Cited by 204Avian ecology and behaviorInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlPlant and animal studies

Ecological and Economic Services Provided by Birds on Jamaican Blue Mountain Coffee Farms

KELLERMANN, JHERIME L., JOHNSON, MATTHEW D., STERCHO, AMY M., HACKETT, STEVEN C.·2008·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Coffee farms can support significant biodiversity, yet intensification of farming practices is degrading agricultural habitats and compromising ecosystem services such as biological pest control. The coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) is the world's primary coffee pest. Researchers have demonstrated that birds reduce insect abundance on coffee farms but have not documented avian control of the berry borer or quantified avian benefits to crop yield or farm income. We conducted a bird-exclosure experiment on coffee farms in the Blue Mountains, Jamaica, to measure avian pest control of berry borers, identify potential predator species, associate predator abundance and borer reductions with vegetation complexity, and quantify resulting increases in coffee yield. Coffee plants excluded from foraging birds had significantly higher borer infestation, more borer broods, and greater berry damage than control plants. We identified 17 potential predator species (73% were wintering Neotropical migrants), and 3 primary species composed 67% of migrant detections. Average relative bird abundance and diversity and relative resident predator abundance increased with greater shade-tree cover. Although migrant predators overall did not respond to vegetation complexity variables, the 3 primary species increased with proximity to noncoffee habitat patches. Lower infestation on control plants was correlated with higher total bird abundance, but not with predator abundance or vegetation compl…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00968.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • State suppression expenditures are estimated at $1 to $2 billion a year.

    “State suppression expenditures are estimated at $1 to $2 billion a year.40”

    From The costs and losses of wildfires: a literature survey (2017) · cites this paper as [40]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
KELLERMANN, J. L., JOHNSON, M. D., STERCHO, A. M., & HACKETT, S. C.
Affiliations
Cal Poly Humboldt (US)
Corresponding author
KELLERMANN, JHERIME L.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-09-24
Volume
22
Issue
5
Pages
1177-1185
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W2144250994
Cited by
204
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 11
FWCI
8.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Conservation Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • John Spoor Broome Library Institutional Repository (California State University) (submittedVersion)
  • CSUN ScholarWorks (California State University, Northridge) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect-Plant Interactions and Control
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant and animal studies
Keywords
coffee berry borer, Neotropical migratory birds, coffee yield, farm income, vegetation complexity, habitat heterogeneity, agrobiodiversity, coffee plantations
MeSH terms
Agriculture, Animals, Birds, Coffee, Conservation of Natural Resources, Jamaica, Pest Control, Biological, Population Dynamics, Ecosystem

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review