PS 59-14
Contrasting responses of different taxonomic groups to local and landscape agricultural factors

Friday, August 15, 2014
Exhibit Hall, Sacramento Convention Center
Kaleigh Fisher, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Aaron Iverson, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Mchigan, Ann Arbor, MI
David J. Gonthier, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Katherine K. Ennis, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA
Ryan Kuesel, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Mchigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Zachary Hajian-Forooshani, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Robyn Quistberg, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA
Chatura Vaidya, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Peter Bichier, Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA
Lena Cruz, University of Michigan
Yin J. Sibley, Environmental Studies Department, University of California-Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA
Stacy M. Philpott, Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA
Ivette Perfecto, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Background/Question/Methods

Agricultural land-use is a strong driver of biodiversity loss considering that around 40% of the terrestrial land surface is now covered by agriculture. Yet, some agricultural systems can maintain high levels of biodiversity, for example shade coffee plantations can maintain high species diversity. At the same time, maintaining natural habitats in agricultural landscapes can promote biodiversity within farms. Studies are beginning to reveal that different taxonomic groups respond to different factors. We measured the response of tree, spider, ant, parasitoid, bee, leafhopper, and bird biodiversity to variation in local coffee management factors and landscape scale factors in Chiapas, Mexico. In 2011 and 2012, we surveyed 38 sites across 9 plantations for different taxonomic groups and characterized sites for local and landscape factors. We then compared the responses of different taxonomic groups.

Results/Conclusions

The results suggest that different taxonomic groups respond to different agricultural factors. Spiders responded strongly to elevation, where there were more spiders at lower elevations. Tree canopy connectivity positively influenced both spider abundance and richness. Bird richness had a strong positive correlation with the diversity of habitat types in the surrounding landscape. Local factors were important in explaining tree species richness. Parasitoid, ant, bee, and leafhopper diversity responded to both local and landscape scale factors in contrasting ways. These results suggest that different taxonomic groups respond to different local and landscape coffee agricultural factors. Thus when considering conservation of biodiversity in agriculture, it is important to consider strategies at multiple scales.