Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Native Shade Trees Aid Bird Conservation in Tea Plantations in Southern India


Affiliations
1 Nature Conservation Foundation, 1311 ‘Amritha’ 12th A Main, Vijayanagar 1st Stage, Mysuru 570 017, India
 

In the Western Ghats, India, we study how different intensities of tea cultivation influence birds. We com-pared bird communities in conventional monoculture tea and mixed-shade tea plantations, both of which use agrochemicals, with organic tea plantations, a rainforest fragment, and continuous rainforest within the Anamalai Tiger Reserve. In 225 point count sur-veys, overall bird species richness and abundance were lowest in conventional tea and up to 33% higher in organic tea. Mixed-shade tea had 40% higher spe-cies richness (including 15 canopy and 4 shrub and mid-storey species – primarily frugivores, nectarivores and insectivores), and 83% higher bird abundance than conventional tea, with a greater proportion of forest-affiliated birds and similarity in species compo-sition with forest sites. The rainforest fragment and continuous rainforest had a higher proportion, richness and abundance of forest-affiliated birds and fewer open-country birds, unlike tea plantations where the pattern was reversed. Habitat associations of 62 bird species in indicator species analysis revea-led similar patterns. Thus organic tea is better than conventional tea for birds, but mixed-shade tea is even better, although still poorer than forests. Retaining or promoting native shade trees in tea plantations will increase bird diversity and abundance, including of forest-affiliated species and support landscape-level bird conservation.

Keywords

Bird Community Structure, Indicator Species, Land-Use Change, Shade Trees, Tea Plantations.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Bhagwat, S. A., Willis, K. J., Birks, H. J. B. and Whittaker, R. J., Agroforestry: a refuge for tropical biodiversity? Trends Ecol. Evol., 2008, 23, 261–267.

  • Koh, L. P. and Gardner, T. A., Conservation in human-modified landscapes. In Conservation Biology for All (eds Sodhi, N. S. and Ehrlich, P. R.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010, pp. 236–261.

  • Thiollay, J., The role of traditional agroforests in the conservation of rain forest bird diversity in Sumatra. Conserv. Biol., 1995, 9, 335–353.

  • Sidhu, S., Raman, T. R. S. and Goodale, E., Effects of plantations and home-gardens on tropical forest bird communities and mixed-species bird flocks in the southern Western Ghats. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 2010, 107, 91–108.

  • Goodale, E. et al., The response of birds and mixed-species bird flocks to human-modified landscapes in Sri Lanka and southern India. For. Ecol. Manage., 2014, 329, 384–392.

  • Raman, T. R. S., Effects of habitat structure and adjacent habitats on birds in tropical rainforest fragments and shaded plantations in the Western Ghats, India. Biodivers. Conserv., 2006, 15, 1577–1607.

  • Sreekar, R., Mohan, A., Das, S., Agarwal, P. and Vivek, R., Natu-ral windbreaks sustain bird diversity in a tea-dominated Land-scape. PLoS ONE, 2013, 8, 4–11.

  • Anand, M. O., Krishnaswamy, J. and Das, A., Proximity to forests drives bird conservation value of coffee plantations: implications for certification. Ecol. Appl., 2008, 18, 1754–1763.

  • Zhang, M., Chang, C. and Quan, R., Natural forest at landscape scale is most important for bird conservation in rubber plantation. Biol. Conserv., 2017, 210, 243–252.

  • Raman, T. R. S. and Sukumar, R., Responses of tropical rainforest birds to abandoned plantations, edges and logged forest in the Western Ghats, India. Anim. Conserv., 2002, 5, 201–216.

  • Shahabuddin, G. and Kumar, R., Influence of anthropogenic disturbance on bird communities in a tropical dry forest: role of vegetation structure. Anim. Conserv., 2006, 9, 404–413.

  • Mandal, J. and Raman, T. R. S., Shifting agriculture supports more tropical forest birds than oil palm or teak plantations in Mizoram, northeast India. Condor Ornithol. Appl., 2016, 18, 345–359.

  • Koh, L. P., Can oil palm plantations be made more hospitable for forest butterflies and birds? J. Appl. Ecol., 2008, 45, 1002–1009.

  • Péron, G. and Crochet, P. A., Edge effect and structure of mixed-species bird flocks in an Afrotropical lowland forest. J. Ornithol., 2009, 150, 585–599.

  • Sinu, P. A., Avian pest control in tea plantations of sub-Himalayan plains of Northeast India: mixed-species foraging flock matters. Biol. Control, 2011, 58, 362–366.

  • Subasinghe, K., Sumanapala, A. P. and Weerawardhena, S. R., The impact of forest conversion on bird communities in the northern flank of the Knuckles Mountain Forest Range, Sri Lanka. J. Asia-Pac. Biodivers., 2014, 7, 367–373.

  • Soh, M. C. K., Sodhi, N. S. and Lim, S. L. H., High sensitivity of montane bird communities to habitat disturbance in Peninsular Malaysia. Biol. Conserv., 2006, 129, 149–166.

  • Deikumah, J. P., Kwafo, R., and Konadu, V. A., Land use types influenced avian assemblage structure in a forest–agriculture land-scape in Ghana. Ecol. Evol., 2017, 7, 8685–8697.

  • FAO, FAOSTAT: Food and Agriculture Data. FAOSTAT Food Agric. Data, 2020.

  • Tea Board, Tea Statistics 2003–2004. Tea Board, Kolkata, 2006.

  • Tea Board, Statistics. Tea Statistics, 2020.

  • Clay, J., World Agriculture and the Environment, Island Press, Ithaca, 2004.

  • Bengtsson, J., Ahnström, J. and Weibull, A.-C., The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol., 2005, 42, 261–269.

  • Fuller, R. J. et al., Benefits of organic farming to biodiversity vary among taxa. Biol. Lett., 2005, 1, 431–434.

  • Hole, D. G., Perkins, A. J., Wilson, J. D., Alexander, I. H., Grice, P. V. and Evans, A. D., Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biol. Conserv., 2005, 122, 113–130.

  • Kirk, D. A., Lindsay, K. E. and Brook, R. W., Risk of agricultural practices and habitat change to farmland birds. Avian Conserv. Ecol., 2011, 6, 5.

  • Tuck, S. L., Winqvist, C., Mota, F., Ahnström, J., Turnbull, L. A. and Bengtsson, J., Land-use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol., 2014, 51, 746–755.

  • Padoa-Schioppa, E., Baietto, M., Massa, R. and Bottoni, L., Bird communities as bioindicators: the focal species concept in agricul-tural landscapes. Ecol. Indic., 2006, 6, 83–93.

  • Whelan, C. J., Wenny, D. G. and Marquis, R. J., Ecosystem ser-vices provided by birds. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 2008, 1134, 25–60.

  • Philpott, S. M. et al., Functional richness and ecosystem services: bird predation on arthropods in tropical agroecosystems. Ecol. Appl., 2009, 19, 1858–1867.

  • Mandan, J., Patil, V., Narkhede, S., Gunaga, R. and Bhave, S., Birds: a bio-control agent in farmland ecosystem. Indian J. Agro-for., 2014, 16, 15–20.

  • Milligan, M. C., Johnson, M. D., Garfinkel, M., Smith, C. J. and Njoroge, P., Quantifying pest control services by birds and ants in Kenyan coffee farms. Biol. Conserv., 2016, 194, 58–65.

  • Mudappa, D., Kumar, M. A. and Raman, T. R. S., Restoring nature: wildlife conservation in landscapes fragmented by planta-tion crops in India. In Nature Without Borders (eds Rangarajan, M., Madhusudan, M. D. and Shahabuddin, G.), Orient Black Swan, New Delhi, 2014, pp. 178–214.

  • Rathod, I. M. and Aruchamy, S., Spatial analysis of rainfall varia-tion in Coimbatore district Tamil Nadu using GIS. Int. J. Geomat. Geosci., 2010, 1, 106–118.

  • Pascal, J. P., Wet Evergreen Forests of the Western Ghats of India: Ecology, Structure, Floristic Composition and Succession, Institute Français de Pondichéry, 1988.

  • Bibby, C., Burgess, N., Hill, D. and Mustoe, S., Bird Census Techniques – 2nd Edition, Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2000.

  • Buckland, S. T., Rexstad, E. A., Marques, T. A. and Oedekoven, C. S., Distance Sampling: Methods and Applications, Springer International Publishing, 2015.

  • Clements, J. F. et al., The eBird/Clements Checklist of Birds of the World: v2019, 2019; https://www.birds.cornell.edu/ clementschecklist/download/ (accessed on 1 January 2020).

  • R Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Aus-tria, 2020; https://www.R-project.org/ 40. Ali, S. and Ripley, S. D., Handbook of the Birds of India and Pakistan, Compact edition. Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1983.

  • Wilman, H., Belmaker, J., Simpson, J., de la Rosa, C., Rivadeneira, M. M. and Jetz, W., EltonTraits 1.0: Species-level foraging attrib-utes of the world’s birds and mammals. Ecology, 2014, 95, 2027–2027.

  • Oksanen, J. et al., Vegan: Community Ecology Package, 2019; https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan

  • Gotelli, N. J. and Colwell, R. K., Estimating species richness. In Frontiers in Measuring Biodiversity (eds Magurran, A. E. and McGill, B. J.), Oxford University Press, New York, 2011, pp. 39–54.

  • Hothorn, T., Bretz, F. and Westfall, P., Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom. J., 2008, 50, 346–363.

  • Clarke, K. R., Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust. J. Ecol., 1993, 18, 117–143.

  • De Cáceres, M. and Legendre, P., Associations between species and groups of sites: indices and statistical inference. Ecology, 2009, 90, 3566–3574.

  • Kottawa-Arachchi, J. D., Gamage, R. N., Ariyarathne, H. A. C. K. and Jayathilake, G. G., Avifaunal diversity in a tea plantation eco-system in the up-country of Sri Lanka. In Proceedings of the International Forestry and Environment Symposium 2010 of For-estry and Environmental Science, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Sri Lanka, 2010, pp. 318–327.

  • Kottawa-Arachchi, J. D. and Gamage, R. N., Avifaunal diversity and bird community responses to man-made habitats in St Coombs Tea Estate, Sri Lanka. J. Threat. Taxa, 2015, 7, 6878–6890.

  • Ahmed, A. and Dey, M., A checklist of the winter bird community in different habitat types of Rosekandy Tea Estate of Assam, India. J. Threat. Taxa, 2014, 6, 5478–5484.

  • Yashmita-Ulman, Sharma, M. and Kumar, A., Agroforestry systems as habitat for avian species: assessing its role in conserva-tion. Proc. Zool. Soc., 2018, 71, 127–145.

  • Farwig, N., Sajita, N. and Böhning-Gaese, K., Conservation value of forest plantations for bird communities in western Kenya. For. Ecol. Manage., 2008, 255, 3885–3892.

  • Tejeda-Cruz, C. and Sutherland, W. J., Bird responses to shade coffee production. Anim. Conserv., 2004, 7, 169–179.

  • Smith, C. et al., Bird communities in sun and shade coffee farms in Kenya. Glob. Ecol. Conserv., 2015, 4, 479–490.

  • Waltert, M., Mardiastuti, A. and Mühlenberg, M., Effects of land use on bird species richness in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Conserv. Biol., 2004, 18, 1339–1346.

  • Hughes, J. B., Daily, G. and Ehrlich, P., Conservation of tropical forest birds in countryside habitats. Ecol. Lett., 2002, 5, 121–129.

  • Raman, T. R. S., Community ecology and conservation of mid-elevation tropical rainforest bird communities in the southern Western Ghats, India. Ph.D. thesis, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 2001.

  • SoIB, State of India’s Birds, 2020: Range, Trends and Conserva-tion Status, The SoIB Partnership, 2020, p. 50.

  • Harvey, C. A. et al., Patterns of animal diversity in different forms of tree cover in agricultural landscapes. Ecol. Appl., 2006, 16, 1986–1999.

  • Mendoza, S. V. et al., Consistency in bird use of tree cover across tropical agricultural landscapes. Ecol. Appl., 2014, 24, 158–168.

  • Leakey, R. R. B., The role of trees in agroecology and sustainable agriculture in the tropics. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol., 2014, 52, 113–133.

  • Barrios, E. et al., Contribution of trees to the conservation of bio-diversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manage., 2018, 14, 1–16.

  • Karp, D. S. et al., Forest bolsters bird abundance, pest control and coffee yield. Ecol. Lett., 2013, 16, 1339–1347.

  • Librán-Embid, F., De Coster, G. and Metzger, J. P., Effects of bird and bat exclusion on coffee pest control at multiple spatial scales. Landsc. Ecol., 2017, 32, 1907–1920.

  • Kalita, R. M., Das, A. K. and Nath, A. J., Carbon stock and sequestration potential in biomass of tea agroforestry system in Barak Valley, Assam, North East India. Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sci., 2017, 42, 107–114.

  • Kalita, R., Das, A. and Nath, A., Role of smallholder tea growers in carbon sink management. Curr. Sci., 2019, 116, 1560–1566.

  • Mohotti, A. J., Pushpakumara, G. and Singh, V. P., Shade in tea plantations: a new dimension with an agroforestry approach for a climate-smart agricultural landscape system. In Agricultural Re-search for Sustainable Food Systems in Sri Lanka: Volume 2: A Pursuit for Advancements (eds De Silva, R. P. et al.), Springer, Singapore, 2020, pp. 67–87.


Abstract Views: 223

PDF Views: 79




  • Native Shade Trees Aid Bird Conservation in Tea Plantations in Southern India

Abstract Views: 223  |  PDF Views: 79

Authors

T. R. Shankar Raman
Nature Conservation Foundation, 1311 ‘Amritha’ 12th A Main, Vijayanagar 1st Stage, Mysuru 570 017, India
Chayant Gonsalves
Nature Conservation Foundation, 1311 ‘Amritha’ 12th A Main, Vijayanagar 1st Stage, Mysuru 570 017, India
P. Jeganathan
Nature Conservation Foundation, 1311 ‘Amritha’ 12th A Main, Vijayanagar 1st Stage, Mysuru 570 017, India
Divya Mudappa
Nature Conservation Foundation, 1311 ‘Amritha’ 12th A Main, Vijayanagar 1st Stage, Mysuru 570 017, India

Abstract


In the Western Ghats, India, we study how different intensities of tea cultivation influence birds. We com-pared bird communities in conventional monoculture tea and mixed-shade tea plantations, both of which use agrochemicals, with organic tea plantations, a rainforest fragment, and continuous rainforest within the Anamalai Tiger Reserve. In 225 point count sur-veys, overall bird species richness and abundance were lowest in conventional tea and up to 33% higher in organic tea. Mixed-shade tea had 40% higher spe-cies richness (including 15 canopy and 4 shrub and mid-storey species – primarily frugivores, nectarivores and insectivores), and 83% higher bird abundance than conventional tea, with a greater proportion of forest-affiliated birds and similarity in species compo-sition with forest sites. The rainforest fragment and continuous rainforest had a higher proportion, richness and abundance of forest-affiliated birds and fewer open-country birds, unlike tea plantations where the pattern was reversed. Habitat associations of 62 bird species in indicator species analysis revea-led similar patterns. Thus organic tea is better than conventional tea for birds, but mixed-shade tea is even better, although still poorer than forests. Retaining or promoting native shade trees in tea plantations will increase bird diversity and abundance, including of forest-affiliated species and support landscape-level bird conservation.

Keywords


Bird Community Structure, Indicator Species, Land-Use Change, Shade Trees, Tea Plantations.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv121%2Fi2%2F294-305