Effect of local habitat and landscape attributes on bird communities in shade coffee plantations in the Colombian Andes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agroforestry is increasingly promoted to support biodiversity conservation by increasing tree cover in agricultural landscapes, but the extent to which landscape context affects how benefits accrue remains uncertain. We used shade-coffee systems to ask how the proximity and extent of forest and forest-agriculture mosaic in the landscape influenced bird communities in 160 coffee plantations that differed in coffee plant density and shade tree richness and abundance in two departments of Colombia with differing regional forest cover. Our findings suggest that regional forest cover and landscape conditions can mediate the response of birds to local habitats on plantations. Avian richness and community completeness was positively related to the amount of forest-agriculture mosaic within landscapes surrounding coffee plantations only within the comparatively forested department of Antioquia (mean 32 % regional forest cover), particularly where plantations had high richness and abundance of trees. In the largely deforested department of Cauca (mean 1 %), neither distance to forest nor cover by forest-agriculture mosaics explained avian richness and community completeness, both of which were positively related only to local tree richness and abundance. We show that biodiversity benefits from increasing habitat quality at local and landscape scales, and habitat quality within plantations becomes increasingly influential as the amount of habitat in the broader landscape declines. Our results emphasize the role of landscape context in conservation planning to promote biodiversity in coffee-growing regions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".