The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Functional richness and ecosystem services: bird predation on arthropods in tropical agroecosystems
Abstract
In agroecosystems, biodiversity correlates with ecosystem function, yet mechanisms driving these relationships are often unknown. Examining traits and functional classifications of organisms providing ecosystem functions may provide insight into the mechanisms. Birds are important predators of insects, including pests. However, biological simplification of agroforests may decrease provisioning of this pest removal service by reducing bird taxonomic and functional diversity. A recent meta‐analysis of bird exclosure studies from a range of agroecosystems in Central America concluded that higher bird richness is associated with significantly greater arthropod removal, yet the mechanism remains unclear. We conducted a meta‐analysis of the same data to examine whether birds demonstrate functional complementarity in tropical agroforests. We classified birds according to relevant traits (body mass, foraging strategy, foraging strata, and diet) and then examined how design of functional classification, including trait selection, classification methods, and the functional diversity metric used affect the suitability of different classifications as predictors of ecosystem services. We determined that vegetation characteristics are not likely drivers of arthropod removal by birds. For some functional classifications, functional richness positively correlated with arthropod removal, indicating that species complementarity may be an important mechanism behind this ecosystem function. The predictive ability of functional classifications increased with the number of traits included in the classification. For the two best classifications examined, functional group richness was a better predictor of arthropod reduction than other metrics of functional diversity (FD and Rao's Q ). However, no functional classification predicted arthropod removal better than simple species richness; thus other factors may be important. Our analysis indicates that the sampling effect may also play a role, as one species and two functional groups were responsible for disproportionate effects of arthropod removal.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Intersection between biodiversity conservation, agroecology, and ecosystem services
Liere, H., Jha, S., & Philpott, S. M. (2017) · Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems · doi:10.1080/21683565.2017.1330796 · Cited by 86
Self-citationAndreotti, F., Speelman, E. N., Van den Meersche, K., & Allinne, C. (2020) · Sustainability Science · doi:10.1007/s11625-020-00829-3 · Cited by 73
Metadata
- Authors
- Philpott, S. M., Soong, O., Lowenstein, J. H., Pulido, A. L., Lopez, D. T., Flynn, D. F. B., & DeClerck, F.
- Venue
- Ecological Applications
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-10
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1858-1867
- ISSN
- 1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-5582
- OpenAlex
- W2261319596
- Cited by
- 184
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Functional richness and ecosystem services: bird predation on arthropods in tropical agroecosystems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/08-1928.1
- The paper
- Philpott, S. M., Soong, O., Lowenstein, J. H., Pulido, A. L., Lopez, D. T., Flynn, D. F. B., & DeClerck, F. (2009). Functional richness and ecosystem services: bird predation on arthropods in tropical agroecosystems. Ecological Applications. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1928.1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.