Literature DB >> 18759777

Biodiversity loss in Latin American coffee landscapes: review of the evidence on ants, birds, and trees.

Stacy M Philpott1, Wayne J Arendt, Inge Armbrecht, Peter Bichier, Thomas V Diestch, Caleb Gordon, Russell Greenberg, Ivette Perfecto, Roberto Reynoso-Santos, Lorena Soto-Pinto, Cesar Tejeda-Cruz, Guadalupe Williams-Linera, Jorge Valenzuela, José Manuel Zolotoff.   

Abstract

Studies 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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18759777     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01029.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  25 in total

1.  Diaspore Removal by Ants Does Not Reflect the Same Patterns of Ant Assemblages in Mining and Rehabilitation Areas.

Authors:  Antônio C M Queiroz; Ananza M Rabello; Chaim J Lasmar; Rafael G Cuissi; Ernesto O Canedo-Júnior; Fernando A Schmidt; Carla R Ribas
Journal:  Neotrop Entomol       Date:  2021-03-16       Impact factor: 1.434

2.  Agricultural landscape simplification does not consistently drive insecticide use.

Authors:  Ashley E Larsen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-09-03       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap.

Authors:  Lauren C Ponisio; Leithen K M'Gonigle; Kevi C Mace; Jenny Palomino; Perry de Valpine; Claire Kremen
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2015-01-22       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Effects of coffee management intensity on composition, structure, and regeneration status of ethiopian moist evergreen afromontane forests.

Authors:  Kitessa Hundera; Raf Aerts; Alexandre Fontaine; Maarten Van Mechelen; Pieter Gijbels; Olivier Honnay; Bart Muys
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2012-11-22       Impact factor: 3.266

5.  International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations.

Authors:  M Lenzen; D Moran; K Kanemoto; B Foran; L Lobefaro; A Geschke
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Fungal diversity in shade-coffee plantations in Soconusco, Mexico.

Authors:  Eugenia Zarza; Alejandra López-Pastrana; Anne Damon; Karina Guillén-Navarro; Luz Verónica García-Fajardo
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2022-06-29       Impact factor: 3.061

7.  Synergistic effects of non-Apis bees and honey bees for pollination services.

Authors:  Claire Brittain; Neal Williams; Claire Kremen; Alexandra-Maria Klein
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-01-08       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 8.  Transnational corporations and the challenge of biosphere stewardship.

Authors:  Carl Folke; Henrik Österblom; Jean-Baptiste Jouffray; Eric F Lambin; W Neil Adger; Marten Scheffer; Beatrice I Crona; Magnus Nyström; Simon A Levin; Stephen R Carpenter; John M Anderies; Stuart Chapin; Anne-Sophie Crépin; Alice Dauriach; Victor Galaz; Line J Gordon; Nils Kautsky; Brian H Walker; James R Watson; James Wilen; Aart de Zeeuw
Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol       Date:  2019-09-16       Impact factor: 15.460

9.  Comparison of agroforests and protected forests in the East Usambara mountains, Tanzania.

Authors:  Jaclyn M Hall; Thomas W Gillespie; Moses Mwangoka
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2010-11-16       Impact factor: 3.266

10.  Natural enemy diversity reduces temporal variability in wasp but not bee parasitism.

Authors:  Dorthe Veddeler; Jason Tylianakis; Teja Tscharntke; Alexandra-Maria Klein
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.225

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.