Documento
Metadados
Título
Persistence of Coffea arabica and its relationship with the structure, species diversity and composition of a secondary forest in Brazil
Descrição
Understanding the relationships between Coffea arabica L. and the native tree community of secondary forests regrowing after the abandonment of coffee plantations is important because, as a non-native species in the Neotropics, coffee can outcompete native species, reducing diversity and forests ecosystem services. We aimed to answer three questions: 1) Does coffee regeneration in secondary forests differ between shaded and unshaded abandoned plantations?; 2) How is coffee basal area related to structural attributes, species diversity and composition of the native community?; and 3) Do the relationships between coffee and native community differ between tree and sapling components? We sampled the tree and sapling components in a seasonal tropical dry forest that were previously used as shaded and unshaded coffee plantations. Coffee was the most important species in the sapling component of shaded systems, but was almost absent in unshaded ones. Coffee basal area was negatively related with the native density and absolute species richness of the sapling component; and was negatively related with tree density, and positively related with the percentage of pioneer individuals of the native tree component. Our results indicate that coffee persists in secondary forest communities even after more than 70 years of shaded-coffee plantations were abandoned, potentially reducing density and diversity of native species. Despite limitations, which hinder more general conclusions on coffee invasiveness in Brazilian secondary tropical forests, our results indicate that coffee is a strong competitor in the studied secondary forests and provide important insights for future research on this topic.
Tipo de documento
Artigo
Autor(es)
Diego Raimundo | Jamir Prado-Júnior | Norberto Emídio de Oliveira-Neto | Lucas Dezidério Santana | Vagner Santiago do Vale | Tamiel Baiocchi Jacobson | Paulo Eugênio Alves Macedo de Oliveira | Fabrício Alvim Carvalho
Assunto
Coffea arabica
Natureza do suporte
Versão eletrônica
Eixo temático
Taxonomia
Local
São Francisco - Califórnia
Nome do periódico
PLOS ONE
Ano
2018
Número de páginas
15
Idioma
Inglês
ISSN
1932-6203
Acesso ao documento
Referência
1.Chazdon RL, Broadbent EN, Rozendaal DM, Bongers F, Zambrano AMA, Aide TM, et al. Carbon sequestration potential of second-growth forest regeneration in the Latin American tropics. Science Advances. 2016;2(5):e1501639. pmid:27386528 View ArticlePubMed/NCBIGoogle Scholar 2.Letcher SG, Chazdon RL. Rapid recovery of biomass, species richness, and species composition in a forest chronosequence in northeastern Costa Rica. Biotropica. 2009;41(5):608–17. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 3.Chazdon RL. Making tropical succession and landscape reforestation successful. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 2013;32(7):649–58. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 4.Lugo AE, Helmer E. Emerging forests on abandoned land: Puerto Rico’s new forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 2004;190(2):145–61. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 5.Chazdon RL. Beyond deforestation: restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands. science. 2008;320(5882):1458–60. pmid:18556551 View ArticlePubMed/NCBIGoogle Scholar 6.Peltzer D, Kurokawa H, Wardle DA. Soil fertility and disturbance interact to drive contrasting responses of co-occurring native and non-native species. Ecology. 2015. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 7.Mello TJ, de Oliveira AA. Making a Bad Situation Worse: An Invasive Species Altering the Balance of Interactions between Local Species. PloS one. 2016;11(3):e0152070. pmid:27010846 View ArticlePubMed/NCBIGoogle Scholar 8.Pyšek P, Jarošík V, Hulme PE, Pergl J, Hejda M, Schaffner U, et al. A global assessment of invasive plant impacts on resident species, communities and ecosystems: the interaction of impact measures, invading species' traits and environment. Global Change Biology. 2012;18(5):1725–37. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 9.Simberloff D, Martin J-L, Genovesi P, Maris V, Wardle DA, Aronson J, et al. Impacts of biological invasions: what's what and the way forward. Trends in ecology & evolution. 2013;28(1):58–66. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 10.Warren II RJ. Ghosts of cultivation past-Native American dispersal legacy persists in tree distribution. PloS one. 2016;11(3):e0150707. pmid:26982877 View ArticlePubMed/NCBIGoogle Scholar 11.Hulme PE. Beyond control: wider implications for the management of biological invasions. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2006;43(5):835–47. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 12.Baruch Z, Nozawa S. Abandoned coffee plantations: Biodiversity conservation or path for non-native species? case study in a neotropical montane forest. Interciencia. 2014;39(8):554. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 13.Chai SL, Tanner E. 150‐year legacy of land use on tree species composition in old‐secondary forests of Jamaica. Journal of Ecology. 2011;99(1):113–21. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 14.Wakjira FS. Biodiversity and ecology of Afromontane rainforests with wild Coffea arabica L. populations in Ethiopia: Cuvillier Verlag; 2006. 15.Tadesse G, Zavaleta E, Shennan C. Coffee landscapes as refugia for native woody biodiversity as forest loss continues in southwest Ethiopia. Biological Conservation. 2014;169:384–91. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 16.Schroth G, Laderach P, Dempewolf J, Philpott S, Haggar J, Eakin H, et al. Towards a climate change adaptation strategy for coffee communities and ecosystems in the Sierra Madre de Chiapas, Mexico. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 2009;14(7):605–25. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 17.Hundera K, Aerts R, Fontaine A, Van Mechelen M, Gijbels P, Honnay O, et al. Effects of coffee management intensity on composition, structure, and regeneration status of Ethiopian moist evergreen afromontane forests. Environmental management. 2013;51(3):801–9. pmid:23180249 View ArticlePubMed/NCBIGoogle Scholar 18.Malavolta E. Historia do café no Brasil: Agronomia agricultura e Comercialização: Editora Agronômica Ceres Ltda.; 2000. 19.Noponen MR, Healey JR, Soto G, Haggar JP. Sink or source—the potential of coffee agroforestry systems to sequester atmospheric CO 2 into soil organic carbon. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment. 2013;175:60–8. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 20.López-Gómez AM, Williams-Linera G, Manson RH. Tree species diversity and vegetation structure in shade coffee farms in Veracruz, Mexico. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment. 2008;124(3):160–72. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 21.Moguel P, Toledo VM. Biodiversity conservation in traditional Coffee Systems of Mexico. Conservation biology: the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology. 1999;13(1):11–21. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 22.Caudill SA, Rice RA. Do Bird Friendly® Coffee Criteria Benefit Mammals? Assessment of Mammal Diversity in Chiapas, Mexico. PloS one. 2016;11(11):e0165662. pmid:27880773 View ArticlePubMed/NCBIGoogle Scholar 23.Richardson DM, Rejmánek M. Trees and shrubs as invasive alien species—a global review. Diversity and Distributions. 2011;17(5):788–809. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 24.Zenni RD, Ziller SR. An overview of invasive plants in Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Botany. 2011;34(3):431–46. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 25.Joshi AA, Mudappa D, Raman TRS. Brewing trouble: coffee invasion in relation to edges and forest structure in tropical rainforest fragments of the Western Ghats, India. Biological Invasions. 2009;11(10):2387–400. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 26.Perfecto I, Rice RA, Greenberg R, van der Voort ME. Shade Coffee: A Disappearing Refuge for Biodiversity. BioScience. 1996;46(8):598–608. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 27.Häger A, Otárola MF, Stuhlmacher MF, Castillo RA, Arias AC. Effects of management and landscape composition on the diversity and structure of tree species assemblages in coffee agroforests. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2015;199:43–51. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 28.Goodall KE, Bacon CM, Mendez VE. Shade tree diversity, carbon sequestration, and epiphyte presence in coffee agroecosystems: A decade of smallholder management in San Ramón, Nicaragua. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2015;199:200–6. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 29.Sandor ME, Chazdon RL. Remnant trees affect species composition but not structure of tropical second-growth forest. PloS one. 2014;9(1):e83284. pmid:24454700; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3890367. View ArticlePubMed/NCBIGoogle Scholar 30.Hu G, Feeley KJ, Yu M. Habitat Fragmentation Drives Plant Community Assembly Processes across Life Stages. PloS one. 2016;11(7):e0159572. pmid:27427960 View ArticlePubMed/NCBIGoogle Scholar 31.Catford JA, Daehler CC, Murphy HT, Sheppard AW, Hardesty BD, Westcott DA, et al. The intermediate disturbance hypothesis and plant invasions: Implications for species richness and management. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. 2012;14(3):231–41. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 32.Poorter L, Bongers L, Bongers F. Architecture of 54 moist-forest tree species: traits, trade-offs, and functional groups. Ecology. 2006;87(5):1289–301. pmid:16761607 View ArticlePubMed/NCBIGoogle Scholar 33.Bourdier T, Cordonnier T, Kunstler G, Piedallu C, Lagarrigues G, Courbaud B. Tree size inequality reduces forest productivity: an analysis combining inventory data for ten European species and a light competition model. PloS one. 2016;11(3):e0151852. pmid:26999820 View ArticlePubMed/NCBIGoogle Scholar 34.Onoda Y, Saluñga JB, Akutsu K, Aiba Si, Yahara T, Anten NP. Trade‐off between light interception efficiency and light use efficiency: implications for species coexistence in one‐sided light competition. Journal of Ecology. 2014;102(1):167–75. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 35.Gommers CM, Visser EJ, St Onge KR, Voesenek LA, Pierik R. Shade tolerance: when growing tall is not an option. Trends in Plant Science. 2013;18(2):65–71. pmid:23084466 View ArticlePubMed/NCBIGoogle Scholar 36.Alvares CA, Stape JL, Sentelhas PC, de Moraes G, Leonardo J, Sparovek G. Köppen's climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorologische Zeitschrift. 2013;22(6):711–28. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 37.Dean W. With broadax and firebrand: the destruction of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: Univ of California Press; 1997. 38.Santiago DS, Fonseca CR, Carvalho FA. Fitossociologia da regeneração natural de um fragmento urbano de Floresta Estacional Semidecidual (Juiz de Fora, MG) Brazilian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2014;9(1):117–23. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 39.Oliveira-Neto NE, Nascimento DR, Carvalho FA. Biodiversity inventory of trees in a neotropical secondary forest after abandonment of shaded coffee plantation. iForest-Biogeosciences and Forestry. 2017;10(1):303. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 40.Swaine M, Whitmore T. On the definition of ecological species groups in tropical rain forests. Vegetatio. 1988;75(1–2):81–6. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 41.Oliveira-Filho AT, Scolforo JRS. Inventário florestal de Minas Gerais: espécies arbóreas da flora nativa. Lavras: Editora UFLA; 2008. 619p p. 42.Carreño‐Rocabado G, Peña‐Claros M, Bongers F, Alarcón A, Licona JC, Poorter L. Effects of disturbance intensity on species and functional diversity in a tropical forest. Journal of Ecology. 2012;100(6):1453–63. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 43.Lohbeck M, Lebrija-Trejos E, Martinez-Ramos M, Meave JA, Poorter L, Bongers F. Functional trait strategies of trees in dry and wet tropical forests are similar but differ in their consequences for succession. PloS one. 2015;10(4):e0123741. pmid:25919023; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4412708. View ArticlePubMed/NCBIGoogle Scholar 44.Kissling WD, Carl G. Spatial autocorrelation and the selection of simultaneous autoregressive models. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 2008;17(1):59–71. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 45.Latta G, Temesgen H, Adams D, Barrett T. Analysis of potential impacts of climate change on forests of the United States Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management. 2010;259(4):720–9. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 46.F Dormann C, M McPherson J, B Araújo M, Bivand R, Bolliger J, Carl G, et al. Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review. Ecography. 2007;30(5):609–28. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 47.Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology letters. 2001;4(4):379–91. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 48.Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375–42; 2011. Reference Source. 2012. 49.Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara R, et al. Package ‘vegan’. Community ecology package, version. 2013;2(9). View ArticleGoogle Scholar 50.Bivand R, Bernat A, Carvalho M, Chun Y, Dormann C, Dray S, et al. The spdep package. Comprehensive R Archive Network, Version. 2005:05–83. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 51.Wickham H, Chang W. ggplot2: an implementation of the grammar of graphics, version 2.1. 0. See https://cranr-projectorg/web/packages/ggplot2/index html. 2016. 52.Barros KART, Raymundo D, Fonseca SN, Ribeiro JHC, Fonseca CR, Almeida VC, et al. Estrutura e diversidade da regeneração florestal na nascente do Córrego São Pedro, Juiz de Fora, MG. Revista Agrogeoambiental. 2015. 53.Marcano-Vega H, Aide TM, Bàez D. Forest regeneration in abandoned coffee plantations and pastures in the Cordillera Central of Puerto Rico. Plant Ecology. 2002;161:75–87. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 54.Paiva RVEe, Ribeiro JHC, Carvalho FA. Estrutura, Diversidade e heterogeneidade do estrato regenerante em um fragmento florestal urbano após 10 anos de sucessão florestal. Floresta. 2015;45(3):535–44. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 55.DaMatta FM. Ecophysiological constraints on the production of shaded and unshaded coffee: a review. Field Crops Research. 2004;86(2):99–114. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 56.DaMatta FM. Exploring drought tolerance in coffee: a physiological approach with some insights for plant breeding. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology. 2004;16(1):1–6. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 57.DaMatta FM, Ramalho JDC. Impacts of drought and temperature stress on coffee physiology and production: a review. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology. 2006;18(1):55–81. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 58.Tully KL, Lawrence D. Canopy and leaf composition drive patterns of nutrient release from pruning residues in a coffee agroforest. Ecological Applications. 2012;22(4):1330–44. pmid:22827139 View ArticlePubMed/NCBIGoogle Scholar 59.DaMatta FM, Ronchi CP, Maestri M, Barros RS. Ecophysiology of coffee growth and production. Brazilian journal of plant physiology. 2007;19(4):485–510. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 60.Schnitzer SA, Klironomos JN, HilleRisLambers J, Kinkel LL, Reich PB, Xiao K, et al. Soil microbes drive the classic plant diversity–productivity pattern. Ecology. 2011;92(2):296–303. pmid:21618909 View ArticlePubMed/NCBIGoogle Scholar 61.De Souza HN, de Goede RG, Brussaard L, Cardoso IM, Duarte EM, Fernandes RB, et al. Protective shade, tree diversity and soil properties in coffee agroforestry systems in the Atlantic Rainforest biome. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2012;146(1):179–96. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 62.Schnitzer SA, Carson WP. Treefall gaps and the maintenance of species diversity in a tropical forest. Ecology. 2001;82(4):913–9. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 63.Schnitzer SA, Dalling JW, Carson WP. The impact of lianas on tree regeneration in tropical forest canopy gaps: evidence for an alternative pathway of gap‐phase regeneration. Journal of Ecology. 2000;88(4):655–66. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 64.Poorter L, Sande M, Thompson J, Arets E, Alarcón A, Álvarez‐Sánchez J, et al. Diversity enhances carbon storage in tropical forests. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 2015;24(11):1314–28. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 65.Sande MT, Poorter L, Kooistra L, Balvanera P, Thonicke K, Thompson J, et al. Biodiversity in species, traits, and structure determines carbon stocks and uptake in tropical forests. Biotropica. 2017. View ArticleGoogle Scholar 66.Poorter L, van der Sande MT, Arets EJ, Ascarrunz N, Enquist B, Finegan B, et al. Biodiversity and climate determine the functioning of Neotropical forests. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 2017;26(12):1423–34. View ArticleGoogle Scholar