Show simple item record

Biodiversity Loss in Latin American Coffee Landscapes: Review of the Evidence on Ants, Birds, and Trees

dc.contributor.authorPhilpott, Stacy M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorArendt, Wayne J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorArmbrecht, Ingeen_US
dc.contributor.authorBichier, Peteren_US
dc.contributor.authorDiestch, Thomas V.en_US
dc.contributor.authorGordon, Caleben_US
dc.contributor.authorGreenberg, Russellen_US
dc.contributor.authorPerfecto, Ivetteen_US
dc.contributor.authorReynoso-Santos, Robertoen_US
dc.contributor.authorSoto-Pinto, Lorenaen_US
dc.contributor.authorTejeda-Cruz, Cesaren_US
dc.contributor.authorWilliams-Linera, Guadalupeen_US
dc.contributor.authorValenzuela, Jorgeen_US
dc.contributor.authorZolotoff, José Manuelen_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T21:31:14Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T21:31:14Z
dc.date.issued2008-10en_US
dc.identifier.citationPHILPOTT, STACY M.; ARENDT, WAYNE J.; ARMBRECHT, INGE; BICHIER, PETER; DIESTCH, THOMAS V.; GORDON, CALEB; GREENBERG, RUSSELL; PERFECTO, IVETTE; REYNOSO-SANTOS, ROBERTO; SOTO-PINTO, LORENA; TEJEDA-CRUZ, CESAR; WILLIAMS-LINERA, GUADALUPE; VALENZUELA, JORGE; ZOLOTOFF, JOSÉ MANUEL (2008). "Biodiversity Loss in Latin American Coffee Landscapes: Review of the Evidence on Ants, Birds, and Trees." Conservation Biology 22(5): 1093-1105. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/74576>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0888-8892en_US
dc.identifier.issn1523-1739en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/74576
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=18759777&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractStudies have documented biodiversity losses due to intensification of coffee management (reduction in canopy richness and complexity). Nevertheless, questions remain regarding relative sensitivity of different taxa, habitat specialists, and functional groups, and whether implications for biodiversity conservation vary across regions. We quantitatively reviewed data from ant, bird, and tree biodiversity studies in coffee agroecosystems to address the following questions: Does species richness decline with intensification or with individual vegetation characteristics? Are there significant losses of species richness in coffee-management systems compared with forests? Is species loss greater for forest species or for particular functional groups? and Are ants or birds more strongly affected by intensification? Across studies, ant and bird richness declined with management intensification and with changes in vegetation. Species richness of all ants and birds and of forest ant and bird species was lower in most coffee agroecosystems than in forests, but rustic coffee (grown under native forest canopies) had equal or greater ant and bird richness than nearby forests. Sun coffee (grown without canopy trees) sustained the highest species losses, and species loss of forest ant, bird, and tree species increased with management intensity. Losses of ant and bird species were similar, although losses of forest ants were more drastic in rustic coffee. Richness of migratory birds and of birds that forage across vegetation strata was less affected by intensification than richness of resident, canopy, and understory bird species. Rustic farms protected more species than other coffee systems, and loss of species depended greatly on habitat specialization and functional traits. We recommend that forest be protected, rustic coffee be promoted, and intensive coffee farms be restored by augmenting native tree density and richness and allowing growth of epiphytes. We also recommend that future research focus on potential trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and farmer livelihoods stemming from coffee production.en_US
dc.format.extent477632 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Incen_US
dc.rights©2008 Society for Conservation Biologyen_US
dc.subject.otherAgroecosystemen_US
dc.subject.otherBiodiversityen_US
dc.subject.otherCoffee Production Systemsen_US
dc.subject.otherMeta-analysisen_US
dc.subject.otherShade-grown Coffeeen_US
dc.subject.otherSite Characteristicen_US
dc.subject.otherSun-grown Coffeeen_US
dc.subject.otherAgroecosistemaen_US
dc.subject.otherBiodiversidaden_US
dc.subject.otherCafÉ Con Sombraen_US
dc.subject.otherCafÉ Sin Sombraen_US
dc.subject.otherCaracterÍStico Del Sitioen_US
dc.subject.otherMeta AnÁLisisen_US
dc.subject.otherProducciÓN De CafÉen_US
dc.titleBiodiversity Loss in Latin American Coffee Landscapes: Review of the Evidence on Ants, Birds, and Treesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelEcology and Evolutionary Biologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScienceen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationum†† School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, U.S.A.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationother* Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, Washington, D.C. 20013, U.S.A.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationother† USDA Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry, San Juan 00773, Puerto Ricoen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationother† Departamento de BiologÍa, Universidad del Valle, Cali 25360, Colombiaen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationother§ Center for Tropical Research, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, U.S.A.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationother** Department of Biology, Lake Forest College, Lake Forest, IL 60045, U.S.A.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationother†† Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, AgrÍcolas, and Pecuarias PacÍfico SUR, Ocozocoautla, Chiapas 29140, MÉxicoen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationother§§ El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, San CristÓbal de las Casas, Chiapas 29200, MÉxicoen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationother*** Instituto de EcologÍa, Xalapa, Veracruz 91070, MÉxicoen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationother††† FundaciÓn Cocibolca, A.P. C-212 Managua, Nicaraguaen_US
dc.identifier.pmid18759777en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/74576/1/j.1523-1739.2008.01029.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01029.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceConservation Biologyen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArmbrecht, I., L. Rivera, and I. Perfecto. 2005. Reduced diversity and complexity in the leaf litter ant assemblage of Colombian coffee plantations. Conservation Biology 19: 97 – 907.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArnqvist, G., and D. Wooster. 1995. Meta-analysis: synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10: 236 – 240.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBancroft, B. A., N. J. Baker, and A. R. Blaustein. 2007. Effects of UVB radiation on marine and freshwater organisms: a synthesis through meta-analysis. Ecology Letters 10: 332 – 345.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBegg, C. B., and M. Mazumdar. 1994. Operating characteristic of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50: 1088 – 1101.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBlackman, A., H. Albers, B. Ávalos-Sartorio, and B. Crooks. 2003. Land cover in a managed forest ecosystem: Mexican shade coffee. Discussion paper 03–60. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceColwell, R. K. 2005. EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 7.5. University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut. Available from http://purl.oclc.org/estimates ( accessed May 2005 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCONAFOR (ComisiÓn Nacional Forestal de MÉxico). 2007. Acuerdo por el que se expiden las Reglas de OperaciÓn del Programa Pro-Árbol de la ComisiÓn Nacional Forestal. CONAFOR, Mexico City. Available from http://www.conafor.gob.mx/portal/docs/secciones/apoyosc/proarbol/Reglas_Operacion_PROARBOL.pdf ( accessed May 2007 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCooper, H., and L. Hedges. 1994. The handbook of research synthesis. Russel Sage Foundation, New York.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCruz-Angon, A., and R. Greenberg. 2005. Are epiphytes important for birds in coffee plantations? An experimental assessment. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 150 – 159en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFisher, R. 1928. Statistical methods for research workers. Oliver and Boyd, London.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGordon, C., R. Manson, J. Sundberg, and A. Cruz-AngÓn. 2007. Biodiversity, profitability, and vegetation structure in a Mexican coffee agroecosystem. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 118: 256 – 266.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGotelli, N., and R. Colwell. 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters 4: 379 – 391.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGray, M., S. Baldauf, P. Mayhew, and J. Hill. 2007. The response of avian feeding guilds to tropical forest disturbance. Conservation Biology 21: 133 – 141.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGreenberg, R., P. Bichier, and J. Sterling. 1997. Bird populations in rustic and planted shade coffee plantations of eastern Chiapas, Mexico. Biotropica 29: 501 – 514.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJohnson, M. 2000. Effects of shade-tree species and crop structure on the winter arthropod and bird communities in a Jamaican shade coffee plantation. Biotropica 32: 133 – 145.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJones, D., and A. Hansen. 2006. Avian Communities of the middle and lower Yellowstone River: a pilot study. Final pilot report. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKlein, A., I. Steffan-Dewenter, D. Buchori, and T. Tscharntke. 2002. Effects of land-use intensity in tropical agroforestry systems on coffee flower-visiting and trap nesting bees and wasps. Conservation Biology 16: 1003 – 1014.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKomar, O. 2006. Ecology and conservation of birds in coffee plantations: a critical review. Bird Conservation International 16: 1 – 23.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLangellotto, G., and R. Denno. 2004. Responses of invertebrate natural enemies to complex-structured habitats: a meta-analytical synthesis. Oecologia 139: 1 – 10.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMas, A., and T. Dietsch. 2003. An index of management intensity for coffee agroecosystems to evaluate butterfly species richness. Ecological Applications 13: 1491 – 1501.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMoguel, P., and V. Toledo. 1999. Biodiversity conservation in traditional coffee systems of Mexico. Conservation Biology 13: 11 – 21.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePerfecto, I., A. Mas, T. Dietsch, and J. Vandermeer. 2003. Conservation of biodiversity in coffee agroecosystems: a tri-taxa comparison in southern Mexico. Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 1239 – 1252.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePerfecto, I., R. Rice, R. Greenberg, and M. VanderVoort. 1996. Shade coffee: a disappearing refuge for biodiversity. BioScience 46: 598 – 608.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePerfecto, I., and J. Vandermeer. 2002. The quality of agroecological matrix in a tropical montane landscape: ants in coffee plantations in southern Mexico. Conservation Biology 16: 174 – 182.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePerfecto, I., J. H. Vandermeer, G. L. Bautista, G. I. Nunez, R. Greenberg, P. Bichier, and S. Langridge. 2004. Greater predation in shaded coffee farms: the role of resident Neotropical birds. Ecology 85: 2677 – 2681.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePhilpott, S. 2007. Ants, birds, and tree diversity: coffee agroecosystem meta-analysis. National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, California. Available from http://knb.ecoinformatics.org/knb/metacat/nceas.338.11/nceas ( accessed September 2007 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePhilpott, S., and I. Armbrecht. 2006. Biodiversity in tropical agroforests and the ecological role of ants and ant diversity in predatory function. Ecological Entomology 31: 369 – 377.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePineda, E., C. Moreno, F. Escobar, and G. Halffter. 2005. Frog, bat and dung beetle diversity in the cloud forest and coffee agroecosystems of Veracruz, Mexico. Conservation Biology 19: 400 – 410.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePinkus-Rendon, M. A., J. L. Leon-Cortes, and G. Ibarra-Nunez. 2006. Spider diversity in a tropical habitat gradient in Chiapas, Mexico. Diversity and Distributions 12: 61 – 69.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRamos, M., H. Morales, L. Ruiz-Montoya, L. Soto-Pinto, and P. Rojas-FernÁndez. 2002. ¿Se mantiene la diversidad de hormigas con el cambio de bosque mesÓfilo a cafetales ? Pages 16 – 30 in A. Monro and M. PeÑa, editors. Special edition, AÑo 12. Revista ProtecciÓn Vegetal San Salvador, El Salvador.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRappole, J. H., D. I. King, and J. H. V. Rivera. 2003. Coffee and conservation. Conservation Biology 17: 334 – 336.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRicketts, T., G. Daily, P. Ehrlich, and J. Fay. 2001. Countryside biogeography of moths in a fragmented landscape: biodiversity in native and agricultural habitats. Conservation Biology 15: 378 – 388.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRomero-Alvarado Y., L. Soto-Pinto, L. GarcÍa-Barrios, and J. F. Barrera-GaytÁn. 2002. Coffee yields and soil nutrients under the shade of Inga sp. vs. multiple species in Chiapas, Mexico. Agroforestry Systems 54: 215 – 224.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRosenberg, M. S. 2005. The file-drawer problem revisited: a general weighted method for calculating fail-safe numbers in meta-analysis. Evolution 59: 464 – 486.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRosenberg, M. S., D. C. Adams, and J. Gurevitch. 2000. Metawin: statistical software for meta-analysis, version 2. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRosenthal, R. 1979. The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin 86: 638 – 641.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSabo, S., and R. Holmes. 1983. Foraging niches and the structure of forest bird communities in contrasting montane habitats. Condor 85: 121 – 138.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSokal, R., and F. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry. Freeman, San Francisco.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSoto-Pinto, L., I. Perfecto, J. Castillo-HernÁndez, and J. Caballero-Nieto. 2000. Shade effect on coffee production at the northern Tzeltal zone of the state of Chiapas, Mexico. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 80: 61 – 69.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSteffan-Dewenter, I. 2002. Landscape context affects trap-nesting bees, wasps, and their natural enemies. Ecological Entomology 27: 631 – 637.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSteffan-Dewenter, I. et al. 2007. Tradeoffs between income, biodiversity, and ecosystem functioning during tropical rainforest conversion and agroforestry intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 4973 – 4978.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStotz, D., J. Fitzpatrick, T. Parker III, and D. Moskovits. 1996. Neotropical birds: ecology and conservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTejeda-Cruz, C., and C. Gordon. 2008. Aves. Pages 149 – 161 in R. H. Manson, V. HernÁndez, S. Gallina, and K. Mehltreter, editors. Agroecosistemas cafeteleros de Veracruz: biodiversidad, manejo y conservaciÓn. INE-INECOL, MÉxico, D.F.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTejeda-Cruz, C., and W. J. Sutherland. 2004. Bird responses to shade coffee production. Animal Conservation 7: 169 – 179.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceToledo, V. M., and P. Moguel. 1996. En Busca de un cafÉ sostenible en MÉxico: la importancia de la diversidad biolÓgica y cultural. Congreso del CafÉ Sostenible (1). Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, Washington D.C.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVandermeer, J., and R. Carvajal. 2001. Metapopulation dynamics and the quality of the matrix. The American Naturalist 159: 211 – 220.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVandermeer, J., and I. Perfecto. 2007. The agricultural matrix and a future paradigm for conservation. Conservation Biology 21: 274 – 277.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWunderle, J. Jr. 1999. Avian distribution in Dominican shade coffee plantations: area and habitat relationships. Journal of Field Ornithology 70: 58 – 70.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.