» Articles » PMID: 34760362

Differences in Insectivore Bird Diets in Coffee Agroecosystems Driven by Obligate or Generalist Guild, Shade Management, Season, and Year

Overview
Journal PeerJ
Date 2021 Nov 11
PMID 34760362
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Neotropical shade-grown coffee systems are renowned for their potential to conserve avian biodiversity. Yet, little is known about food resources consumed by insectivorous birds in these systems, the extent of resource competition between resident and migratory birds, or how management of shade trees might influence diet selection. We identified arthropods in stomach contents from obligate and generalist insectivorous birds captured in mist-nets at five coffee farms in Chiapas, Mexico between 2001-2003. Overall stomach contents from 938 individuals revealed dietary differences resulting from changes in seasons, years, and foraging guilds. Of four species sampled across all management systems, Yellow-green Vireo () prey differed depending on coffee shade management, consuming more ants in shaded monoculture than polyculture systems. Diets of obligate and generalist resident insectivores were 72% dissimilar with obligate insectivores consuming more Coleoptera and Araneae, and generalist insectivores consuming more Formicidae and other Hymenoptera. This suggests that obligate insectivores target more specialized prey whereas generalist insectivores rely on less favorable, chemically-defended prey found in clumped distributions. Our dataset provides important natural history data for many Nearctic-Neotropical migrants such as Tennessee Warbler (), Nashville Warbler (), and Swainson's Thrush () and tropical residents including Red-legged Honeycreepers () and Rufous-capped Warblers (). With declining arthropod populations worldwide, understanding the ecological interactions between obligate and generalist avian insectivores gives researchers the tools to evaluate community stability and inform conservation efforts.

Citing Articles

Wintering Together: Do Migrants Impact Residents? A Literature Review.

Navarro-Velez K, Dhondt A Ecol Evol. 2025; 15(2):e70868.

PMID: 39963506 PMC: 11830568. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.70868.

References
1.
Symondson W, Harwood J . Special issue on molecular detection of trophic interactions: unpicking the tangled bank. Introduction. Mol Ecol. 2014; 23(15):3601-4. DOI: 10.1111/mec.12831. View

2.
Studds C, Marra P . Rainfall-induced changes in food availability modify the spring departure programme of a migratory bird. Proc Biol Sci. 2011; 278(1723):3437-43. PMC: 3177634. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2011.0332. View

3.
Crisol-Martinez E, Moreno-Moyano L, Wormington K, Brown P, Stanley D . Using Next-Generation Sequencing to Contrast the Diet and Explore Pest-Reduction Services of Sympatric Bird Species in Macadamia Orchards in Australia. PLoS One. 2016; 11(3):e0150159. PMC: 4773005. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150159. View

4.
Philpott S, Greenberg R, Bichier P, Perfecto I . Impacts of major predators on tropical agroforest arthropods: comparisons within and across taxa. Oecologia. 2004; 140(1):140-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00442-004-1561-z. View

5.
Kent C, Sherry T . Behavioral niche partitioning reexamined: Do behavioral differences predict dietary differences in warblers?. Ecology. 2020; 101(8):e03077. DOI: 10.1002/ecy.3077. View