framework. Global Health. 2005;1: 14. Available from: http://www.globalizationandhealth.com/content/1/1/14

2- Figures: Please check figure axis, there is untranslated words. Please check if all figures have the complete information in English, including units and decimal.

3- Parts of the manuscript are in Portuguese:

Fig 3. Densidade do rebanho ovino por km2 132 na Amazônia Legal (a.1990, b.2000, 133 c.2010, d.2020).

4- Figures 1 to 3. It´s not clear what the information in the legend represents. Please clarify the information in the legend. The colors from the figures are different between, please use the same pattern, with the red color representing the higher value. At fig 3 the legend say "higher growth" but the numbers are negative?

5- Conclusion:

Despite the identification of areas with higher prevalence and potential for sheep herd growth, this activity in the Brazilian Amazon still has a low technological level, which has restricted its growth

Considering that you used a data bank, how you can conclude that the sheep herd has low technological level? This paragraph must be moved to discussion with the inclusion or a proper reference that indicate the limited level of technology.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 1;17(12):e0278691. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278691.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

17 Jun 2022

Response to reviewers

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response: We have reviewed this and made the missing adjustments mainly in the tables.

2.Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"This study received financial support for publication fee from Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação (PROPESP/UFPA). Also, the first author received scholarship from the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) – Brasil (Finance Code 001).” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.". If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response: We have included the amended Role of Funder statement in the cover latter.

3.In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Response: We have included the Data Availability statement: “The data used are available from the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/pesquisa/ppm/quadros/brasil/2020)” in the cover letter.

4. We note that Figures 1, 2 and 3 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

Response: The maps included in the study are not copyrighted. They were made by the authors with the assistance of QGIS software (version 3.16.13).

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Response: We have revised our reference list as recommended.

Responses to additional Editor Comments

1- References: there are too many congress citations. According to PLoS One guidelines, this kind of citation is only permitted if they are present online, and must have direct link (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines)

Response: We insert the direct link or doi of the articles that were missing to insert. We use Mendeley software.

2- Figures: Please check figure axis, there is untranslated words. Please check if all figures have the complete information in English, including units and decimal.

Response: We checked the figures and made the necessary modifications as recommended.

3- Parts of the manuscript are in Portuguese:

Fig 3. Densidade do rebanho ovino por km2 132 na Amazônia Legal (a.1990, b.2000, 133 c.2010, d.2020).

Response: Thank you for your comment; we have already translated it into English.

4- Figures 1 to 3. It´s not clear what the information in the legend represents. Please clarify the information in the legend. The colors from the figures are different between, please use the same pattern, with the red color representing the higher value. At fig 3 the legend say "higher growth" but the numbers are negative?

Response: Dear Editor, we apologize because this was a mistake. But we have fixed it bying standardizing the colors of the maps with the legends.

5- Conclusion:

Despite the identification of areas with higher prevalence and potential for sheep herd growth, this activity in the Brazilian Amazon still has a low technological level, which has restricted its growth.

Considering that you used a data bank, how you can conclude that the sheep herd has low technological level? This paragraph must be moved to discussion with the inclusion or a proper reference that indicate the limited level of technology.

Response: We moved the paragraph to discussion and included some references that indicate the limited level of technology.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (19.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Antonio Humberto Hamad Minervino

15 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-15390R1Spatial distribution and growth of sheep farming in Brazilian AmazonPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bezerra,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:Dear authors, 

The manuscript was revised by experts and it can be accepted for publication after revision. Please take into consideration all the points raised by reviewers when preparing the revised manuscript. I must agree with the reviewer #2, and considering the limited data/analysis, the manuscript should be a short report. Please, change the tittle of the revised manuscript to? Short Report: Spatial distribution and growth of sheep farming in Brazilian Amazon.   

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 29 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Antonio Humberto Hamad Minervino, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear authors,

The manuscript was revised by experts and it can be accepted for publication after revision. Please take into consideration all the points raised by reviewers when preparing the revised manuscript. I must agree with the reviewer #2, and considering the limited data/analysis, the manuscript should be a short report. Please, change the tittle of the revised manuscript to? Short Report: Spatial distribution and growth of sheep farming in Brazilian Amazon.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Manuscript PONE-D-22-15390_R1, entitled “Spatial distribution and growth of sheep farming in Brazilian Amazon”

Recommendation: The above paper is not suitable for publication in its present form.

General comments:

1) The article provides useful information about the spatial distribution and growth of sheep farming in Brazilian Amazon. However, there are a lot of grammar, stylistic and syntax errors. Language needs improvement to become scientific. Please check L57-59, 145-146, 151-152, 171-174, 177-178, 179-180 etc

2) For someone that is not from Brazil, it is difficult to follow the provided maps, without clearly indicating the examined regions. Please use the initials of Figure 4 also in Maps. At the same time, Tables and Maps show the same data. Please choose one way of presentation.

3) Parameters, for example, such as deforestation are associated with sheep farming?

Specific comments:

L20: “previous” instead of “past”

L24: “…dynamics. Maps were then drawn up to show…”

L26: “…Maranhão states. For each decade there were different…”

L29: “observed” instead of “especially”

L41-42: “Sheep are mainly located in the northeast region of Brazil (14.56 million head), representing…”

L42-43: “However, production systems are extensive and of low technological level [5,6].”

L45: “…total population, sheep production is more specialized, with significant improvement in productivity [7].”

L46-47: “…with 2.99% of the sheep population (616.52 thousand). Finally, the North part, with all…”

L48: “sheep number” instead of “herd”

L51: “The farming of meat producing sheep could serve as an alternative because it is a…”

L52-53: “…than cattle which is historically extensively bred in native and cultivated…”

L68: “due to” instead of “for”

L74: “performed” instead of “done”

L82: “with” instead of “in”

L86: “(from 514.9 thousand to 1.37 million heads)”

L94: “incipient”?

L104: “robust”?

L108-109: “…growth rate, it is clear that there was a slowdown in the expansion of the herds, showing a decrease…”

L110: Please delete “one can highlight”

L113: “…Mato Grosso (Alto Guaporé) is observed (Fig 2).”

L114: “There was also an increase in sheep population in most of Southeast Pará…”

L130: “is not developed” instead of “has not occupied much space”

L140-141: “…in the Brazilian Amazon displayed a potential growth since it showed a growth of 62.26% from 1990 to 2010.”

L142: You mean 2010-2020?

L143: “This activity could be possibly affected by the pandemic…”

L148: “method”

L150: “All these variables…”

L155: Area? You mean density?

L158: Please delete “the production system”

L161-164: “Moreover, when the producers applied the same handlings as those performed in cattle, they created high productive and income expectations that often were not achieved. As a result, the abandonment of the activity, criticism, and a concept of low profitability in the sector were observed [22].”

L168: “…MacManus et al. [24] stated that the…”

L183-184: “…investments with the objective to improve reproductive, sanitary and nutritional conditions [13].”

L189-190: Reduction in feed conversion is desirable. You mean increase?

L192: “…states have also a significant contribution to sheep…”

L193: “represents”

L196: Please delete “frequent”

L209: In general, in extensive systems, the demand for labor is increased

L213: “Associations and cooperatives”?

Reviewer #2: I have reviewed the manuscript entitled “Spatial distribution and growth of sheep farming in Brazilian Amazon” written by Andréia Santana Bezerra , Caio Cezar Ferreira de Souza, Marcos Antônio Souza dos Santos, Cyntia Meireles Martins, Maria Lúcia Bahia Lopes, Alfredo Kingo Oyama Homma , and José de Brito Lourenço Júnior and submitted to PLOS ONE as an article. The authors tried to illustrate the growth trend and its distribution of sheep in the Brazilian Amazon. Considering the limited analysis technique they used and the result they have, I suggest the authors to submit the manuscript as research communication/short communication not as a research article.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Samson Leta

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 1;17(12):e0278691. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278691.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

7 Sep 2022

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Dear authors,

The manuscript was revised by experts and it can be accepted for publication after revision. Please take into consideration all the points raised by reviewers when preparing the revised manuscript. I must agree with the reviewer #2, and considering the limited data/analysis, the manuscript should be a short report. Please, change the tittle of the revised manuscript to? Short Report: Spatial distribution and growth of sheep farming in Brazilian Amazon.

Response: We have made this modification, as recommended.

Response to reviewer 1

General comments:

Point 1. The article provides useful information about the spatial distribution and growth of sheep farming in Brazilian Amazon. However, there are a lot of grammar, stylistic and syntax errors. Language needs improvement to become scientific. Please check L57-59, 145-146, 151-152, 171-174, 177-178, 179-180 etc

Response 1: A full English revision was made in the manuscript. The sentences and grammar were revised and improved.

Point 2. For someone that is not from Brazil, it is difficult to follow the provided maps, without clearly indicating the examined regions. Please use the initials of Figure 4 also in Maps. At the same time, Tables and Maps show the same data. Please choose one way of presentation.

Response 2: We indicate the examined regions on maps and provide a legend.

We have removed tables.

Point 3. Parameters, for example, such as deforestation are associated with sheep farming?

Response 2: Because sheep farming use minor land extensions since meat sheep configures it is a medium-sized animal species that need less space than cattle which is done historically extensively in native and cultivated pastures in the Amazon region. Also, this activity in Brazil is predominantly performed by family farms and the fact that this species is a smaller animal facilitates the insertion of small producers in the activity, even for subsistence, preventing the loss of their land to large farms.

We insert more information about it.

Specific comments:

Point 4. L20: “previous” instead of “past”

Response 4: We have changed it, as recommended.

Point 5. L24: “…dynamics. Maps were then drawn up to show…”

Response 5: We have modified it, as recommended.

Point 6. L26: “…Maranhão states. For each decade there were different…”

Response 6: We have modified it, as recommended.

Point 7. L29: “observed” instead of “especially”

Response 7: We have changed it, as recommended.

Point 8. L41-42: “Sheep are mainly located in the northeast region of Brazil (14.56 million head), representing…”

Response 8: We have modified it, as recommended.

Point 9. L42-43: “However, production systems are extensive and of low technological level [5,6].”

Response 9: We have modified it, as recommended.

Point 10. L45: “…total population, sheep production is more specialized, with significant improvement in productivity [7].”

Response 10: We have modified it, as recommended.

Point 11. L46-47: “…with 2.99% of the sheep population (616.52 thousand). Finally, the North part, with all…”

Response 11: We have modified it, as recommended.

Point 12. L48: “sheep number” instead of “herd”

Response 12: We have changed it, as recommended.

Point 13. L51: “The farming of meat producing sheep could serve as an alternative because it is a…”

Response 13: We have modified it, as recommended.

Point 14. L52-53: “…than cattle which is historically extensively bred in native and cultivated…”

Response 14: We have modified it, as recommended.

Point 15. L68: “due to” instead of “for”

Response 15: We have changed it, as recommended.

Point 16. L74: “performed” instead of “done”

Response 16: We have changed it, as recommended.

Point 17. L82: “with” instead of “in”

Response 17: We have modified it, as recommended.

Point 18. L86: “(from 514.9 thousand to 1.37 million heads)”

Response 18: We have modified it, as recommended.

Point 19. L94: “incipient”?

Response 19: We have changed this word to “not very representative”.

Point 20. L104: “robust”?

Response 20: We mean “extensive”.

Point 21. L108-109: “…growth rate, it is clear that there was a slowdown in the expansion of the herds, showing a decrease…”

Response 21: We have modified it, as recommended.

Point 22. L110: Please delete “one can highlight”

Response 22: We have deleted it, as recommended.

Point 23. L113: “…Mato Grosso (Alto Guaporé) is observed (Fig 2).”

Response 23: We have modified it, as recommended.

Point 24. L114: “There was also an increase in sheep population in most of Southeast Pará…”

Response 24: We have modified it, as recommended.

Point 25. L130: “is not developed” instead of “has not occupied much space”

Response 25: We have modified it, as recommended.

Point 26. L140-141: “…in the Brazilian Amazon displayed a potential growth since it showed a growth of 62.26% from 1990 to 2010.”

Response 26: We have modified it, as recommended.

Point 27. L142: You mean 2010-2020?

Response 27: No, we refer only to the year 2020. However, as we realized that this would not be representative, we decided to remove this value.

Point 28. L143: “This activity could be possibly affected by the pandemic…”

Response 28: We have modified it, as recommended.

Point 29. L148: “method”

Response 29: We have deleted the phase “the predominant methods of selling their products” to make the sentence clearer.

Point 30. L150: “All these variables…”

Response 30: We have modified it, as recommended.

Point 31. L155: Area? You mean density?

Response 31: Yes, we have changed “area” to “density”.

Point 32. L158: Please delete “the production system”

Response 32: We have deleted it.

Point 33. L161-164: “Moreover, when the producers applied the same handlings as those performed in cattle, they created high productive and income expectations that often were not achieved. As a result, the abandonment of the activity, criticism, and a concept of low profitability in the sector were observed [22].”

Response 33: We have modified it, as recommended.

Point 34. L168: “…MacManus et al. [24] stated that the…”

Response 34: We have modified it, as recommended.

Point 35. L183-184: “…investments with the objective to improve reproductive, sanitary and nutritional conditions [13].”

Response 35: We have modified it, as recommended.

Point 36. L189-190: Reduction in feed conversion is desirable. You mean increase?

Response 36: We are sorry; we meant to say “increase”. We have changed “reduction” to “increase”

Point 37. L192: “…states have also a significant contribution to sheep…”

Response 37: We have modified it, as recommended.

We apologize, as we realize that by an oversight we have classified Tocantins state of as being from the Northeast region. However, we have already modified the paragraph leaving only Maranhão state.

Point 38. L193: “represents”

Response 38: We have modified it, as recommended.

Point 39. L196: Please delete “frequent”

Response 39: We have deleted it.

Point 40. L209: In general, in extensive systems, the demand for labor is increased

Response 40: We have modified the text according to your recommendation.

Point 41. L213: “Associations and cooperatives”?

Response 41: We have modified the text to make it clearer.

Response to reviewer 2

Reviewer #2: I have reviewed the manuscript entitled “Spatial distribution and growth of sheep farming in Brazilian Amazon” written by Andréia Santana Bezerra , Caio Cezar Ferreira de Souza, Marcos Antônio Souza dos Santos, Cyntia Meireles Martins, Maria Lúcia Bahia Lopes, Alfredo Kingo Oyama Homma , and José de Brito Lourenço Júnior and submitted to PLOS ONE as an article. The authors tried to illustrate the growth trend and its distribution of sheep in the Brazilian Amazon. Considering the limited analysis technique they used and the result they have, I suggest the authors to submit the manuscript as research communication/short communication not as a research article.

Response: We have made this modification, as recommended.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewer 2.docx

Click here for additional data file. (13.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Antonio Humberto Hamad Minervino

31 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-15390R2Short Report: Spatial distribution and growth of sheep farming in Brazilian AmazonPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bezerra,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The manuscript was reviewed and before it can be accepted for publication, minor revisions are still required. Please see the comments made by reviewer and revise the manuscript accordingly.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 15 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Antonio Humberto Hamad Minervino, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors,

The manuscript was reviewed and before it can be accepted for publication, minor revisions are still required. Please see the comments made by reviewer and revise the manuscript accordingly.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors made the majority of the necessary amendments. Some minor points should be corrected before the acceptance of their article.

L40: Please delete "representing" (two times, repetition)

L54: Please delete "e"

L57-59: Please delete (repetition)

L60: "feed sources"

L61: "It inserts"? Please rephrase

L66-67: Please rephrase

L76: "due to" instead of "for"

L168: "...growth rate in Mato Grosso..."

Reviewer #2: My previous comments have been addressed. One minor comment I have pis the type of color used for mapping.

Red color is not a good option to indicate the occurrence of a species like sheep. We often use red color while we map a species which have a detrimental effect.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 1;17(12):e0278691. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278691.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2

4 Nov 2022

Reviewer #1: Authors made the majority of the necessary amendments. Some minor points should be corrected before the acceptance of their article.

Ponit 1. L40: Please delete "representing" (two times, repetition)

Response: We have deleted it.

Ponit 2. L54: Please delete "e"

Response: We have deleted it.

Ponit 3. L57-59: Please delete (repetition)

Response: We have deleted it.

Ponit 4. L60: "feed sources"

Response: We have changed it.

Ponit 5. L61: "It inserts"? Please rephrase

Response: We have modified it to: “…, generating a bioeconomic context for these animals.”

Ponit 6. L66-67: Please rephrase

Response: We have modified it.

Ponit 7. L76: "due to" instead of "for"

Response: We have changed it.

Ponit 8. L168: "...growth rate in Mato Grosso..."

Response: We have modified it.

Reviewer #2: My previous comments have been addressed. One minor comment I have pis the type of color used for mapping.

Red color is not a good option to indicate the occurrence of a species like sheep. We often use red color while we map a species which have a detrimental effect.

Response: Dear reviewer, we appreciate your comment, but we use the colors available in the program that formulated the maps to be able to clearly differentiate higher and lower levels of herd size and growth rate. We use the color red only to indicate the lower values of herd size and growth rate and differentiate them from the higher levels (colors ranging from dark green to yellow).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewer 2_ 04-11-2022.docx

Click here for additional data file. (12.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 3

Antonio Humberto Hamad Minervino

22 Nov 2022

Short Report: Spatial distribution and growth of sheep farming in Brazilian Amazon

PONE-D-22-15390R3

Dear Dr. Bezerra,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Antonio Humberto Hamad Minervino, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear authors,

I am glad to inform that your manuscript was satisfactorily revised and now it can be accepted for publication at PLoS One.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Antonio Humberto Hamad Minervino

24 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-15390R3

Short Report: Spatial distribution and growth of sheep farming in Brazilian Amazon

Dear Dr. Bezerra:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Antonio Humberto Hamad Minervino

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (19.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewer 2.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (13.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewer 2_ 04-11-2022.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (12.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The data used are available from the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/pesquisa/ppm/quadros/brasil/2020). Data set name: "Pesquisa da Pecuária Municipal" (table number: 3939). The authors had no special access privileges to the data others would not have.

    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES