+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Using land‐use history and multiple baselines to determine bird responses to cocoa agroforestry


      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Agroforests can play an important role in biodiversity conservation in complex landscapes. A key factor distinguishing among agroforests is land‐use history – whether agroforests are established inside forests or on historically forested but currently open lands. The disparity between land‐use histories means the appropriate biodiversity baselines may differ, which should be accounted for when assessing the conservation value of agroforests. Specifically, comparisons between multiple baselines in forest and open land could enrich understanding of species’ responses by contextualizing them. We made such comparisons based on data from a recently published meta‐analysis of the effects of cocoa (Theobroma cacao) agroforestry on bird diversity. We regrouped rustic, mixed shade cocoa, and low shade cocoa agroforests, based on land‐use history, into forest‐derived and open‐land‐derived agroforests and compared bird species diversity (species richness, abundance, and Shannon's index values) between forest and open land, which represented the 2 alternative baselines. Bird diversity was similar in forest‐derived agroforests and forests (Hedges’ g* estimate [SE] = ‐0.3144 [0.3416], p = 0.36). Open‐land‐derived agroforests were significantly less diverse than forests ( g* = 1.4312 [0.6308], p = 0.023) and comparable to open lands ( g* = ‐0.1529 [0.5035], p = 0.76). Our results highlight how land‐use history determined the conservation value of cocoa agroforests. Forest‐derived cocoa agroforests were comparable to the available – usually already degraded – forest baselines, but entail future degradation risks. In contrast, open‐land‐derived cocoa agroforestry may offer restoration opportunities. Our results showed that comparisons among multiple baselines may inform relative contributions of agroforestry systems to bird conservation on a landscape scale.


          Article impact statement: Land‐use history and its comparison with multiple baselines informs assessments of the value of cocoa agroforests for bird conservation.

          Translated abstract

          El historial de uso del suelo y su comparación con diferentes lineas base informan la evaluación del valor de agrobosques de cacao para la coservación de aves


          Los agrobosques pueden tener un papel importante en la conservación de la biodiversidad dentro de paisajes complejos. Un factor importante que distingue a un agrobosque de otro es el historial de uso del suelo – si el agrobosque está establecido dentro de un bosque o en un área que históricamente fue un bosque y actualmente es un campo abierto. Esta disparidad en el historial del uso del suelo implica que las líneas base de biodiversidad pueden diferir, lo cual debe ser tomado en cuenta cuando se analice el valor de conservación de los agrobosques; específicamente, la contextualización de las comparaciones entre la variedad de líneas base en el bosque y el campo abierto podría enriquecer el entendimiento de la respuesta que tienen las especies. Realizamos dichas comparaciones basadas en datos de un metaanálisis recientemente publicado sobre los efectos de la agrosilvicultura de cacao (Theobroma cacao) en la diversidad de aves. Reagrupamos los agrobosques de cacao (rústico, sombra mixta y sombra mínima) en agrobosques derivados del bosque y agrobosques derivados del campo abierto en función al  historial de uso del suelo y comparamos la diversidad de especies de aves (valores de riqueza de especies, abundancia e índice de Shannon) entre bosque y campo abierto, que representaron las dos líneas base alternativas. La diversidad de aves fue similar en los bosques y en agrobosques derivados de ellos (estimado g* de Hedges [SE] = ‐0.3144 [0.3416], p = 0.36). Los agrobosques derivados del campo abierto fueron significativamente menos diversos que los bosques ( g* = 1.4312 [0.6308], p = 0.023) y comparables con los campos abiertos ( g* = ‐0.1529 [0.5035], p = 0.76). Nuestros resultados destacan cómo el historial de uso del suelo determinó el valor de conservación de los agrobosques de cacao. Los agrobosques de cacao derivados del bosque fueron comparables con las líneas base – generalmente ya degradadas – de bosque disponibles, pero conllevan riesgo de degradación futuro. Al contrario, los agrobosques de cacao derivados del campo abierto podrián ofrecer oportunidades de restauración. Nuestros resultados muestran que las comparaciones entre varias líneas base pueden informar sobre las contribuciones relativas de la agrosilvicultura a la conservación de aves en la escala de paisaje.


          复合农林可以在复杂景观的生物多样性保护中发挥重要作用。区分复合农林的一个关键因素是土地利用历史, 即复合农林是建立在森林内部还是建立在历史上有森林但目前是开阔地的区域。土地利用历史之间的差异意味着适用的生物多样性基线可能不同, 在评估复合农林的保护价值时应考虑到这一点。具体来说, 考虑环境背景并使用多个基线来比较森林和开阔地, 可以丰富对物种响应的理解。我们根据最近发表的可可 ( Theobroma cacao) 复合农林业对鸟类多样性影响的荟萃分析数据进行了比较。我们根据土地利用历史, 将乡村、混合遮荫和低遮荫的可可复合农林重新分为来自森林的农林和来自开阔地的农林, 并比较了森林和开阔地之间的鸟类物种多样性 (物种丰富度、丰度和香农指数), 以代表两个替代基线。结果显示, 来自森林的农林和森林中鸟类多样性相似 (Hedges’ g*估计值 [SE] 为−0.3144 [0.3416], p = 0.36)。来自开阔地的农林鸟类多样性明显低于森林 (g* = 1.4312 [0.6308], p = 0.023), 而与开阔地相当 (g* = −0.1529 [0.5035], p = 0.76) 。我们的结果强调了土地利用历史如何决定可可农林的保护价值。来自森林的可可农林与现有的 (通常已退化) 森林基线相当, 但存在未来退化的风险。相比之下, 来自开阔地的可可农林则可能提供恢复的机会。我们的结果表明, 利用多个基线进行比较可以为景观尺度上农林业对鸟类保护的相对贡献提供信息。 【翻译: 胡怡思; 审校: 聂永刚】

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial

          Meta-analysis is of fundamental importance to obtain an unbiased assessment of the available evidence. In general, the use of meta-analysis has been increasing over the last three decades with mental health as a major research topic. It is then essential to well understand its methodology and interpret its results. In this publication, we describe how to perform a meta-analysis with the freely available statistical software environment R, using a working example taken from the field of mental health. R package meta is used to conduct standard meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses for missing binary outcome data and potential selection bias are conducted with R package metasens. All essential R commands are provided and clearly described to conduct and report analyses. The working example considers a binary outcome: we show how to conduct a fixed effect and random effects meta-analysis and subgroup analysis, produce a forest and funnel plot and to test and adjust for funnel plot asymmetry. All these steps work similar for other outcome types. R represents a powerful and flexible tool to conduct meta-analyses. This publication gives a brief glimpse into the topic and provides directions to more advanced meta-analysis methods available in R.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Multifunctional shade-tree management in tropical agroforestry landscapes - a review


                Author and article information

                Conserv Biol
                Conserv Biol
                Conservation Biology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                17 June 2022
                August 2022
                : 36
                : 4 ( doiID: 10.1111/cobi.v36.4 )
                [ 1 ] Wyss Academy for Nature University of Bern Bern Switzerland
                [ 2 ] Earth System Science, Department of Geography University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland
                [ 3 ] Plant Biology and Ecology Department University of Antananarivo Antananarivo Madagascar
                [ 4 ] Agroecology, Department of Crop Sciences University of Goettingen Göttingen Germany
                [ 5 ] Sustainable Agricultural Systems and Engineering Laboratory, School of Engineering Westlake University China
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Dominic A. Martin, Department of Geography, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland.

                dominic.martin@ 123456uzh.ch

                © 2022 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 0, Pages: 7, Words: 4686
                Research Note
                Research Note
                Custom metadata
                August 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.2.0 mode:remove_FC converted:07.10.2022

                agroecology,cacao,conservation,review,meta‐analysis,forest degradation,forest‐derived agroforest,open‐land‐derived agroforest,ornithology,agrobosque derivado de bosque,agrobosque derivado de campo abierto,agroecología,conservación,degradación forestal,ornitología,可可,保护,综述,荟萃分析,森林退化,来自森林的农林,来自开阔地的农林、鸟类学


                Comment on this article