Fig 1.
Species accumulation curves and 1st order Jackknife asymptotes with (dashed line) and without (dotted line) data from 2 demonstration farms.
Grey areas represent the 95% confidence intervals.
Fig 2.
Rank-abundance curve from coffee farm inventories.
The 9 most abundant species and the promoted species are represented on the curve.
Table 1.
List of the 30 shade tree species ranked by coffee farmers and ecosystem services reported by farmers.
Fig 3.
Locally relevant ecosystem services and disservices (ES & ED) after the 30 first interviews.
Boxes represent the percentage of respondents for which each ES or ED was locally relevant. Grey boxes show the ES and black boxes show the ED selected for further ranking of shade tree species. The 2 striped boxes indicate ES that respondents thought were locally relevant, but for which they were unable to rank tree species.
Fig 4.
Tool outputs displaying scores for 18 shade tree species out of 30 according to 1) overall preference, and three hypothetical scenarios: 2) a high altitude farm exposed to frost risks, 3) a farm with limited or no input of chemical fertilizers, and 4) a farm where trees are primarily planted and managed for income diversification. Grey boxes indicate promoted species; striped boxes indicate non-promoted species that score highly in a specific scenario.
Table 2.
Mean scores of promoted versus non-promoted shade tree species for individual ES & ED and overall preference according to the Bradley Terry analysis.
Student T-test results highlight significant differences between groups for each ES & ED.
Table 3.
Interactions between coffee farmer attributes and their rankings of promoted and indigenous shade tree species by ecosystem services and disservices.
Only significant results are shown.