New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Is Shade-Grown Coffee for the Birds?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Image: Dina Roberts

With Central and South America's forests disappearing at an alarming rate, conservation-conscious java consumers across the country have tried to do their part by turning to coffee grown in the shade. Unlike the higher-yield method of growing coffee plants in full sun, shade-coffee production is generally believed to be environmentally friendly because it can sustain indigenous tropical creatures, birds in particular. According to a report in the October issue of the journal Ecological Applications, however, the process isn't entirely green.

A team led by University of Georgia researcher Dina L. Roberts spent two years studying the birds that live in the vicinity of western Panama's coffee plantations and forests. They focused on the mixed-species parties of birds that follow swarm raids of army ants (such as the one shown right), which flush out more desirable insects from the leaf litter. By assessing these ant-bird interactions in intact forest, shade-coffee plantations near forests, shade-coffee plantations far from forest, and open-sun coffee areas, the scientists were able to observe how varying levels of environmental disturbance affect different bird species.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Roberts and her colleagues found that all shade-coffee and forested areas supported numerous bird species, in contrast to the open-sun areas, which did not have any ant swarms and, therefore, no ant-following birds. Yet they also noted the absence of many forest-dwelling birds in the shade-coffee areas that were distant from continuous forests. The reasons for this, the researchers propose, may be that many species have nesting practices that make them vulnerable in disturbed habitats, or that the vision adaptations that certain species have evolved in response to the dim forest light might leave them less inclined to fly through sunny regions to reach the shade-coffee patches. "With increasing distance from large areas of continuous forest, Roberts notes, "the value of traditional shade-coffee habitats is lessened for certain components of the bird community."

Thus, the investigators conclude, although the shade-growing approach is clearly superior to its full-sun counterpart, its value does appear to be limited. "Shade-coffee plantations provide a critical habitat for army ants and the associated biodiversity," Roberts remarks, "but shade-coffee alone should not be considered a panacea for conservation efforts to protect sensitive forest species."

Kate Wong is an award-winning science writer and was formerly senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she focused on evolution, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology and animal behavior. She is fascinated by human origins, which she has covered for nearly 30 years. Recently she has become obsessed with birds. Her reporting has taken her to caves in France and Croatia that Neandertals once called home to the shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana in search of the oldest stone tools in the world, as well as to Madagascar on an expedition to unearth ancient mammals and dinosaurs, the icy waters of Antarctica, where humpback whales feast on krill, and a “Big Day” race around the state of Connecticut to find as many bird species as possible in 24 hours. Wong is co-author, with Donald Johanson, of Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins. She holds a bachelor of science degree in biological anthropology and zoology from the University of Michigan. Follow her on Bluesky @katewong.bsky.social

More by Kate Wong

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe