Skip to main content
Log in

Conservation of biodiversity in coffee agroecosystems: a tri-taxa comparison in southern Mexico

  • Published:
Biodiversity & Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We compare species richness of birds, fruit-feeding butterflies and ground-foraging ants along a coffee intensification gradient represented by a reduction in the number of species of shade trees and percentage of shade cover in coffee plantations. We sampled the three taxa in the same plots within the same period of time. Two sites were selected in the Soconusco region of the state of Chiapas, Mexico. Within each site four habitat types were selected and within each habitat type four points were randomly selected. The habitat types were forest, rustic coffee, diverse shade coffee, and intensive coffee (low density of shade). We found different responses of the three taxa along the intensification gradient. While ants and butterflies generally decrease in species richness with the decrease of shade cover, birds declined in one site but increased in the other. Ant species richness appears to be more resistant to habitat modification, while butterfly species richness appears to be more sensitive. Bird species richness was correlated with distance from forest fragments but not with habitat type, suggesting that scale and landscape structure may be important for more mobile taxa. For each of these taxa, the rustic plantation was the one that maintained species richness most similar to the forest. We found no correlation between the three taxa, suggesting that none of these taxa are good candidates as surrogates for each other. We discuss the implications of these results for the conservation of biodiversity in coffee plantations, in particular, the importance of distinguishing between different levels of shade, and the possibility that different taxa might be responding to habitat changes at different spatial scales.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersen A.N. 1997. Using ants as bioindicators: multiscale issues in ant community ecology. Conservation Ecology (on-line) 1 (http://www.consecol.org/Journal/vol1/iss1/art8/).

  • Bibby C.J., Burgess N.D. and Hill D.A. 1992. Bird Census Techniques. British Trust for Ornithology and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman D.J.M.S., Woinarski J.C.Z., Sands D.P.A., Wells A. and McShane V.J. 1990. Slash-and-burn agriculture in the west coastal lowlands of Papua New Guinea: responses of birds, butterflies and reptiles. Journal of Biogeography 17: 227–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown K.S. 1996. The use of insects in the study, inventory, conservation and monitoring of biological diversity in Neotropical habitats, in relation to land use systems. Decline and Conservation of Butterflies in Japan III: 128–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown K.S. 1997. Diversity, disturbance, and suitable use of Neotropical forests: insects as indicators for conservation monitoring. Journal of Insect Conservation 1: 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvo L. and Blake J. 1998. Bird diversity and abundance on two different shade coffee plantations in Guatemala. Birds Conservation International 8: 297–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • de la Maza Ramírez R. 1987. Mariposas Mexicanas: Guía para su Colecta y Determinación. Fondo de Cultura Económica. S.A. DE C.V., México, D.F.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVries P.J. 1987. The Butterflies of Costa Rica and Their Natural History. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVries P.J., Murray D. and Lande R. 1997. Species diversity in vertical, horizontal, and temporal dimensions of a fruit-feeding butterfly community in an Ecuadorian rainforest. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 62: 343–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobson A.P., Rodriguez J.P., Roberts W.M. and Wilcove D.S. 1997. Geographic distribution of endangered species in the United States. Science 275: 550–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estrada A., Coates-Estrada S. and Merrit D. Jr 1997. Anthropogenic landscape changes and avian diversity at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Biodiversity and Conservation 6: 19–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg R., Bichier P., Cruz Angon A. and Reitsma R. 1997a. Bird populations in shade and sun coffee plantations in Central Guatemala. Conservation Biology 11: 448–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg R., Bichier P. and Sterling J. 1997b. Bird populations in rustic and planted shade coffee plantations of Eastern Chiapas, México. Biotropica 29: 501–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamer K.C., Hill J.K., Lace L.A. and Largon A.M. 1997. Ecological and biogeographical effects of forest disturbance on tropical butterflies of Sumba, Indonesia. Journal of Biogeography 24: 67–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill J.K., Hamer K.C., Lace L.A. and Banham W.M.T. 1995. Effects of selective logging on tropical forest butterflies on Buru, Indonesia. Journal of Applied Ecology 32: 754–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard P.C., Viskanic P., Devenport T.R.B., Kigenyi F.W., Baltzer M., Dickinson C.J. et al. 1998. Complementarity and the use of indicator groups for reserve selection in Uganda. Nature 394: 472–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra-NÚñez G. and Garcia-Ballinas J.A. 1998. Diversidad de tres familias de arañas tejedoras (Araneae: Araneidae, Tetragnathidae, Theridiiae) en cafetales del soconusco, Chiapas, Mexico. Folia Entomologica Mexicana 102: 11–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra-NÚñez G., García Ballinas J.A. and Moreno-Próspero M.A. 1993. La comunidad de artrópodos de dos cafetales con diferentes prácticas agrícolas: El caso de los Hymenópteros ResÚmenes, XXVIII Congreso Nacional de Entomología, Sociedad Mexicana de Entomología, 23–26 May 1993. Universidad de las Américas, Cholula, Puebla, Mexico.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson M.D. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C. 1992. Assesing the indicator properties of species assemblages for natural areas monitoring. Ecological Applications 4: 407–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C. 1994. Biological inventory using target taxa: a case study of the butterflies of Madagascar 4: 407–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawton J.H., Bignell D.E., Bolton B., Bloemers G.F., Eggleton P., Hammond P.M. et al. 1998. Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest. Nature 391: 72–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magurran M. 1988. Ecological Diversity and its Measurements. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majer J.D. 1983. Ants: bioindicators of mine site rehabilitation, land use and conservation. Environmental Management 7: 375–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin T.E. and Geupel G.R. 1993. Nest-monitoring plots: methods for locating nests and monitoring success. Journal of Field Ornithology 64: 507–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mas A.H. 1999. tButterfly diversity and the certification of shade coffee in Chiapas, Mexico, M.S. Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mas A.H. and Dietsch T.V. 2003. An index of management intensity for coffee agroecosystems to evaluate butterfly species richness. Ecological Applications (in press).

  • Moguel P. and Toledo V.M. 1999. Biodiversity conservation in traditional coffee systems in Mexico. Conservation Biology 12: 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nestel D. and Dickschen F. 1990. The foraging kinetics of ground ant communities in different coffee agroecosystems. Oecologia 84: 58–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols J.D., Boulinier T., Hines J.E., Pollock K.H. and Sauer J.R. 1998. Inference methods for spatial variation in species richness and community composition when not all species are detected. Conservation Biology 12: 1390–1398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4: 355–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver I. and Beattie A.J. 1993. A possible method for the rapid assessment of biodiversity. Conservation Biology7: 562–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfecto I. and Snelling R. 1995. Biodiversity and the transformation of a tropical agroecosystem: ants in coffee plantations. Ecological Applications 5: 1084–1097.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfecto I. and Vandermeer J.H. 1994. Understanding biodiversity loss in agroecosystems: reduction of ant diversity resulting from transformation of the coffee ecosystem in Costa Rica. Entomology (Trends in Agricultural Sciences) 2: 7–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfecto I. and Vandermeer J.H. 2002. The quality of the agroecological matrix in a tropical montane landscape: ants in coffee plantations in southern Mexico. Conservation Biology 16: 174–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfecto I., Rice R.A., Greenberg R. and Van der Voort M.E. 1996. Shade coffee: a disappearing refuge for biodiversity. BioScience 46: 598–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfecto I., Vandermeer J.H., Hanson P. and Cartín V. 1997. Arthropod biodiversity loss and the transformation of a tropical agro-ecosystem. Biodiversity and Conservation 6: 935–945.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast J.R. and Eversham B.C. 1997. Species richness covariance in higher taxa: empirical test of the biodiversity indicator concept. Ecogeography 20: 210–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast J.R., Quinn R.M., Lawton J.H., Eversham B.C. and Gibbons D.W. 1993. Rare species: the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies. Nature 365: 335–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice R.A. 1996. The coffee environment of Northern Latin America: tradition and change. In: Rice R.A., Harris A.M. and McLean J. (eds), Proceedings from the First Sustainable Coffee Congress. Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, pp. 105–114.

  • Rice R.A. 1997. The land use patterns and the history of coffee in eastern Chiapas, Mexico. Agriculture and Human Values 14: 127–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter M. 1992. Landwirtschaftliche Schäden in verschiedenen Höhenstufen der Sierra Madre de Chiapas/Südmexiko. Patermann's Geographische Mitteilungen 136: 295–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts T.H., Daily G.C., Ehrlich P.R. and Fay J.P. 2001. Countryside biogeography of moths in fragmented landscapes: biodiversity in native and agricultural habitats. Conservation Biology 15: 378–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts T.H., Dinerstein E., Olson D.M. and Loucks C. 1999. Who's where in North America? BioScience 49: 369–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow H.P., Sisk T.D., Ehrlich P.R. and Murphy D.D. 1994. Techniques and guidelines for monitoring Neotropical butterflies. Conservation Biology 8: 800–809.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welles J.M. 1990. Some indirect methods of estimating canopy structure. In: Norman J. and Goel N. (eds), Instrumentation for StudyingVegetation Canopies for Remote Sensing in Optical and Thermal Infraser Regions. Harwood Academic, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunderle J. 1999. Avian distribution in Dominican shade coffee plantations: area and habitat relationships. Journal of Field Ornithology 70: 58–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunderle J. and Latta S. 1996. Avian abundance in sun and shade coffee plantations and remnant pine forest in the Cordillera Central, Dominican Republic. Ornitologia Neotropical 7: 19–34.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivette Perfecto.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Perfecto, I., Mas, A., Dietsch, T. et al. Conservation of biodiversity in coffee agroecosystems: a tri-taxa comparison in southern Mexico. Biodiversity and Conservation 12, 1239–1252 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023039921916

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023039921916

Navigation