Elsevier

Crop Protection

Volume 134, August 2020, 105149
Crop Protection

Coffee agroforestry systems capable of reducing disease-induced yield and economic losses while providing multiple ecosystem services

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2020.105149Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We quantified primary and secondary yield losses due to diseases in coffee agroecosystems.

  • We also quantified ecosystem services: provisioning of agroforestry products, soil fertility and carbon sequestration.

  • We identified six promising coffee agroforestry systems (CAFs) for reducing losses while providing other ecosystem services.

  • The six CAFs are promising production models for the design or re-design of coffee agroecosystems.

  • Disease regulation can be enhanced by the appropriate combination of plant diversity, shade, soil fertility and cropping practices.

Abstract

Crop losses caused by pests and diseases decrease the incomes and threaten the livelihoods of thousands of families worldwide. A good example of the magnitude of these impacts are the massive crop losses experienced by coffee farmers in Central America due to coffee leaf rust. Coffee farmers need agroecosystems that are capable of regulating the negative impacts of pests and diseases while providing other ecosystem services on which their households and society depend. In this study, we aimed to identify the most promising coffee agroforestry systems for regulating diseases and ensuring the provision of other ecosystem services. During two years, in a research network of 61 coffee plots under a wide variety of shade and management conditions in Turrialba, Costa Rica, we quantified primary and secondary coffee losses (yield and economic losses) and indicators of three other ecosystem services: provisioning of agroforestry products (bananas, plantains, other fruits, and timber), maintenance of soil fertility and carbon sequestration. We then performed an analysis of the relationships between losses and ecosystem service indicators. Based on the results of relationships and on three criteria, we identified the coffee agroforestry systems that had the lowest losses due to diseases and that provided desirable levels of agroforestry products, soil fertility and carbon sequestration. We found multiple significant relationships between losses and ecosystem services (including both tradeoffs and synergies) which allowed us to derive recommendations for better management strategies to reduce yield losses. We identified six coffee agroforestry systems (CAFs) as the most promising ones for reducing losses while simultaneously providing other ecosystem services. One of these CAFs was a simple agroforestry system (dominated by service trees), three were medium diversified CAFs and two were highly diversified CAFs (systems including service trees, timber trees, fruit trees and musaceas). The six CAFS differed in their cropping practices and farmer profitability objectives. The six CAFs offer several options for the design of new coffee plantations or for the transformation of existing plantations. Several of this promising CAFs use little fungicides, which is an indicator that the reduction of chemical inputs could be possible. Our results suggest that the regulation of diseases and associated losses in agroforestry systems should be based on, and take advantage of, the positive effects of plant biodiversity, adequate shade cover, good soil fertility, and minimal use of fungicides.

Introduction

Regulation of pests and diseases is an important ecosystem service worldwide. Pests and diseases cause severe crop losses, threatening agricultural production and reducing the food security and incomes of farmers (Oerke et al., 1994; Oerke, 2006). In the countries of Central America in 2011–2012, an outbreak of coffee leaf rust, due to the pathogen Hemileia vastatrix, along with suboptimal cropping practices, caused significant yield losses leading to an average yield reduction of 20% in the following years. Since then, coffee production in the region has continued to be low (Cerda et al., 2017b).

Injury profiles, i.e. a given combination of injury levels caused by a range of diseases and pests (Savary et al., 2006), can differ dramatically according to crop systems in terms of encountered injuries and the levels they reach. A specific crop system can help regulate some diseases but promote others. In coffee systems, for instance, it is known that full-sun crops are more prone to coffee berry disease (Colletotrichum kahawae); branch dieback, a syndrome exacerbated by Colletrotrichum fungi; brown eye spot (Cercospora coffeicola), and Phoma leaf blight (Phoma costarricensis). In contrast, shaded coffee systems are deemed prone to coffee leaf rust (Hemileia vastatrix), American leaf spot disease (Mycena citricolor), coffee wilt disease (Fusarium xylarioides) and thread blight (Corticium koleroga) (Avelino et al., 2011, 2018). Quantifying the overall pest and disease regulation service within coffee systems is therefore difficult; however, valuing this service can be achieved through crop loss assessments (Avelino et al., 2011, 2018; Cerda et al., 2017a). Crop systems that help reduce crop losses due to pests and diseases are those that will be of interest to farmers, even if some pests and diseases are present.

Crop losses due to pests and diseases include losses in quantity and/or quality of the crop product (Oerke, 2006), normally resulting in economic losses (Nutter et al., 1993). Both primary and secondary crop losses should be considered. Primary crop losses are those caused in the specific year when pest and disease injuries occur, while secondary crop losses are those resulting from negative impacts of these pests and diseases in subsequent years (Zadoks and Schein, 1979; Avelino et al., 2015). For instance, foliar diseases in coffee cause defoliation and death of branches that will no longer bear fruits, leading to secondary losses.

A recent study on coffee has shown that the secondary yield losses (38%) can be higher and therefore more important than primary yield losses (26%) caused by foliar pests and diseases (Cerda et al., 2017b). Since coffee has a biennial production rhythm characterized by a repetitive cycle of high production one year and low production the following year (DaMatta et al., 2007), the interaction between the biennial behavior of production and pests and diseases impacts on coffee yield can lead to strong economic fluctuation and instability for coffee farmers. The main coffee diseases to consider in Latin America and the Caribbean are coffee leaf rust (H. vastatrix), American leaf spot (Mycena citricolor), brown eye spot (Cercospora coffeicola) and anthracnose (Colletotrichum gloeosporioides); ultimately branch dieback must be considered, which is itself aggravated by a complex of opportunistic fungi.

Given such a problematic scenario, combating coffee diseases is a priority for governments and private sectors in the Latin American and Caribbean region. There is a need to better understand how different management practices and the agroecosystem structure influence crop losses. Coffee is produced under a wide variety of different conditions with different levels of management intensity. There are coffee plantations in monocultures (full sun) and shaded coffee plantations which range from simple to highly complex agroforestry systems (Toledo and Moguel, 2012).

An important and major challenge is to design coffee agroforestry systems capable of regulating pests and diseases and reducing resulting losses while, at the same time, maintaining other ecosystem services necessary for farmers and for society as a whole. For instance, for farmers and their families, the provision of diversified products such as fruits, timber, firewood and others from coffee agroforestry systems is important for household income and food security (Rice, 2008). The maintenance of soil fertility (a regulation service) is of interest to farmers, given that their production depends in great part on soil quality (Müller et al., 2015). For the society in general, carbon sequestration is a key regulation service, as it contributes to the mitigation of climate change (MEA, 2005). All of these services can be provided individually or simultaneously by coffee systems, depending on the type of agroforestry system and its management.

It is also important to understand the relationships among different ecosystem services, since management decisions that improve the delivery of a particular service can affect other services (Cheatham et al., 2009; Mora et al., 2016). To increase beneficial or synergetic relationships, trade-offs between ecosystem services must be minimized and synergies promoted (Iverson et al., 2014; Rapidel et al., 2015). In the case of multiple cropping, such as agroforestry systems, knowledge of the trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services is important for improving the management of the biodiversity. This knowledge is a necessary step towards the ecological intensification of agriculture, i.e. an agricultural intensification to increase yields with improved ecosystem services and reduced negative externalities (Kremen and Miles, 2012; Geertsema et al., 2016). It is also important to estimate the monetary values of ecosystem services and use this information in the assessment of relationships, because this can shed light on the magnitude of trade-offs or synergies (Peh et al., 2016). Several recent studies have already demonstrated the usefulness of assessing relationships among ecosystem services to guide farm management decisions. For instance, trade-off analysis in agroforestry systems (with coffee and cocoa especially) have yielded strategic recommendations to improve the design and management of different types of such systems (Wade et al., 2010; Meylan et al., 2013; Somarriba et al., 2013; Cerda et al., 2017a).

With this research, we aimed to identify the most promising coffee agroforestry systems (CAFs) that can serve as production models for farmers. Here we define ‘promising’ CAFs as those capable of reducing yield and economic losses due to diseases while also providing other ecosystem services. We studied a wide variety of coffee agroecosystems with different cropping practices, contrasting types of shade canopies and different altitudinal locations. Our specific objectives were to (1) quantify the delivery of provisioning services (coffee yield, agroforestry products, cash flow, value of domestic consumption) in different CAFs; (2) quantify indicators of regulation services (coffee yield losses and economic losses, incidence of diseases) plus indicators of maintenance of soil fertility and carbon sequestration in the aboveground biomass; and (3) analyze the relationships among those ecosystem services in order to identify the most promising CAFs. From these promising CAFs, we also aimed to derive technical recommendations to prevent losses from diseases. The indicators of ecosystem services chosen in this study are relevant for characterizing the basic needs of farmers’ families, the natural resources in agroforestry systems and the environment in general (Rice, 2011; Somarriba et al., 2013; Cerda et al., 2014; Pinoargote et al., 2016).

Section snippets

Location and coffee plot network

To characterize the delivery of multiple ecosystem services in coffee agroforestry plots, we collected data for two years (2014–2015) in 61 coffee plots in a research network established in Turrialba, Costa Rica. Turrialba is characterized as a premontane wet forest life zone (with mean annual rainfall = 2781 mm and a mean annual temperature = 22.2 °C; 10 year averages), where coffee is grown from 600 to 1400 m above sea level (m.a.s.l.). To sample the diverse set of conditions under which

Results

We found 21 significant relationships (p < 0.05) between yield losses and economic losses and ecosystem service indicators (out of total 48 regressions). We identified six promising CAFs that hold the greatest potential to provide multiple ecosystem services simultaneously. We first present figures of relationships among different ecosystem service provisions. In each figure, the types of coffee agroecosystems can be differentiated, and the six most promising CAFs are identified. We then

Yield losses to identify crop systems tolerant to diseases

Primary and secondary yield losses were positively related to coffee leaf rust and dieback that leads to the death of productive branches, considered as the main yield-reducing factor (Cerda et al., 2017b). However, we highlight as an important finding that the coffee plots with the lower primary and secondary losses were not necessarily associated with lower disease levels. For instance, among the six most promising CAFs, the percentage of coffee leaf rust ranged from 24% to 63%, but their

Conclusions

Identifying agroforestry systems that enhance the regulation of diseases while delivering good yields and other ecosystem services can help improve the sustainability of coffee farming by providing farmers and technicians with successful coffee production models. The six most promising CAFs identified in this study belonged to different types of agroforestry systems and management strategies. This is an important finding because such systems represent several options to follow (imitate) for the

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Rolando Cerda: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Jacques Avelino: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - review & editing, Supervision. Celia A. Harvey: Resources, Writing - review & editing, Visualization. Christian Gary: Resources, Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing. Philippe Tixier: Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation. Clémentine Allinne:

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the CASCADE project Ecosystem-Based Adaptation for Smallholder Subsistence and Coffee Farming Communities in Central America, funded by the International Climate Initiative (ICI). The German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) supports this initiative on the basis of a decision adopted by the German Bundestag. This research is also a product of a study grant implemented by the Agence inter-établissements of

References (45)

  • B. Ambrose-Oji

    The contribution of NTFPs to the livelihoods of the ‘forest poor’: evidence from the tropical forest zone of south-west Cameroon

    Int. For. Rev.

    (2003)
  • J. Avelino et al.

    Multiple-disease system in coffee: from crop loss assessment to sustainable management

    Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.

    (2018)
  • J. Avelino et al.

    Coffee rust epidemics in Central America: chronicle of a resistance breakdown following the great epidemics of 2012-13

  • J. Avelino et al.

    The coffee rust crises in Colombia and Central America (2008–2013): impacts, plausible causes and proposed solutions

    Food Security

    (2015)
  • J. Avelino et al.

    Ecological mechanisms for pest and disease control in coffee and cacao agroecosystems of the neotropics

  • L.L. Belan et al.

    Monitoring of leaf rust in conilon coffee clones to improve fungicide use

    Australas. Plant Pathol.

    (2015)
  • J. Briceño et al.

    Métodos analíticos para el estudio de suelos y plantas. San José, Costa Rica

    UCR

    (1984)
  • R. Cerda et al.

    Primary and secondary yield losses caused by pests and diseases: assessment and modeling in coffee

    PloS One

    (2017)
  • R. Cerda et al.

    Contribution of cocoa agroforestry systems to family income and domestic consumption: looking toward intensification

    Agrofor. Syst.

    (2014)
  • R. Cerda et al.

    Tropical Agroforestry and Ecosystem Services: Trade-Off Analysis for Better Design Strategies

    (2019)
  • M.R. Cheatham et al.

    Beyond yield: plant disease in the context of ecosystem services

    Phytopathology

    (2009)
  • F.M. DaMatta et al.

    Ecophysiology of coffee growth and production

    Braz. J. Plant Physiol.

    (2007)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text