Tradeoffs and synergies among ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, and food production in coffee agroforestry

被引:4
|
作者
Mayorga, Isabella [1 ]
de Mendonca, Jose Luiz Vargas [2 ]
Hajian-Forooshani, Zachary [3 ]
Lugo-Perez, Javier [4 ]
Perfecto, Ivette [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Michigan, Sch Environm & Sustainabil, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[2] Univ Michigan, Dept Aerosp Engn, Ann Arbor, MI USA
[3] Univ Michigan, Dept Ecol & Evolutionary Biol, Ann Arbor, MI USA
[4] Univ Puerto Rico, Dept Biol, Utuado, PR USA
关键词
agroforestry; ecosystem services; biodiversity conservation; food security; synergies and tradeoffs; Hurricane Maria; Puerto Rico; shade coffee; CARBON STORAGE; SHADED COFFEE; AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES; MANAGEMENT INTENSITY; HURRICANE MARIA; TREE DIVERSITY; LAND-USE; FOREST; BIOMASS; SYSTEMS;
D O I
10.3389/ffgc.2022.690164
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Concerns over the capacity of the world's existing agricultural land to provide food for the global population under climate change and continued biodiversity loss have set the stage for a prevailing narrative of inherent tradeoffs with agricultural production. Coffee, a major export of tropical countries, offers a unique opportunity to examine how different management practices can lead to a variety of outcomes in food security, ecosystem services, and biodiversity conservation. Our study examined this intersection to identify tradeoffs and synergies using compiled data from Puerto Rico. At the island level, we analyzed data on coffee yield and planted area under shade or sun management. At the farm level, we analyzed management variables (percent shade cover, maximum canopy height, ground cover, and food crop richness), non-provisioning ecosystem services variables (total farm carbon storage, soil organic carbon storage, coffee plant carbon biomass, and hurricane resistance and resilience), and biodiversity variables (ant, bird, and lizard richness and abundance). At the island level, we found that planted area was the most significant predictor of total production, suggesting no obvious tradeoff between production and shade management in coffee farms. At the farm level, canopy cover of shade trees was negatively correlated with ground cover and positively correlated with food crop richness, suggesting a synergy between agroforestry and subsistence food production. We detected mostly synergies associated with ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, and agroforestry management and no tradeoffs among ecosystem service and biodiversity parameters. Shade canopy cover significantly increased total carbon storage, coffee plant biomass, hurricane resistance, and bird species richness. Shade canopy height had a similar positive effect on total farm carbon storage while food crop richness had a positive effect on farm resilience following Hurricane Maria. Ground cover was positively associated with soil carbon storage and pest-controlling lizard abundance. Tradeoffs related to agroforestry management included an inverse relationship between ground cover and hurricane resistance and more dominance of an invasive ant species in farms with higher shade canopies. We discuss the implications of practicing agroforestry principles in this smallholder coffee system and highlight opportunities to contribute to more diversified food production systems that support biodiversity and ecosystem services.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Birdwatching preferences reveal synergies and tradeoffs among recreation, carbon, and fisheries ecosystem services in Pacific Northwest estuaries, USA
    Byrd, Kristin B.
    Woo, Isa
    Hall, Laurie
    Pindilli, Emily
    Moritsch, Monica
    Good, Anthony
    de la Cruz, Susan
    Davis, Melanie
    Nakai, Glynnis
    [J]. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2024, 69
  • [42] A global meta-analysis of the biodiversity and ecosystem service benefits of coffee and cacao agroforestry
    De Beenhouwer, Matthias
    Aerts, Raf
    Honnay, Olivier
    [J]. AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 2013, 175 : 1 - 7
  • [43] From trade-offs to synergies in food security and biodiversity conservation
    Hanspach, Jan
    Abson, David J.
    Collier, Neil French
    Dorresteijn, Ine
    Schultner, Jannik
    Fischer, Joern
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, 2017, 15 (09) : 489 - 494
  • [44] Biodiversity Conservation, Ecosystem Functioning, and Economic Incentives under Cocoa Agroforestry Intensification
    Bisseleua, D. H. B.
    Missoup, A. D.
    Vidal, S.
    [J]. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2009, 23 (05) : 1176 - 1184
  • [45] Food production, ecosystem services and biodiversity: We can't have it all everywhere
    Holt, Alison R.
    Alix, Anne
    Thompson, Anne
    Maltby, Lorraine
    [J]. SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2016, 573 : 1422 - 1429
  • [46] Ethnobotany, rattan agroforestry, and conservation of ecosystem services in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia
    Afentina
    McShane, Paul
    Wright, Wendy
    [J]. AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS, 2020, 94 (02) : 639 - 650
  • [47] Should Biodiversity be Useful? Scope and Limits of Ecosystem Services as an Argument for Biodiversity Conservation
    Deliege, Glenn
    Neuteleers, Stijn
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES, 2015, 24 (02) : 165 - 182
  • [48] Ethnobotany, rattan agroforestry, and conservation of ecosystem services in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia
    Paul Afentina
    Wendy McShane
    [J]. Agroforestry Systems, 2020, 94 : 639 - 650
  • [49] Aligning biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services in spatial planning: Focus on ecosystem processes
    Van der Biest, Katrien
    Meire, Patrick
    Schellekens, Tim
    D'hondt, Bram
    Bonte, Dries
    Vanagt, Thomas
    Ysebaert, Tom
    [J]. SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2020, 712 (712)
  • [50] Tradeoffs evaluation among urban ecosystem services at the megalopolitan scale
    Vilchis Mata, Ivan
    [J]. ECONOMIA SOCIEDAD Y TERRITORIO, 2019, 19 (61): : 339 - 371