Klein Discussion Study Guide

1. Why is coffee traditionally grown under shade trees?

Coffee is traditionally grown under shade because it increases insect biodiversity compared
to un-shaded monocultures. Shade helps nutrition and moisture retention; decrease weeds,
insect pests and diseases. Shaded coffee produces higher yields.
2. Why is pollination of Coffea canephora considered an ecosystem service?
It is an ecosystem services because pollination is an economic benefit provided by the
ecosystem and insect pollination increases yield in coffee. Higher yields in coffee support
farmers and coffee is a cash-crop, not just in Indonesia, but world-wide, so pollination of it
will lead to broadly reaching economic impacts.
3. Do you think the methodology the authors used for light and vegetation mapping
adequately estimates these explanatory variables in each field?
The method for measuring light intensity was fairly adequate, since they do
measurements randomly throughout the field. The authors could have taken the
measurements during a shorter and more uniform time, or measured light intensity as it
changed over the day, but the trade0ff for such an intensive sampling would have
required more resources. The vegetation mapping was adequate because the vegetation
was surveyed during the same time at which the experiment was run.
4. Is it important to know what was between each coffee field and the old growth
forest?
Yes, it is important. For their experiment, the authors used distance to the nearest forest as
their metric for landscape complexity. This may be a rough proxy, but the characteristics of
the land between the fields and the forest will have a significant impact on pollinator
attraction and migration to that patch of land. We know from the paper that social bees nest
in the forest, and are attracted to the coffee flowers, but what if the space was a field of wild
flowers, vs. a swath of fresh tilled earth? The bees would interact differently to each, and this
is a factor that should not have been overlooked in their methods.
5. The authors cite numerous papers suggesting the importance of shade for coffee
yield, yet their data suggests that fruit set is higher when there is less shade. How
can these two pieces of information be reconciled?
According to their results, the high fruit set of the coffee plants in areas of high sunlight is
correlated with the solitary bees' high abundance in sunny areas. A certain amount of shade is
physiologically necessary for coffee to produce well, but when shade exceeds a certain
percentage, yield declines. Klien et al. found that solitary bees were more efficient pollinators
than social bees within this sytem, so it is therefore likely that coffee in sunnier patches,
preferred by more efficient pollinators, would have a higher fruit set than coffee in an area
with a large percentage of shade cover, which is the preferred site for the less efficient
pollinator species.

6. In Table 2, are the solitary or social bees more efficient pollinators? Abundance
and richness of which type of bees (ie, solitary or social) were positively correlated
with fruit set in the fields? Are these results surprising? Why or why not?
Solitary bees are more efficient. After our debates, I hope this isnt surprising. Solitary bees
have different habits that make them more efficient pollinators, for example, they: 1.move
between plants, 2.contact the stigma more, 3. are less destructive than social bees to flowers.
Additionally, solitary bees may be more efficient, but this paper did not test effectiveness of
pollination, which would take into account the abundance of these bees and the frequency of
visits. Social bees tend to visit coffee more at mass bloom than solitary bees, and this may
have a significant impact on yield, though in this study, solitary bees displayed a greater
impact than the social bees.
7. What is the strongest predictor of social bee abundance and richness in the authors
data? If you were a manager, would this predictor be your first recommendation of
something that farmers should incorporate into their practices? Why or why not?
The strongest predictor of social bee abundance was distance to the forest. This wouldnt
necessarily be influential for recommendations to coffee farmers because distance to forest is not
an easy factor to manipulate. It could, however, influence preference when purchasing land on
which to farm coffee, or increase involvement in local conservation efforts. Additionally, wild
bees are shown to be important to coffee yields, so attraction of social bees might be less
important to farmers than management practices that could increase solitary bee visits.
8. Social bees are commonly used to augment natural pollinator abundances in U.S.
agriculture. Do you think coffee plantations in Indonesia would benefit more from
the agroforestry management practices that the authors recommend, or from social
bee augmentation similar to the U.S? Which management practice is likely to be
more economical? Which management practice is likely to be more sustainable?
In the US, we keep and stock crops with large quantities of social bees. This is a large
investment and requires maintenance, but could pay off economically just through sheer
number of visits and the security of pollinator services. This practice could be more
economical, but the practice authors suggest is more sustainable and may eventually lead
to higher pay-off financially. The researchers suggest weeds, less shade, near forest,
preserving forested patches, trimming trees and reducing canopy. Farmers might benefit
from the practice that the researchers suggest because solitary bees are more effective
coffee pollinators and one of the main ways to increase their presence is by not weeding,
which decreases labor effort/cost. However, there could be costs (like attraction of
herbivores or loss of nutrients for the crop) associated with leaving herbaceous plants
surrounding coffee plants. This cost-benefit conundrum will likely exist with all the other
practices authors mention.
9. If you were a coffee farmer reading the recommendations in the last page of the
discussion of this paper, would the study convince you to change practices? Would
you want more information?
If this study would ever be read by Indonesian coffee farmers, it would most likely be of
interest. As a farmer, I would want to know more about the economic implications of the

change in farming practices and about biodiversity of other insects besides pollinators in
fields with/without herbaceous ground cover (and any plant damage that might result). It
would be something to try out on part of the land first before adopting the practice on the
whole farm, especially if my welfare depended on the productivity of the farm. Finally, I
would want to see a comparison in yield increase between shaded coffee and increased
pollination in sunlight. I would not want to trim trees until I was certain the economic
benefit was worthwhile. More information would be needed before implementing these
practices. The potential risks of altering or augmenting landscapes without knowing what
may arise from it would prevent me from changing practices and risking my livelihood.
Furthermore, the data was not very convincing as most differences were marginal and the
sample size was relatively low.
10.

11.

If coffee grows best in shady environments, why is it that it attracts and benefits
from pollinators that prefer sunlight? Which pollinators are most attracted to coffee
at mass bloom? Why is this?
The attraction of sun-loving pollinators may be a function of pollinator choice rather than
coffee attraction, as any cultivated crop has likely been heavily selected for certain traits
that may not be pollination based. Also, coffee has a short bloom-period and thus is likely
to rely on non-specialist pollinators. Finally pollinators that evolved with coffee may
have lived on edge habitats or depended on the short bloom time of coffee to open up
canopy space to give the sun they needed for most of the season. Social bees are most
attracted to coffee at mass bloom, probably due to their life history. Social bees focus on
larger clumps of resources until they are exhausted, while solitary bees tend to be more
mobile pollinators, using multiple resources. Additionally, solitary bees avoided shaded
canopy, which happens at mass-bloom in coffee.
The authors mention local and regional characteristics of agroforestry systems (first
sentence of discussion): What are examples of each? How can we distinguish
between them? Of the two, which are more easily manipulated?
Local characteristics include field based traits such as level of shade, and floral
diversity. Regional characteristics involved areas greatly beyond the field (over-all
landscape) such as proximity to natural forests and rainfall. We can distinguish these
both spatially (large vs small scale) or based on our manipulation ability. Local
characteristics are usually specific to the field or farmer, while regional characteristics
are not in the control of one entity. Local characteristics are easier to manipulate, as
they are closer to the crop, involve smaller scale factors (herbs vs forests), and do not
require manipulation of land beyond that which may be owned by the farmer.