Helping

InsideAgroforestry VOLUME 23 ISSUE 1

Helps

Agroforestry Riparian Buffers: 

A look on the wild side

Pg. 5

Shade Coffee: 

Benefits for 

wildlife and growers

Pg. 8

Diverse Native 

Hedgerows

Deliver healthier crops

Pg. 10
NAC Director's Corner

A commentary on the status of agroforestry by Susan Stein, NAC Director

I am so excited and honored to be leading USDA’s National 

Agroforestry Center and our knowledgeable staff, to support the 

increased adoption of agroforestry which, as we all know, can 

play a critical role in increasing the sustainability of agriculture 

and forestry practices.

This issue of Inside Agroforestry is focused on one of the many 

landowner objectives that agroforestry can support – wildlife. 

Enhancing wildlife habitat is something many landowners 

identify as an important motivator for establishing an agroforestry 

practice on their farm. My original reason for getting a Masters in 

Forestry was to learn how to integrate trees into farming systems 

in order to reduce siltation and enhance water quality for people 

and wildlife. In the many years since then, the need for this and 

other forms of agroforestry has only grown greater. Why? For one, 

working lands across the country and, hence, the local wildlife 

that depend upon them, are disappearing or being altered by 

increased housing density. As forests disappear, even those small 

patches that remain or are planted can become critical habitat 

for some wildlife species and, if placed appropriately, can help 

to provide a pathway for wildlife 

to travel across the landscape. For 

another, as production pressures 

on remaining agricultural lands 

increase, so do the nitrogen, 

phosphorous and other contaminants contained in run-off. The 

water-cleansing capabilities of forest buffers, in addition to the 

shade provided, can help to maintain water quality and water 

temperature, critical to the survival of many native aquatic species.

This issue of Inside Agroforestry describes opportunities for 

incorporating wildlife habitat into in a range of agroforestry 

practices, from shade grown coffee for birds, to riparian buffers 

that include pawpaws and hazelnuts for mussels and native 

hedgerows for pollinators. I hope that this issue inspires you to 

think about new ways to incorporate wildlife habitat into your 

future agroforestry plantings.

Sincerely, 

Susan Stein

Presidential Memo on Pollinators

On June 20, 2014, the President released a Memorandum, “Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other 

Pollinators.” This memo emphasizes the importance of pollinators to American agriculture and acknowledges the significant loss that has 

occurred in the last few decades. 

The memo also directs the heads of executive departments and agencies to take several import steps to help pollinators. These steps were 

described in a White House Fact Sheet.

 The memo:

•	 Directs the Federal Government to use its research, land management, education, and public/private partnership capacities to broadly 

advance honey bee and other pollinator health and habitat;

•	 Establishes a new Pollinator Health Task Force, co-chaired by United States Department of Agriculture and the Environmental 

Protection Agency, to develop a National Pollinator Health Strategy. The Strategy will include: a coordinated research action plan to 

understand, prevent, and recover from pollinator losses, including determining the relative impacts of habitat loss, pesticide exposure, 

and other stressors; a public education plan to help individuals, businesses, and other organizations address pollinator losses; and 

recommendations for increasing public-private partnerships to build on Federal efforts to protect pollinators;

•	 Directs Task Force agencies to develop plans to enhance pollinator habitat on federal lands and facilities in order to lead by example 

to significantly expand the acreage and quality of pollinator habitat, consistent with agency missions and public safety; and

•	 Directs Task Force agencies to partner with state, tribal, and local governments; farmers and ranchers; corporations and small businesses; 

and non-governmental organizations to protect pollinators and increase the quality and amount of available habitat and forage.

2 Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 23, Issue 1
Related Publications

Updated Brochures

Four popular publications have been updated and re-released through 

partnerships with the Arbor Day Foundation and Scott Josiah, Nebraska 

State Forester. These publications cover four important topics: Productive 

Conservation, Marketing Specialty Forest Products, Hybrid Hazelnuts, and 

Edible Woody Landscapes for People and Wildlife. The last has particular 

relevance to this issue of Inside Agroforestry. The publications are intended for 

a general audience and can be useful in both rural and community settings. 

These publications are available to download or order through the NAC website 

at http://nac.unl.edu/publications/morepublications.htm.

Technical Resources for Pollinators

NAC has four technical publications that were developed with cooperation from 

the Xerces Society and the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). These publications 

(found in the Agroforestry Notes series) are for those who are thinking about the 

pollinators in their landscapes:

•	 Agroforestry: Sustaining Native Bee Habitat For Crop Pollination (AF Note #32)

•	 Improving Forage For Native Bee Crop Pollinators (AF Note #33)

•	 Enhancing Nest Sites For Native Bee Crop Pollinators (AF Note #34)

•	 Pesticide Considerations For Native Bees In Agroforestry (AF Note #35)

These resources give more detailed information on species considerations, habitat 

needs, and landscape design and are available to download from the NAC website: 

http://nac.unl.edu/publications/agroforestrynotes.htm. 

Technical Resources for Wildlife Corridors

Other resources are available to assist in planning wildlife corridors, 

including information about management techniques, design guidelines, and 

landowner outreach:

•	 Riparian Buffer Design Guidelines for Water Quality and Wildlife Habitat 

Functions on Agricultural Landscapes in the Intermountain West

•	 Conservation Corridor Planning at the Landscape Level: Managing for 

Wildlife Habitat

These publications can be found by going to

http://nac.unl.edu/research/publications.htm

Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 23, Issue 1 3
Payments for Ecosystem Services, 

Working Lands, and Agroforestry: 

Opportunities and Constraints

Kate MacFarland, Assistant Agroforester, United States Forest Service 

Agroforestry is often used to increase the benefits landowners can get from any one acre. Economic, ecological, and social 

outcomes are enhanced. These ecological benefits are especially 

important due to the increasing demands being put on agricultural 

landscapes to not only produce food and fuel, but to provide wildlife 

habitat, clean water, carbon sequestration, and other similar benefits, 

or, ecosystem services.

Agricultural landscapes are particularly targeted for increasing 

wildlife habitat, since barriers to targeting other land use types (like 

cities) are too high. Many agricultural landscapes currently provide 

connectivity to existing habitat or could do so more effectively with 

minor changes. Landowners understand this; 

wildlife habitat provision is frequently seen as a 

reason to incorporate agroforestry practices into 

agricultural systems. 

In recent years, payments for ecosystem services 

(PES) and ecosystem services markets (ESMs) for 

habitat are motivating landowners to manage their 

land for wildlife. Payments for ecosystem services 

are a way for businesses and other entities to pay 

for the benefits that agricultural lands provide (or 

could provide). 

Types of payments for ecosystem services 

related to biodiversity and habitat vary. Some of these payments 

are mitigation markets (which can be for a single wildlife species or 

multiple species). These mitigation markets are intended to replace 

habitat that is destroyed elsewhere. These are developed because 

replacing certain kinds of destroyed endangered species habitat is 

required by law. Other habitat markets are voluntary; lack of habitat 

is identified as a factor that is reducing the viability of a particular 

species and market developers rely on the willingness of the public to 

p a y to increase habitat protection. Sometimes voluntary markets 

develop as a result of concern over potential listing of a 

species as threatened or endangered. Still other payments 

come through certain conservation practices that are 

expected to improve habitat conditions. 

Payments are managed by a range 

of different entities and have 

different buyers, sellers, 

and intermediaries, 

and as a result 

have different 

requirements for 

landowners (who 

act as suppliers or sellers). In some cases, traditional government 

conservation programs (like EQIP for wildlife and pollinators) pay for 

a service. Generally, these programs provide cost share for installing or 

creating the ecological structures to create habitat, not the ecosystem 

service itself. Other payments operate as a market, with buyers and 

sellers negotiating a price. Intermediaries who negotiate, manage, 

and validate the provision of ecosystem services are important parts 

of these systems.

Payment for Ecosystem Services are highly variable with respect 

to their compatibility with working lands. Some of this variability 

corresponds to the species being protected; an animal that needs 

undisturbed ground-cover during the growing 

season is not compatible with row crop agriculture. 

Some markets require the land to be entirely 

devoted to the service and harvesting from the 

land is restricted. Others are more compatible with 

working lands, with seasonal restrictions on grazing 

or other disturbances. 

Some limits also stem from a concern over 

“double dipping,” when the landowner is paid twice 

for the same action. A concept that is important to 

many buyers of ecosystem services is additionality, 

the idea that without payment, the landowner 

wouldn’t have made the change. Many buyers do 

not want to pay landowners for something they would have done 

without incentive. This can preclude harvesting from that area in 

particular (e.g. CRP). If you harvest a product from the protected 

area, the assumption is you did not change your practices solely for 

conservation, but also to profit from the product. 

It is important to investigate how a landowner’s existing operation 

is or is not compatible with a potential payment and decide whether 

the landowner is interested in adjusting their operation accordingly. 

Think about the time frame under which the agreement would exist; 

some PES time frames are longer than landowners are comfortable 

agreeing to. How will these agreements affect landowners if they 

decide to sell the land? 

Different payments have different degrees of compatibility with 

various land management practices related to agroforestry, such as 

farming adjacent to the payment area, grazing in the payment area, 

harvesting non-timber forest products from the payment area, or 

harvesting timber from the payment area. ]

For more information on ecosystem services visit 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/

4 Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 23, Issue 1

“

S ome 

markets

require the land

 to be entirely

devoted to the 

service...
Ag r o f o r e s t ry Ri par ia n Bu f f e r s:

A Look on the Wild side

By Katie Commender, USFWS

Partners for Fish & Wildlife Volunteer 

Abingdon, VA

It’s been 

a long, 

downhill spiral 

for many 

fish and 

mussels in 

the southeast. 

Of the 85 mussel species historically 

found in the Upper Tennessee River Basin 

(UTRB), 11 are now extinct and 31 are

federally listed. Water pollution, dam 

construction and invasive species 

introductions have shared a combined 

role in this drastic decline. A variety of 

restoration approaches are needed in order 

to improve aquatic habitat and prevent more 

species from becoming extinct. One, rather 

unorthodox, method that the US Fish & 

Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Partners for Fish 

& Wildlife (PFW) program is implementing 

in the UTRB is the establishment of fruit 

and nut producing trees and shrubs, like 

pawpaws and hazelnuts. Initiated in 2013, 

in partnership with Appalachian Sustainable 

Development, this agroforestry riparian 

buffer program was designed to increase 

landowner adoption of riparian buffers. It 

has since brought about the protection of 

8 acres of riparian land, with 25 additional 

acres slated for the next two years. While 

traditional single-use buffers take land out 

of production, multifunctional agroforestry 

riparian buffers provide an alternative fruit 

and nut crop to farmers. As many farmers rely 

on floodplains for agricultural or livestock 

production financially, simply taking this 

land out of production is not economically 

feasible. Alternative, profitable crops, like 

fruits and nuts, thus become essential to the 

economic viability of these buffers.

We can see that fruits and nuts can 

economically benefit landowners, but 

what benefits could they possibly have for 

threatened and endangered (T&E) fish and 

mussel species? The simple answer- a lot. 

When planted in a riparian area along an 

impaired waterway, pawpaws and the like 

can perform a variety of functions. Picture 

their root systems underground, anchoring 

into the stream bank and creating a living 

retaining wall. This wall also helps to reduce 

erosion and sediment inputs, and maintain 

stream channel stability by dissipating 

stream flow energy. With soil as the largest 

contributing pollutant to our water, these 

intricate root systems are of dire importance. 

When excess soil enters a stream, a myriad of 

implications ensue. Suspended sediment can 

lead to gill erosion, decreasing the amount 

of oxygen aquatic biota can intake. Within 

the streambed itself, sediment embedded 

between rocks reduces aquatic habitat that 

is critical for breeding and cover. Tree and 

shrub roots can diminish these effects and 

give aquatic T&E species a fighting chance.

As we surface from the root system, 

we find ourselves standing in a vegetated 

f loodplain. During rain events, this 

vegetation slows down runoff water that 

transports upland sediment, nutrients, 

waste and pesticides. In doing so, the buffer 

absorbs and retains these inputs before they 

ever enter the stream. Excess nutrients, such 

as phosphorus, can lead to an increase in 

aquatic plant growth, such as algal blooms. 

When the algae decompose, oxygen levels 

in the stream decrease and aquatic insects 

being to perish. Without adequate oxygen 

levels and food, T&E fish and mussel 

species die. When waste then enters the 

watershed, it is broken down by bacteria, 

further consuming available oxygen.

Photo by Katie Commender

Agroforestry Riparian Buffer at the 

Stone Creek Outdoor Classroom & Park 

in Lee County, VA 

Photo by Jack Looney 

Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 23, Issue 1 5

Photo courtesy of Jack Looney

Cumberlandian moccasinshell found in 

Wallen's Bend, Clinch River, in Hawkins 

County, TN. 

See Mussels Page 9
A

on Agricultural Lands:

Creating Wildlife Habitat through Agroforestry

Gary Bentrup

Research Landscape Planner

United States Forest Service

Since 1999, over 1,100 acres of riparian 

forest buffers and other restoration 

measures have been implemented

The 2014 Farm Bill 

reduces conservation 

program spending by 

$6 billion — the first decrease 

in conservation funding by a 

Farm Bill since the inclusion 

of conservation incentives in 

1985. These funding cuts will 

impact habitat enhancement 

on private lands, typically 

accomplished through Farm 

Bill incentive programs such 

as the Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP) and the Wildlife 

Habitat Incentives Program 

(WHIP). CRP lands alone will 

shrink from 32 million acres 

in the previous Farm Bill to 24 

million acres by 2017 (NWF 

2014). So the question becomes: 

What other options can produce 

economic benefits for ranchers 

and farmers while also providing 

wildlife benefits?

One key option in the toolbox 

is agroforestry — the intentional 

combination of agriculture and 

forestry to create an integrated 

and sustainable land-use 

system for the benefit of both 

landowners and wildlife. This 

integrated approach is essential, 

given that nearly 51 percent of 

land use in the U.S. is dedicated 

to agricultural production 

(Nickerson et al. 2011). Farms 

and ranches are therefore a 

critical piece in the conservation 

puzzle, as actions taken on these 

working landscapes have an 

impact on wildlife and the health 

of ecosystems.

Agroforestry and Wildlife

The types of wildlife that can 

benefit from such agroforestry 

practices will vary with region 

and ecotype and depend on 

the landscape context and 

size of the area and the types, 

spatial configuration, and age 

of the plantings. Alone or in 

combination, agroforestry 

approaches can provide multiple 

benefits to wildlife.

Protect Aquatic Habitats.

Agroforestry practices provide 

living cover, which intercepts 

sediment, nutrients, and other 

materials in surface runoff and 

in shallow subsurface water flow, 

preventing them from getting 

into streams, lakes, or wetlands. 

Riparian forest buffers can also 

reduce bank erosion and instream sedimentation, and help 

maintain water temperatures for 

cold water fisheries.

In the Tucannon River in 

Washington, for example, spring 

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) runs hit a low of 

54 fish in 1995 and juvenile 

salmonids were absent in lower 

reaches of the river. Since 

1999, over 1,100 acres of 

riparian forest buffers and other 

restoration measures have been 

implemented, reducing summer 

water temperatures by about 10 

degrees Fahrenheit (Smith 2012). 

Young salmon are now using areas 

of the river that were previously 

too warm for them, and returning 

Chinook adults have increased in 

number to 1,239 in the year 2012 

(Gallinat and Ross 2013).

Stabilize Habitat.

 Croplands are subject to 

frequent disturbances that can 

impact shelter and food sources 

for wildlife. Agroforestry practices 

offer more constant habitat in 

these shifting landscapes, and the 

woody structure and associated 

understory increase niche 

diversity. For example, often 

surrounded by an ephemeral 

sea of annual crops, multirow windbreaks (created with 

woody species such as bur oak, 

Osage orange, black walnut, and 

hackberry) can provide valuable 

year-round habitat for over 

108 bird species and 28 species 

of mammals in the Midwest 

(Johnson and Beck 1988).

Restore Forest.

Only 4 percent of longleaf pine 

forests remain in the eight states 

of the southeast coastal plain, 

a preferred forest type of the 

redcockaded woodpecker (RCW) 

(Picoides borealis) (Franklin 

2008). RCWs require large tracts 

of mature pine stands, with an 

open understory free of midstory hardwoods. Silvopasture 

— the practice of combining 

forestry and rotational grazing — 

can create this habitat condition 

by using livestock to control 

understory vegetation. Annual 

income from livestock and 

long-term income from timber 

production give silvopasture 

an economic advantage over 

traditional forestry as a means 

to restore longleaf pine forests 

— land expectation values 

estimated at approximately 

$1,800 more per acre over an 

80-year rotation when compared 

to traditional forest plantation 

management (Stainback and 

Alavalapati 2004).

Manage Pesticide Risks.

Current farming methods rely 

heavily on pesticides, which can 

have harmful effects on sensitive 

wildlife, particularly insects, 

amphibians, fish, and other 

aquatic species. Windbreaks, 

hedgerows, riparian buffers, or 

alley cropping can help contain 

drifting pesticides. Tree and 

shrub layers provide a large 

surface area over which particles 

6 Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 23, Issue 1
of pesticides may adhere, and also 

provide wind-speed reduction at 

the application site, reducing 

the movement of pesticides 

off their target. In addition, 

woody species incorporated 

directly into cropping systems 

can reduce pesticide use by 

providing essential habitat for 

beneficial predators of crop pests. 

An alfalfa-walnut alley cropping 

system in eastern Missouri, for 

example, supported twice as 

many predators and parasitic 

hymenoptera and half as many 

pest herbivores as did alfalfa 

alone (Stamps et al. 2002).

Restore Connectivity.

Agroforestry can decrease the 

impacts of habitat fragmentation 

by reducing habitat isolation if 

plantings are well planned and 

connected with other habitats. 

For example, in the Tensas River 

basin in northern Louisiana, a 

study documented corridor use 

by the threatened Louisiana 

black bear (Ursus americanus 

luteolus). In an area dominated 

by extensive crop fields, bears 

used riparian forest buffers, 

ranging in width from 15 to 250 

feet, to travel between hardwood 

patches (Anderson 1997).

Reduce Land Conversion.

Between 1982 and 2010, 

about 24,125,400 acres of

agricultural land were 

converted to developed uses 

— an area approximately 

t h e s i z e o f I n d i a n a 

(USDA 2013). Such conversion 

can transform farms and ranches 

into fragmented and extensively 

modified urban or suburban 

patches, much to the detriment 

of wildlife. Agroforestry can 

reduce such conversion by 

diversifying short- and longterm income sources, giving 

landowners economically 

sustainable alternatives to selling 

their land for development. For 

example, the Travis family has 

saved their northern Illinois 

farm by using their 26-acre 

woodlot for forest farming (NAC 

2006). “Harvesting and selling 

wild onions known as ramps 

from our woodlot generates 

almost 70 percent of our total 

farm income,” says landowner 

Marty Travis.

Balancing Economics and 

Ecology

For all the benefits agroforestry 

practices can have, they may 

also prove detrimental to certain 

wildlife populations if they are 

located, designed, and managed 

inappropriately. For example, the 

creation of poorly designed edge 

habitat may benefit generalist 

species over specialists, promote 

parasitism, 

make prey species more 

vulnerable to predators, and 

facilitate movement of invasive 

flora and fauna. Hence, wildlife 

biologists should be involved 

in agroforestry projects to 

ensure the systems are designed 

to achieve desired wildlife 

goals and minimize potential 

negative impacts.

From California’s Central 

Valley croplands to southeastern 

pasturelands to New England 

woodlots, wildlife biologists 

are assisting private landowners 

and other resource professionals 

in implementing agroforestry 

systems that accomplish wildlife 

stewardship while producing 

economic services. Biologists 

from governmental agencies, 

nonprofit organizations, and 

consulting companies are using 

their expertise to benefit game 

and non-game wildlife as well 

as imperiled species. Indications 

are that this is a growing field, 

so wildlife biologists of the 

future may want to consider 

incorporating agroforestry into 

their 

c a r e e r 

development. 

A s o n e s t u d e n t 

who recently completed an 

agroforestry class at Virginia 

Tech states, “It changed the way I 

look at problem-solving. Instead 

of insulating factors, taking a 

holistic approach is very realworld applicable and valuable.”

With increasing demands 

from society for limited 

resources, agroforestry will 

likely be one source of solutions 

as people find it increasingly 

necessary to achieve multiple 

social, economic, and ecological 

objectives on the same plot 

of land. ]

Adaptation of an article first 

published in The Wildlife Society 

News June 16, 2014: 

http://news.wildlife.org/twp/awin-win-on-agricultural-lands/

Photos by NAC

Riparian Forest Buffers: 

Streamside plantings of trees, 

shrubs, and grasses serve as 

buffers that reduce water 

pollution and bank erosion, 

protect aquatic environments, and 

enhance wildlife habitat. 

Alley Cropping: Widely spaced 

rows of high value trees such 

as black walnut and pecan 

create alleyways for crops, an 

additional source of cash flow for 

landowners, and provide habitat 

for birds and other wildlife species

Windbreaks: Rows of trees and 

shrubs planted in agricultural 

fields can reduce wind speed and 

the aerial spread of pesticides. 

In addition they can improve 

crop yields, reduce soil erosion, 

improve water-efficiency, and 

protect live-stock.

Silvopasture: This agroforestry 

approach combines forestry, 

forage, and livestock production 

on the same field. The trees are 

managed for wood and, at the 

same time, provide shade and 

shelter for livestock as well as 

wildlife habitat. 

Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 23, Issue 1 7
Benefits for wildlife and growers

Edwin Mas 

Plant Materials Specialist

National Resource Conservation Service

United States Forest Service

Kate MacFarland

Assistant Agroforester

S hade coffee production and other types of coffee production systems 

that retain trees can benefit wildlife. Shade 

coffee production in Puerto Rico has 

experienced a resurgence during recent 

years, after having previously undergone 

a dramatic period of deforestation to 

convert to coffee production under full 

sun. Shade coffee production combines 

coffee shrubs and shade trees that form a 

secondary forest. Shade coffee production 

provides environmental benefits such as soil 

erosion control, water quality and quantity 

improvement, and wildlife habitat. It can 

also provide socioeconomic benefits such 

as the production of other sustainable 

forest products, and the reintroduction of 

traditional jobs and cultural activities for 

local coffee pickers.

What do these systems look like?

Coffee shrubs require certain 

environmental and ecological conditions 

to perform at their best in terms of vigor, 

growth and berry production. These 

conditions are achieved by planting 

coffee in locations with the most suitable 

environmental conditions. In Puerto Rico, 

not all coffee plantations are located in 

areas that are ecologically suitable for coffee 

growth. Therefore, recreating favorable 

coffee growing conditions may be beneficial 

for both coffee production and for the 

environment.

For example, the optimum growth 

temperature for arabica coffee varies 

from 60° to 65° F. With these conditions, 

coffee shrubs grow adequately, developing 

vigorous and healthy branches and leaves. 

The temperature in Puerto Rico’s coffee 

zone fluctuates between 55° to 85° F. One 

method to maintain ideal coffee-growing 

temperatures is to manage shade on the 

plantation. Healthy coffee plantations also 

require adequate moisture, in terms of both 

rainfall and relative humidity. Coffee shrubs 

require 70 to 100 inches of rain per year and 

a relative humidity of 70 to 85%. Shade trees 

help to reduce potential evapotranspiration 

by modifying solar radiation. The amount of 

solar light in shade coffee plantations can be 

managed by pruning shade trees.

Benefits to Wildlife

A number of studies have compared 

species richness and composition in shade 

grown coffee and neighboring forest reserves 

(Bhagwat et al. 2008). Arthropods and 

birds use shade coffee plantings as habitat. 

Migratory birds use shade coffee more than 

resident birds, but researchers have found 

that the number of species of birds in coffee 

plantations with structurally and floristically 

diverse canopies is similar to the number of 

species in natural forest habitat and is higher 

than other agricultural landscapes without 

trees.(Perfecto et al. 1996). However, edge 

species are favored and heavily pruned 

plantations can exclude birds that depend 

on other forest layers. 

Shade coffee plantations can serve as 

corridors between forest fragments for 

mantled howling monkeys (Alouatta 

palliate) in Nicaragua (Williams-Guillen et 

al. 2006). Shade grown coffee is especially 

important to wildlife in places and periods 

where deforestation is common; in these 

landscapes, shade grown coffee provides 

an important refuge. Researchers have 

suggested that both birds and orchids have 

survived periods of deforestation in Puerto 

Rico due to the presence of shade coffee 

plantations (Perfecto et al. 1996). These 

areas can also be seed sources for replanting 

many tree species. 

Forest-based pollinators 

have been shown to 

increase coffee yields 

by 20% within one 

kilometer of the forest.

Coffee beans grown in a shade coffee 

system ripen on plant. 

Photo by Edwin Mas

8 Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 23, Issue 1

C ffee Shade
Benefits to Growers

Coffee growers also benefit from the 

pollinator habitat that shade coffee 

provides. These systems provide habitat 

for not only avian wildlife, but also 

pollinators. Forest-based pollinators have 

been shown to increase coffee yields by 

20% within one kilometer of the forest. 

This pollination can also improve coffee 

quality; the frequency of small, misshapen 

seeds (“peaberries”) is reduced by 27%. 

Between 2000 and 2003, pollination 

services from two forest fragments (46 

and 111 hectares) translated into $60,000 

(U.S.) per year for one Costa Rican farm 

(Ricketts et al. 2004).

Forests also can provide habitat for 

native coffee pest predators, particularly 

the coffee borer beetle. In Costa Rica, 

birds reduced coffee borer infestation 

by about 50%. These bird species were 

more common on coffee plantations with 

higher forest cover. On average, forest 

elements doubled bird pest control, from 

2 to 4% of berries saved. These trees were 

largely privately owned and voluntarily 

maintained, rather than being part of 

a protected area. The prevented borer 

damage represented a significant gain in 

income for coffee producers (Karp et al 

2008). 

Producing coffee in agroforestry systems 

allows growers to reduce their risk by 

growing other products as well. Overstory 

species can provide fruits, fuel, and 

construction materials for use at home 

or to be sold in the market (Perfecto et 

al. 1996). ]

Bhagwat, S. a, Willis, K. J., Birks, H. J. 

B., & Whittaker, R. J. (2008). Agroforestry: 

a refuge for tropical biodiversity? Trends 

in ecology & evolution, 23(5), 261–7. 

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.01.005

Karp, D. S., Mendenhall, C. D., Sandí, 

R. F., Chaumont, N., Ehrlich, P. R., Hadly, 

E. a, & Daily, G. C. (2013). Forest bolsters 

bird abundance, pest control and coffee 

yield. Ecology letters, 16(11), 1339–47. 

doi:10.1111/ele.12173

Perfecto, Ivette, Robert A. Rice, Russell 

Greenberg and Martha E. van der Voort. 

(1996). Shade Coffee: A Disappearing 

Refuge for Biodiversity. BioScience, 46(8), 

598-608. 

Ricketts, T. H., Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. 

R., & Michener, C. D. (2004). Economic 

value of tropical forest to coffee production. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences of the United States of America, 

101(34), 12579–82. doi:10.1073/

pnas.0405147101

Williams-Guillen, K. et al. (2006) 

Resource availability and habitat use by 

mantled howling monkeys in a Nicaraguan 

coffee plantation: can agroforests serve as 

core habitat for a forest mammal? Animal 

Conservation, 9, 331–338. 

Coffee grows beneath plantains in this shade coffee system. Photo by Rich Straight 

Mussels

Continued from page 5

Topped off with pesticides, the elimination 

of aquatic species multiplies. As this process 

ensues, the need for establishing agroforestry 

riparian buffers becomes increasingly 

apparent.

From floodplain to treetop, riparian buffers 

support a world teeming with life. The 

federally listed Indiana bat roosts within the 

tree cavities and loose bark. Mammals, such 

as bears, use the corridor below for travel and 

forage, amphibians hibernate under logs, and 

reptiles come ashore to breed and nest. The 

tree canopy above buzzes with bees as they 

land from one flower to the next, setting 

the stage for a bountiful season of fruits and 

nuts for all to enjoy. Chirping baby birds 

impatiently await their next meal, while a 

bald eagle perched above scouts for prey. 

Meanwhile, under the surface of the water, 

the federally listed Yellowfin madtom fish 

and birdwing pearly mussel enjoy the shade 

of the canopy above. Mimicking an umbrella, 

the canopy shades the water and reduces the 

temperature that can further exacerbate algal 

blooms and their associated implications. 

If we take a look on the wild side, we 

encounter a biologically diverse riparian 

ecosystem swimming, hovering and buzzing 

with life. From the canopy above to the water 

below, agroforestry riparian buffers enhance 

and protect the aquatic and terrestrial habitat 

needed for wildlife to thrive. At first glance, 

the pawpaw may seem meager, but as you 

walk along the floodplain, a new perspective 

is gained, and the mighty fruit tree rises to 

the top. ]

Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 23, Issue 1 9
Diverse native hedgerows 

deliver healthier crop systems

Nancy Lee Adamson, Pollinator Conservation Specialist, Xerces Society/NRCS ENTSC 

Rachael F. Long, Farm Advisor, Univ. of California Cooperative Extension

Pollinators and many beneficial insects feed on nectar 

or pollen as adults. The flowering native shrubs in the 

hedgerows provide not only vital nutrients, but also 

habitat and protection from pesticides.

Hedgerows (sometimes also called 

shelterbelts) with diverse native plants 

supply food and shelter for a wide 

range of wildlife while also protecting watersheds, 

and improving air quality, among many other 

benefits. Hedgerows with a mix of native flowering 

shrubs, small trees, wildflowers, and grasses form 

permanent shelter typically bordering crops, often 

on land that is least suited to crop farming, in 

natural borders, or surrounding riparian areas. 

Diverse native hedgerows provide a haven for 

wildlife in farmlands, and ensure a supply 

of beneficial insects and insectivorous 

birds for controlling pests in adjacent (and 

successive) crops. They may also produce 

harvestable fruits or herbs, and provide a 

renewable source of firewood. 

Diverse native plant hedgerows directly 

contribute to pest management on farms, but 

farmers sometimes worry that natural areas near 

crops may attract pests or entice pollinators 

away from crops. Here we highlight research in 

California’s Yolo County to inform that concern. 

Beginning in 1999, Drs. Lora Morandin and 

Claire Kremen from the University of California 

at Berkeley and Rachael Long from the UC 

Cooperative Extension Service compared beneficial 

and pest insect populations in diverse native 

hedgerows, weedy (semi-managed) field borders, 

and adjacent croplands. They found that native 

plant hedgerows exported beneficial insects 

(including predators of pests) into adjacent crop 

fields. 

The California researchers found that diverse 

native hedgerows support more beneficial insects 

relative to pest species throughout the growing 

season. Plants with beneficial insects in greatest 

abundance were in flower at the time of sampling, 

a reminder that having plants in bloom through the 

season is vital for ensuring the presence of beneficial 

insect populations. 

Pests were much more abundant in semi-managed 

weedy field borders, particularly during summer 

months, than in the native hedgerow plantings. 

Beneficial and pest populations varied greatly by 

plant species. Growers should be sure to choose 

species that are locally appropriate and adapted 

to site conditions. Local NRCS and Cooperative 

Extension staff may have plant recommendations 

specific to your region—plants to support 

beneficials known to be most effective in helping 

to control locally significant pest populations. 

The hedgerow plants observed in 

this study included west coast natives 

with successive and overlapping 

© 2004 Regents of the University of California

Syrphid 

Fly

© 2004 Regents of the University of California

Parasitic 

Wasp

Background Photo by Lora Morandin

10 Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 23, Issue 1
bloom periods from March 

to December, including California 

lilac (Ceanothus griseus), coffeeberry 

(Rhamnus californica), California 

buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), 

toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), elderberry 

(Sambucus mexicana), and coyote bush (Baccharis 

pilularis). Every region hosts locally native shrubs 

appropriate for specific site conditions to enhance 

flower availability through the growing season. 

These California hedgerow plantings were also 

bordered by native grass strips designed for 

suppressing weeds and providing overwintering 

habitat for beneficial insects. Current hedgerow 

planting recommendations include diverse native 

wildflowers (see publication #8390 at http://

anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu and http://www.xerces.

org/pollinator-conservation/agriculture/pollinatorhabitat-installation-guides/). 

Note that the key to successful hedgerow plantings 

is enhancing diversity on farms. Diverse hedgerow 

plantings support a greater diversity of insects and 

spiders throughout the growing season. Successful 

biological control of crop pests by natural enemies 

does not mean eliminating pest populations, only 

reducing the pest populations below an economic 

threshold (the level of herbivory that affects 

economic returns). If we expect predators to help 

control pest populations when they spike, we cannot 

eliminate all their prey. Beneficials are susceptible to 

the same pesticides that target pest species. When 

growers harvest crops or treat their crops with 

pesticides, hedgerows adjacent to crops (if protected 

from pesticides) are essential refuges for predators 

and pollinators, ensuring healthy populations 

are able to recolonize or pollinate adjacent and 

succeeding crops. ]

Examples of Beneficial Insects

Predators of Pests

Lady beetles

Lacewings

Predatory bugs, 

minute pirate, 

big-eyed and 

assassin bugs

Parasitoid wasps

Parasitic flies

Examples of Prey

Aphids, mealybugs, 

mites, whiteflies, scale, 

psyllids

Aphids, mealybugs 

caterpillars, scale, 

whiteflies, insect eggs 

Aphids, thrips, scale, 

caterpillars, beetles, 

mealybugs, whiteflies 

Insect eggs, caterpillars, 

aphids, scale, flies, plant 

bugs, beetles

Caterpillars

Did you know? 

Of 10,323 insects collected 

in the hedgerows during the 

growing seasons over 2 years, 

78% were beneficial insects and 

22% were pests.

22%

78%

Beneficial 

Source: Morandin, L., Long, R. F., Pease, C., & Kremen, 

C. (2011). Hedgerows enhance beneficial insects 

on farms in California’s Central Valley. California 

Agriculture, 65(4), 197–201. doi:10.3733/

ca.v065n04p197

© 2004 Regents of the University of California

Lady 

beetle

Photo by Antonio Picacia. Modifcations made.

Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 23, Issue 1 11
Inside Agroforestry VOLUME 23, ISSUE 1

USDA National Agroforestry Center

1945 N 38th St.

Lincoln, NE 68583–0822

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Address Service Requested

Upcoming Events

December 12, 2014

Forest Botanicals: Deep and 

Tangled Roots

Webinar

http://cc.readytalk.com/cc/s/registrations/

new?cid=sodq9sgrbjol

December, 8-12 2014 

ACES Conference: A Community on 

Ecosystem Services 

Washington, DC

http://www.conference.ifas.ufl.edu/aces

February 4-7, 2015

PASA Farming for the 

Future Conference

State College, PA

http://conference.pasafarming.org

February 26-28, 2015

Ninth Anniversary Minority Landowner 

Magazine Conference

Houston, TX

http://minoritylandowner.com

For more upcoming events, 

visit our website calendar:

http://nac.unl.edu/events/index.htm

“Inside Agroforestry” is published by the USDA National 

Agroforestry Center. Phone: 402-437-5178; 

Fax: 402-437-5712.

•		 Susan Stein, NAC Director

•		 Michele Schoeneberger, FS Research Lead (ext. 4021)

•		 Richard Straight, FS Lead Agroforester (ext. 4024)

•		 Vacant - NRCS Lead Agroforester

•		 Kate MacFarland, FS Assistant Agroforester (ext. 4012)

• Joseph Banegas, Information Assistant/ 

 “Inside Agroforestry” Designer (ext. 4014)

http://nac.unl.edu

Mission

The USDA National Agroforestry Center (NAC) 

is a partnership of the Forest Service (Research & 

Development and State & Private Forestry) and the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. NAC’s staff is 

located at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE. NAC’s 

purpose is to accelerate the development and application 

of agroforestry technologies to attain more economically, 

environmentally, and socially sustainable land use systems 

by working with a national network of partners and 

cooperators to conduct research, develop technologies 

and tools, establish demonstrations, and provide useful 

information to natural resource professionals.

Policy

Opinions expressed in “Inside Agroforestry” are those of the author and do 

not necessarily represent the policy of the USDA Forest Service and the USDA 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. The U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis 

of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital 

status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic 

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s 

income is derived from any public assistance. (Not all prohibited bases apply 

to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) 

should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To 

file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call toll free 

866-632-9992 (voice). TDD users can contact USDA through local relay or the 

Federal relay at 800-877-8339 (TDD) or 866-377-8642 (relay voice). USDA is 

an equal opportunity provider and employer.

12 Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 23, Issue 1

PRSRT STD

POSTAGE & FEES

PAID

USDA — FS

PERMIT NO G-40