Ecological re-assessment of seven coffee farms in Soconusco, southeastern Chiapas, Mexico, 2006-2016

Full text

1
Ecological re-assessment of seven coffee farms in Soconusco,
southeastern Chiapas, Mexico, 2006-2016
16 March 2016
Prepared for:
Peter Rogers
Rogers Family Company
1731 Aviation Blvd.
Lincoln, CA 95648
Prepared by:
Daniel S. Cooper
Cooper Ecological Monitoring, Inc.
255 Satinwood Ave.
Oak Park, CA 91377
www.cooperecological.com

2
Executive Summary
This report presents avian and other ecological observations from seven coffee fincas in the
Soconusco region of southeastern Chiapas, Mexico, surveyed in February 2016, including
five that were re-surveyed in November 2006. Owing to a recent outbreak of coffee rust
(“la roya”), all surveyed farms are now conventional (two were organic in 2006), and much of
the existing coffee crop on all seven was in the process of being torn out and replanted with
new seedlings.
The 2016 survey detected four globally threatened bird species: Highland Guan (Penelopina
nigra), Yellow-naped Parrot (Amazona auropalliata), Azure-rumped Tanager (Tangara cabanisi),
and Painted Bunting (Passerina ciris); in 2006, only Highland Guan and Painted Bunting were
recorded. Just four (of 39) forest bird species found in 2006 were re-encountered in 2016;
three were found in 2016 that were not detected in 2006. No amphibians were observed in
2016, likely due to the timing (during the height of the dry season).
As in 2006, I focused my surveys on uncultivated forest fragments and forest-like cafetal (land
planted in coffee) on the fincas, comparing the representation of 39 forest-dependent bird
species and species groups (including several Neotropical migrant bird species) at each site.
Again, the richest forest bird community was found at Finca Peru-Paris and in a forest
reserve adjacent to Finca Hamburgo (which includes the recently-acquired Finca Cuilco). As
in 2006, many neotropical migrant bird species were detected on all seven fincas, although
these were not analyzed in detail as they generally less dependent on forest habitat, the focus
of this study.
Starting in c. 2010, the farms surveyed began a more coordinated management regime, both
to increase the output of high-quality coffee, and to combat la roya. This led to less variation
in cultivation practices during the 2016 re-visit. Here I evaluate the differences between the
bird community of 2006 vs. 2016, and provide (or reiterate) recommendations for each
property, including encouraging natural vegetation in arroyos within the coffee production
zones, retaining relict forest trees, particularly large oaks; protecting natural forest fragments
within and adjacent to the fincas; and posting clear, graphic signage encouraging responsible
stewardship of natural resources.

3
I. Introduction
In November of 2006, I was asked by Rogers Family Company to conduct a biological
assessment of seven supplier farms in southeastern Chiapas (“Soconusco” region northwest
of Tapachula), focusing on the farms’ ability to support habitat for forest-dependent bird
species. The results indicated that most farms, and the majority of the acreage dedicated to
the coffee crop (“cafetal”), provided habitat for just the most common, adaptable species,
with forest species found only at a handful of sites. I noted key habitats such as forest
remnants located at the borders of properties (in some cases directly along property lines),
on the steepest slopes, along rocky ravines (where coffee was difficult to grow), and in places
where large/relict forest trees plus lower shade trees provided a mixed-height canopy
simulating natural forest.
In February 2016, I was asked by Rogers Family to return to this area to re-visit most of the
same farms, which were undergoing a massive “renewal” (renovación) project, whereby older
coffee plants were being removed and replaced with new seedlings across hundreds of acres,
largely in response to a major plague of rust (“la roya”). In addition, areas where coffee
production was essentially fallow in 2006, and where secondary forest had grown back, were
largely “cleaned up” and put back in full production during this 2016 visit. These newer
production areas included dozens of hectares at Finca Peru-Paris, Finca La Patria and Finca
Hamburgo. This time, my goal was to assess whether conditions for forest birds had or had
not held steady for the past 10 years, but also to see how the ongoing crop replacement
might be affecting the bird community here.
I limit this report to a 10-year comparison; please refer to the 2006 report for additional
background information, including citations on the relationship between coffee production
and bird ecology, and additional information on birds of the Soconusco region.
II. Description of Study Area
The seven fincas visited in 2016 are listed in Table 1a, and include two new sites (El Final
and Cuilco); two sites visited in 2006 were dropped from the study since they no longer
supply coffee to Rogers Family (Finca Irlanda and Finca Victoria). As in 2006, all farms
surveyed in 2016 are in the Tapachula-Huixtla area, and are located between 700-1200 m,
and range from c. 100 to 600 ha in extent. The amount of uncultivated land on each varied
in 2016 from less than 10 ha (San Nicolas, El Final) to more than 40 ha (Cuilco), and unlike
in 2006, very little “scrubby woodland” remained. Starting in c. 2012, most small and mid-
sized forest trees had been removed across the subject farms to increase solarization (to
combat rust). At the same time, however, a few areas with small shade trees (mainly Inga sp.)
that featured limited canopy cover in 2006 had grown noticeably denser by 2016, particularly
at Finca Hamburgo.
The cultivation style observed in 2006 has changed at several farms, as summarized in Table
1b. In general, the process of renovación has resulted in much less ground and shrub cover
across all farms, and the loss of much mid-level tree cover, such that no farm in the study is
employing a “rustic” cultivation regime. Fungicide and herbicide use has also increased (in
response to la roya), such that no farm in the study is now organic.

4
A final overall difference in the 2016 survey was the timing: the 2006 survey was conducted
at the tail end of the rainy season and the start of the dry season in the area (November),
when all vegetation, including grasses, weedy growth, and deciduous trees was lush. The
2016 survey was conducted in February, the middle of the dry season (and during a
prolonged drought). Flowers were also less abundant in February 2016, possibly due to
drought as much as to the season.
Table 1a. Information on farms visited in 2016.
Visits in 2006
Visits in 2016
Size (ha)
Amt.
uncultivated
(ha; 2006!’16)
Forest location:
SS = Steep
slope; RB =
Riverbottom
La Patria
6 Nov. (11:00-14:30)
7 Nov. (06:00-10:30)
TOTAL: 7.5 hrs
2 Feb. (09:40-13:30)
11 Feb. (08:00-11:00)
TOTAL: 7 hrs
252
50!5?
RB (SS)
Peru
8 Nov. (06:30-13:30)
TOTAL: 6 hrs
5 Feb. (06:45-10:30,
16:15-17:30)
6 Feb. (07:00-12:30)
TOTAL: 10.5 hrs
250
150!20?
SS (RB)
El Final
N/A
3 Feb. (06:30-12:20)
TOTAL: 6 hrs
xx
5?
(RB)
San Nicolas
9 Nov. (06:30-12:30)
TOTAL: 6 hrs
4 Feb. (06:15-08:45,
10:45-11:45; 17:00-
18:30)
TOTAL: 5 hrs
250
<10!5?
SS, RB
Hamburgo
10 Nov. (07:00-09:00,
12:00-16:00)
11 Nov. (06:15-08:15)
TOTAL: 8 hrs
6 Feb. (16:30-17:00)
7 Feb. (07:00-08:45,
10:30-13:00, 16:45-
18:15)
TOTAL: 6.25 hrs
807
20!5?
SS, RB
Cuilco
N/A
8 Feb. (08:00-11:00)
TOTAL: 3 hrs1
140
40
SS, RB
La Paz
14 Nov. (06:00-11:30)
15 Nov. (06:00-08:00)
TOTAL: 7.5 hrs
9 Feb. (11:00-14:30,
16:30-17:30)
10 Feb. (06:45-11:00)
TOTAL: 8.75 hrs
202
35!10?
SS, RB
1 Cuilco (by itself) was only surveyed for 3 hours in 2016; however, at least some of Cuilco was included in the
area surveyed at Hamburgo (incl. the “Bellotas” area) in 2006, so it would make sense to combine the two.
Doing so would bring the total hours surveyed at Hamburgo/Cuilco to 9.25 hours, comparable to the 8 hours
(at Hamburgo alone) in 2006.

5
Table 1b. Summary of cultivation regime of seven Soconusco fincas.
Representation of cultivation style
(1 = 1 - 5%, 2 = 5 - 30%, 3 = >30%)
(2006!’16)
Management
(2006!’16)
Certifications
(2006!’16)
Rustic
Commercial
Polyculture
Shaded
Monoculture
Herbicide
ban
Forested
arroyos
through
property2
Organic
Bird-
friendly
La Patria
0!0
2!2
3!3
Yes!No
No!No
Yes!No
Yes!No
Peru
1!0
3!2
2!3
Yes!No
Yes!Yes
Yes!No
No!No
El Final
0
1
3
No
No
No
No
San Nicolas
0!0
2!1
3!3
No!No
No!No
No!No
No!No
Hamburgo
1!0
2!2
3!3
No!No
No!No
No!No
No!No
Cuilco
0
0
1
No
No
No
No
La Paz
1!0
1!1
3!3
No!No
No!No
No!No
No!No
2 Applies to small drainages only; does not include one or more main rivers through property.

6
III. Methods
As in 2006, I used the concept of “indicator species” and employed rapid-assessment
surveys to evaluate the ecological integrity of each finca. Because the landscape around the
fincas had been covered with intact forest, and the trees there today are essentially recreating
forest-like habitat for wildlife, I focused on locating as many species of forest-dependent
birds as I could on each property to determine how well the fincas were approximating
forest (pre-cultivation) conditions. Presumably, the more forest-dependent bird species that
were present, and in higher numbers, the more successfully the finca could be said to be
acting as a forest reserve. I use previously published research (incl. Howell and Webb 1995,
Cooper 2003, Deitsch 2003) as well as my own unpublished notes in determining which
birds were forest-preferring, eventually developing a list of 39 possible forest-associated
species and species groups (see “Results”, Table 2, below). In the analysis of globally
threatened species, I used the on-line Red Data List maintained by the International Union
for the Conservation of Nature, or IUCN (www.iucnredlist.org), which provides up-to-date
information on the status of species felt to be in danger of extinction worldwide.
As in 2006, because forest patches were small and localized on each finca, I employed a
transect method for bird surveys, in which I walked along a linear track (generally a dirt road
or a trail) through the property, recording every individual of every species seen or heard. I
made an attempt not to re-visit any area twice to avoid double-counting, and did not count
birds that I suspected I’d already recorded. I would generally walk until I located a foraging
flock, and then stay with the flock until I felt I had recorded every species. Each finca was
surveyed for 5-10 hours for two mornings, or a morning plus one late afternoon, with the
exception of El Final and Cuilco, which were each surveyed on just single mornings due to
time constraints (Table 1a). While several fincas were located adjacent to one another (El
Final, Peru-Paris, and San Nicolas; Hamburgo and Cuilco), I have tried to separate results
from each where possible, and to combine results where this made sense (e.g., Cuilco and
Hamburgo).
IV. Overview of habitats, by site, 2006-2016
The following accounts include quotes from my 2006 study, followed by observations from
2016. Photos comparing 2006 and 2016 follow the habitat descriptions.
A. La Patria
2006: “La Patria…was found to be one of the most homogeneous sites in the study in terms
of habitats. Straddling a steep ridge that extends down into the coastal plain, most of the
finca is dominated by a Shaded Monoculture of low-canopy Inga sp. (Fig. 1a), though the
owner is making a major effort to plant additional species of shade trees, and large areas of
the farm feature up to a dozen non-Inga species. Ample plant growth (mainly herbaceous
species) is present along roadsides and within the cafetal itself, which probably enhances bird
numbers and diversity Though the owner maintains several small “ecological reserves”, these
are more accurately small, linear groves of remnant trees on steep ridgelines, and are virtually
inaccessible by foot (Fig. 1b). The other large remnant trees on the site are widely-spaced
and are along the eastern border, a steep slope that drops down to a deeply-incised canyon

7
(Fig. 1c). An open, scrubby woodland (not a closed-canopy forest) covers this slope, which
is where most of the forest birds were located.”
2016: La Patria did not feel “homogeneous” compared to the other sites in 2016, as it still
featured ample scrubby growth along the river that runs along its eastern boundary. The
cafetal still supported abundant Inga trees, and several plantation areas of timber trees have
been established northeast of the casco area. The steepest slopes still retain remnant patches
of forest, much of it scrubby. Vegetation along the roadsides appeared sparse, which was
possibly due to the timing of the survey (height of the dry season in 2016, vs. end of the
rainy season in 2006). However, few large remnant trees noted in 2006 were observed in
2016, particularly on the eastern slope leading down to the river; just one or two of these
large, liana and epiphyte-covered trees was noted in 2016 (and it was full of birds during the
survey). Still, the slope surrounding it is no longer “open, scrubby woodland”, but young
coffee plantation with small, scattered shade trees.
Figure 1a. 2006: Typical view of cafetal of low (<10 m high), Inga-dominated shade with lush
roadside herbaceous growth; Finca La Patria.

8
Figure 1b. 2016: Typical cafetal at La Patria, with new coffee plants visible as rows, and
sparser, less lush canopy (mainly Inga, with a small orange tree at center, and rows of castor
bean Ricinis communis).

9
Figure 1c. 2006: Relict forest trees along steep ridgeline, Finca La Patria.
Figure 1d. 2016: Same ridge (lower down), showing essentially open understory where coffee
has yet to be planted. Relict forest trees still present high on ridge, but shade trees have
been thinned within cafetal. Arid look to 2016 photo is in part due to timing (dry season).

10
Figure 1e. 2006: Relict forest tree in young, scrubby woodland, Finca La Patria.
Figure 1f. 2016: Cut trunk of small relict forest tree (yellow arrow) in young, scrubby
woodland, Finca La Patria.

11
B. Peru-Paris
2006: “Finca Peru and Finca Paris (same owner) were also located on the lower slopes of
Volcan Tacana, but had a completely different feel than La Patria. For one, the shade
canopy was generally high and multi-layered, a Commercial Polyculture that approached a
Rustic system along the larger drainages (Fig. 2a). The arroyos throughout the property were
typically not cultivated, instead left to develop a lush understory of tree-ferns, palms, and
other forest shrubs (Fig. 2b). All the roads were muddy and damp, and the site seemed
much cooler and more cloud-forest-like than the others. Contributing to this impression
was a thick layer of moss and epiphytes on the stems of the coffee plants, as well as dozens
of Polymorphic Robber Frogs Eleutherodactylus rhodopis, a native forest frog related to the
familiar “coqui” now naturalized throughout the Caribbean Basin (Fig. 2c; discussed below).
Like a few other sides (incl. Irlanda), massive boulders were strewn throughout the property,
which has probably served to break up the monoculture aspect of the cafetal, as plants could
not be cultivated atop boulders.”
2016: As part of the ongoing renovación, Finca Peru-Paris has seen the removal of almost all
of its original coffee crop, and extensive thinning of small and mid-sized shade trees, vines,
and other undergrowth. Ravines have been cleared of most vegetation except for tree-ferns
and scattered small trees (basically, only enough to provide a single canopy layer), primarily
in an effort to combat la roya. Relict forest was observed in small patches only in the highest,
steepest portions of the property, but only scrubby growth along a couple of the largest
drainages. No frogs or toads were noted, but tadpoles were observed, so this was likely due
to the timing of the 2016 visit rather than habitat change.

12
Figure 2a. 2006: High, multi-layered shade cover along roadside at Finca Peru-Paris (note
large tree-ferns retained within the cafetal).

13
Figure 2b. 2016: Small and mid-sized shade trees (note cut trunk at left), with most of coffee
and other understory removed (awaiting re-planting).
Figure 2c. 2006. Close-up of understory of cafetal at Finca Peru-Paris, showing lush growth
of ferns and downed wood on the forest floor.

14
Figure 2d. 2016: Representative view of cafetal on Peru-Paris in 2016, with tree-ferns retained
but remaining understory removed, and canopy extensively thinned. Note young, re-planted
coffee.
C. San Nicolas
2006: “Far more ‘technified’ than the other sites, forest at San Nicolas was even harder to
find than at La Patria. Here it was restricted to a high, steep slope in the northeastern edge
of the property, extending south along a narrow ridge in three patches of a few hectares
each. Coffee was cultivated on all but the steepest sections of these slopes (which are
impossible to walk), with essentially all the native understory plants (e.g. palms, ferns)
removed and the ground cover treated with herbicide in many areas. Even the clumps of
trees along the ridgelines (including large relict individuals of the large oak Quercus corrugata)
were not forming forest, but were left as shade for coffee plants with virtually no mid-level
canopy. Though a low Inga canopy dominated the cafetal, smaller areas of multi-level, multi-
species shade coffee (minus any native understory) were located along the two major
drainages, which is also where most of the birds were located. In contrast to adjacent Finca
Peru-Paris, just a single, c. 30 m-long section of roadside was found to support tree-ferns.
The lower portion of San Nicolas supported a small (5 ha) area of riverside forest featuring
thick vine tangles and wet scrub, and several bird species more typical of lowland swamps
were found here (incl. Groove-billed Ani Crotophaga sulcirostris).”
2016: San Nicolas appeared the least-changed of the farms re-visited in 2016, presumably
because its more intensive cultivation regime has essentially been adopted by the other
supplier farms for Rogers Family. The three reserve areas on the steep, upper slopes were
still present in 2016 (Figures 3a and 3b), and the remnant lines of oaks and other trees along

15
the ridgetops were still present (Figures 3c and 3d). The cafetal areas still featured low Inga
overstory with few emergent trees (Figures 3e and 3f), and the lush, vine-choked growth
along the main river appeared remarkably similar to that present 10 years prior (Figures 3g
and 3h).
Figure 3a. 2006: Steep slope (note nearly vertical “wall” on left) and remnant forest tree
covered with epiphytes and mosses perched on the edge of the canyon; “San Pedro” section
of Finca San Nicolas.

16
Figure 3b. 2016. Current view of “San Pedro” reserve area, upper Finca San Nicolas, with
new cafetal planted in foreground. Note persistence of epiphyte-laden trees located on
steepest slopes, and intact forest just beyond.
Figure 3c. 2006. Natural grove of remnant oaks Quercus corrugata along ridgeline with mid-
story and understory plants eliminated (left); base of remnant forest tree along same ridgeline
(right); Finca San Nicolas.

17
Figure 3d. 2016. Same area of ridgeline trees, showing little change from 2006.

18
Figure 3e. 2006. Typical view of low, Inga-dominated shade with “clean” roadsides treated
with herbicide, Finca San Nicolas.
Figure 3f. 2016. Same area, showing bare areas where coffee is being replanted, but
otherwise similar shade structure (dried grass likely due to season).

19
Figure 3g. 2006. Riverside forest remnant; Finca San Nicolas.
Figure 3h. 2016. Same area, showing little change since 2006.

20
F. El Final (new for 2016)
El Final was possibly the site with the most intensive cultivation regime, and the least
amount of (accessible) forest. The casco area features a large drainage with some remnant
trees and small forest patches along the steepest slopes, but much of this habitat (largely
scrubby woodland) is located downstream of here, within a steep-sided canyon, out of the
reach of trails. Some Commercial Polyculture is present as a mix of small and mid-sized
trees shading the coffee (Figure 4a); otherwise few large trees were observed anywhere on
the finca, and even areas that could support stringers of woodland (small, rocky streams or
springs) were observed to be cleared and planted with coffee, or just left cleared (Figure 4b).
El Final was not surveyed during 2006.
Figure 4a. Multi-level shade typical of large areas of El Final, with open understory awaiting
replanting.

21
Figure 4b. Typical drainage on El Final, with all trees and shrubs removed and only sparse
herbaceous growth remaining.
E. Hamburgo
2006: “Ecologically, Hamburgo was most complex and varied finca visited, and also one of
the largest, at around 800 ha. It is essentially a cluster of three distinct smaller fincas, each
with a unique management regime and associated ecological attributes. The bulk of the finca
is a mix of Shaded and Unshaded Monoculture that features a low, open canopy of Inga sp.
and very little non-coffee vegetation along arroyos and roadsides, with large areas
presumably treated with herbicide. Adjoining sections include “Sonora” and “Chiripa,” and
are situated at lower altitudes. Both feature more of a Commercial Polycuture system with a
much more diverse canopy of shade trees and (particularly Chiripa) relict forest trees. The
lower portion of the property features a good-sized river with giant boulders reminiscent of
a Sierra Nevada foothill canyon, and a 3-ha river island within which the owners have
constructed modest ecotourism facilities (nature trail, picnic/camping area) out of local
materials such as river stone and bamboo. Remnant forest persists along both sides of this
river, and a short but level trail provides easy access to this habitat. The sides of the canyon
are mainly forested, and culminate in a mature oak-dominated cloud forest at the edge of the
canyon along the northeastern corner of the finca (‘Bellotas’, or acorns). The Bellotas area
supported by far the most intact forest visited on any finca during the study, with giant oaks
covered with mosses and epiphytes and a thick understory of native palms, flowering shrubs
and lianas, criss-crossed by numerous natural springs flowing across the trail. Although a
small portion of Bellotas is cultivated near the ridgetop (essentially a Rustic system with a
closed canopy of forest trees), several dozen hectares of uncultivated cloud forest remain,
extending unbroken down to the river.”

22
2016: Very little change was noted for the majority of Finca Hamburgo in 2016; most of the
production area appeared very similar, with low Inga and vast areas of cafetal without any
larger trees or forested ravines (Figures 5a and 5b). The Chiripa area appeared basically
unchanged from 2006, featuring scattered large trees, mixed-canopy shade, and a small forest
reserve essentially continuous with that of Cuilco (via Finca Rancho Alegre, which was not
visited) (Figures 5c and 5d). However, aside from a small area along c. 100 meters of trail,
most of the forest within the “Bellotas” area has been reduced; what had been high-canopy
shade coffee or simply uncultivated forested slopes (Figures 5e and 5f) has since been
cleared as part of the renovación effort (Figures 5g and 5h). On this recent visit, the trail I
walked leading down through Bellotas under a canopy of forest is now winds through open
cafetal, and then though a large forest reserve which is located primarily on adjacent Finca
Cuilco. This forest is directly adjacent to this area (to the southeast), and continues virtually
unbroken down to the river (Figure 5i).
Figure 5a. 2006. Typical views of Shaded Monoculture, Finca Hamburgo.
Figure 5b. 2016. Cafetal at Finca Hamburgo, appearing similar to that in 2006, though with
possibly more (broader) canopy cover.

23
Fig. 5c. 2006. View of river through lower Chiripa section of Finca Hamburgo. Note intact
forest (no cultivation) on both sides of river.
Figure 5d. 2016. Same general area (Chiripa), showing same intact forest along river.

24
Figure 5e. 2006. Bellotas section of lower montane evergreen forest vic. Hamburgo.
Fig. 5f. 2006. Small area of Rustic coffee cultivation adjacent to Bellotas section of
Hamburgo. Note: this may be Finca Cuilco.

25
Figure 5g. 2016. Area at Bellotas that had been in “Rustic” coffee cultivation in 2006 has
since been subject to replanting of coffee, and the removal of small and mid-sized trees.
Figure 5h. 2016. Bellotas section today, showing remaining remnant evergreen forest near
start of trail.

26
Figure 5i. 2016. Significant patches of relict forest remain on or near Bellotas (incl. adjacent
Finca Cuilco), mainly on lower slopes far below the trail.
F. Cuilco (new for 2016)
Finca Cuilco provided the most dramatic surprise of the 2016 – the discovery of Azure-
rumped Tanagers – feeding on fruiting trees within one of its forest reserves. While small
(140 ha), Cuilco features a 40-ha forest reserve (mature lower montane evergreen forest on a
steep slope) that is part of a much larger area of forest on the western escarpment of the Rio
Cuilco, habitat shared by Cuilco, Hamburgo, and Rancho Alegre. This area, which extends
from the Bellotas section of Finca Hamburgo downslope and downstream to the Chiripa
section (of finca Hamburgo), supports by far the most intact and high-quality forest habitat
on the seven fincas visited. The canopy is comprised of a diverse mix of oaks and tropical
trees, with abundant epiphytes and lianas (Figure 6a), and a dense understory of native
shrubs and forbs (Figure 6b). Away from the reserve, the cafetal of Cuilo is similar to that of
the other fincas surveyed, with a mix of small and mid-sized shade trees and small patches of
scrubby woodland, and the river running along its northern border providing habitat
diversity (Figure 6c).
Finca Cuilco was not visited in 2006; however, the uppermost portion was likely partially
surveyed while I was in the Bellotas section of Finca Hamburgo; the boundary between the
two properties are not distinct, and the forest cover was continuous between them in 2006.
The bird community recorded at Bellotas in 2006 was similar to that found at Cuilco in 2016.

27
Figure 6a. 2016. Intact lower montane evergreen forest, Finca Cuilco. This is the primary
habitat of the rare Azure-rumped Tanager.

28
Figure 6b. 2016. Forest interior, Finca Cuilco.

29
Figure 6c. 2016. Cafetal along lower portion of Cuilco, showing mature coffee plants and mix
of shade trees.
G. La Paz
2006: “The forest remnants at La Paz in particular are somewhat drier and less mossy and
damp than Bellotas or Finca Peru, and are dominated by large fig Ficus trees. La Paz was
among the smaller fincas visited (207 ha), and is perched on a ridge above a deep canyon
whose slopes extend down to a small river to the north immediately behind the house. The
slope of this canyon is cloaked in young, shrubby woodland similar to Finca La Patria, with
only a handful of large relict forest trees. Though the cafetal is shaded with a low, Inga-
dominated canopy and is treated with herbicide to control weedy growth, the 35 ha along the
canyon slope is largely uncultivated and not sprayed. One aspect of Finca La Paz that
deserves review was the ongoing removal of smaller relict forest trees, which, according to
my guides, was done to reduce the shade level over the coffee. From a biodiversity
standpoint the removal of dozens of planted Inga trees would be preferable to the loss of just
one of these native individuals, many of which were found to still be supporting bromeliads
and other epiphytes. An interesting feature of this site were several large, intact remnants of
Tropical Moist Forest just off the southeastern boundary of the site, the largest of which was
called “Banderas” by my guides, apparently because it was adjacent to the colonia of the same
name. The interior of these forest remnants, aside from supporting forest bird species not
readily found elsewhere on the finca (incl. Long-tailed Manakin Chiroxiphia linearis and

30
Golden-crowned Warbler Basileuterus culicivorus), was filled with flowering and fruiting native
shrubs that had been otherwise eliminated from the cafetal on the finca (Fig. 6d), but that
could probably be reestablished elsewhere given proper shade conditions and a limitation of
herbicide use. Indeed, the owner mentioned (R. Trampe, pers. comm.) a desire to connect
these fragments such as Banderas to the more extensive block of native forest vegetation
behind the house via corridors through the cafetal, which should be strongly supported.”
2016: La Paz, like San Nicolas, appeared little-changed overall from 2006; the cafetal still
includes a near-monoculture of low Inga trees, the little forest is found on a steep canyon
slope leading down to the river (Figures 7a and 7b). This area still retained forest, but only
in patches on the steepest portions, with new coffee planted extensively on the slope. The
“Banderas” forest remnant was not visited in 2016. I did not observe corridors of forest
habitat through the cafetal, but saw tree-trimmings (from the Ingas) dumped into the small
arroyos in the upper portions of the property (Figure 7c), which is not considered a good
management practice since they can clog the stream and create additional erosion, and
impair water quality.
Fig. 7a. 2006. Forest along entrance road, Finca La Paz.

31
Figure 7b. 2016. Same area along entrance road, showing forest still intact.
Figure 7c. 2016. New coffee planted down to stream corridor (i.e., no forested corridors
retained), with tree-trimmings dumped directly into streambed.

32
V. Results
A. Bird diversity
Of the seven fincas visited, Finca Peru-Paris and the forest reserve shared by Fincas
Hamburgo and Cuilco3 supported the largest number of species (c. 20 each), though more
individuals of these species were recorded at Hamburgo-Cuilco (Table 2), likely because the
forest habitat was so much more extensive at the latter site(s) than at Peru-Paris.
Undoubtedly because they retained the least amount of (accessible) forest and forest-like
habitat, El Final and San Nicolas were found to support the lowest number of forest species
(5-10 each), and very few individuals of these species. I was able to find just five individuals
of five forest species at El Final, while at Peru-Paris, located directly adjacent to the east, I
found 57 individuals of 20 forest species. Fincas La Patria and La Paz had intermediate
numbers of forest species and individuals, as was the case during the 2006 visit.
Numbers of forest bird species on four of the five fincas revisited appeared to have changed
little between the 2006 and the 2016 visits; in one case (Peru-Paris), these numbers increased
somewhat during this last visit (possibly due to the longer duration of the 2016 visit4; see
Table 1a). The exception was La Patria, where numbers of individual forest species
dropped; however, this might have been due to mis-counting of two species where I
esetimated exceptionally high numbers of individuals in 2006 (incl. 8 Paltry Tyrannulets and
20 Lesser Greeenlets); removing these two “outliers” from the analysis brings the two years’
numbers more in line with each other.
Several forest bird species found in 2006 but not in 2016, at least on the fincas visited.
These include White Hawk, Eye-ringed Flatbill, Green Jay, and Common Bush-tanager;
however, only singles (or in the case of Green Jay, a single small group) of each were
detected then, so it is possible they are still present and simply were missed during my visit.
Surveys in 2016 added several new species for the fincas, including Collared Aracari, Brown-
backed Solitaire, and Azure-rumped Tanager; other species encountered in 2016 were found
in 2006 only on the two fincas not re-visited this year (Irlanda and La Victoria), including
Highland Guan, Violet Saberwing, White-breasted Wood-wren, and Hooded Warbler. In
the case of the guan and the solitaire, both were singing in February (2016) and might have
been silent in November (2006), which is after the main breeding season when species like
this are much less vocal.
3 Because the boundaries of these two adjacent fincas were unclear during my visit, the results were combined
for portions of the analysis, including the overall # of forest species supported by the two.
4 In 2006, I wrote “An extra day at Peru-Paris would surely have located more of these taxa, as the most intact
forest in the upper portion of the finca was only visited for only a couple hours.”

33
Table 2. Daily high counts of forest-associated species (Howell and Webb 1995, Cruz and
Sutherland 2003, Mas and Dietsch 2004). Numbers listed for totals are: Species (Individuals).
La Patria
Peru-Paris
San Nicolas
El
Final
Hamburgo
Cuilco
La Paz
2006
2016
2006
2016
2006
2016
2016
2006
2016
2016
2006
2016
White Hawk
1
Collared Forest-Falcon
1
1
Highland Guan
1
7
5
5
2
Amethyst-thr.
Hummingbird
1?
Violet Sabrewing
1
3
Collared Trogon
1
2
Collared Aracari
2
2
Golden-ol. Woodpecker
1
1
4
5
1
2
1
4
Lineated Woodpecker
1
1
Blue-crowned Motmot
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
5
1
Woodcreeper spp.
1
1
1
1
1
Barred Antshrike
4
2
1
Greater Pewee
4
2
1
1
6
1
Yellowish Flycatcher
1
3
2
2
1
Yellow-bell. Flycatcher
1
2
1
2
Ochre-bellied Flycatcher
1
2
1
1
2
Paltry Tyrannulet
8
4
1
6
1
Eye-ringed Flatbill
1
1
Northern Bentbill
1
1
Long-tailed Manakin
6
1
Yellow-throated Vireo
4
1
2
3
2
1
1
Lesser Greenlet
20
4
5
5
1
3
2
Green Jay
5
Rufous-and-white Wren
5
2
8
2
1
1
6
1
2
White-br. Woodwren
1
Long-billed Gnatwren
1
1
2
1
Brown-backed Solitaire
2
1
Swainson’s Thrush
1
1
15
1
2
1
10
4
10
3
White-throated Thrush
8
2
Ant-Tanager spp.
2
1
4
2
6
Common Bush-tanager
1
Azure-rumped Tanager
4
Slate-throated Redstart
5
3
8
3
2
1
Fan-tailed Warbler
2
3
Golden-crowned
Warbler
10
10
2
4
Worm-eating Warbler
1
1
5
1
3
Ovenbird
4
1
2
2
1
1
1
4
Hooded Warbler
1
1
1
1
White-eared Gr.-Sparrow
1
2
1
1
3
1
TOTALS
15
(42)
13
(21)
16
(51)
20
(57)
7
(13)
9
(16)
5
(5)
20
(79)
21
(73)5
12
(22)
15
(29)
5 It is likely that 2006 surveys at Finca Hamburgo (incl. “Bellotas”) were actually done at adjacent Finca Cuilco;
treating Hamburgo and Cuilco separately, we detected: 10 spp. (22 indiv.) and 15 (51), resp., in 2016.

34
B. Endemic bird species
Analyses of global biodiversity have identified over 100 “endemic bird areas”, geographic
regions on the globe that support two or more bird species with very small ranges
(Stattersfield et al. 1998). These are mainly in tropical zones (there is only one in North
America north of Mexico, in California), and southeastern Chiapas has two, the Guatemala-
Chiapas Highlands (EBA 18, with 20 range-restricted species) and the North Central
American Pacific Slope (EBA 17, with four species). Fewer than half of the 20 endemic
species of the highlands venture down below 1200 meters above sea level, particularly in the
Soconusco area which has so little intact forest at any elevation. Indeed, at well-studied
Finca Irlanda, just three Guatemala-Chiapas Highland endemics have ever been observed in
decades of observation: two hummingbirds (Rufous Saberwing Campylopterus rufus and
Green-throated Mountain-Gem Lampornis viridipalens) and the Bar-winged Oriole Icterus
maculiatus (Peters and Rodriguez-Camacho 2006). However, none has been seen in recent
years and these three may be extirpated, or at least very irregular in appearance (W. Peters,
pers. comm.).
During the 2016 visit, two Guatemala-Chiapas Highlands endemics were recorded, both at
Finca Cuilco: two Black-capped Swallows were observed in a large mixed flock and swifts
and swallows above Finca Hamburgo/Cuilco, and at least four Azure-rumped Tanagers were
found in the forest reserve at Finca Cuilco, feeding on a fruiting tree (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Azure-rumped Tanager (zoomed/cropped), Finca Cuilco, 8 Feb. 2016.

35
The Azure-rumped Tanager is restricted to montane evergreen and lower montane forests in
the Sierra Madre de Chiapas from Guatemala to the Oaxaca-Chiapas border, but even within
its range, it is known from just a handful of sites. It is only found in intact, high-quality
forest, and while it occurs at forest edge to feed, it is absent from areas without larger blocks
of forest, where it likely breeds and resides most of the time. It likely occurs throughout the
forest reserve shared by Finca Cuilco, Hamburgo and Rancho Alegre.
Of the four species endemic to the Pacific lowlands in the region (EBA 17, “North Central
American Pacific Slope”) one was found to be common during this study (Blue-tailed
Hummingbird Amazilia cyanura), feeding on Inga blossoms.
C. Rare Species
Southeastern Chiapas supports several bird species that are believed to be globally rare and
in need of conservation attention (www.iucnredlist.org). During the 2016 survey, four were
noted at the fincas visited, as described below:
Highland Guan Penelopina nigra (Vulnerable)
In 2006, I wrote “Finca Irlanda apparently has a population of several pairs [of Highland
Guan] (W. Peters, pers. comm.), and though the guides of several of the fincas I visited
informed me that they are regularly seen on their properties (e.g., at La Patria, Peru-Paris and
La Paz), particularly when roosting in the late afternoon or at fruiting trees, the only birds I
detected were at La Victoria, where I found seven individuals (both males and females) in
tall shade coffee a few hundred meters from the main house. The birds were quite tame,
moving freely through the coffee plants and shade trees, presumably looking for roosting
sites for the night. According to the property manager and the local guide I spoke to, the
birds apparently roost in small numbers near the house nightly, and are hunted with
slingshots locally.”
During the 2016 visit, I found Highland Guan at nearly every finca visited (Table 2),
including San Nicolas and La Patria, which supported very little intact forest. I also heard
their distinctive calls and “wing-crashing” breeding displays throughout, suggesting that I
may just have been there at the wrong time in 2006 to detect them (February is the start of
the main nesting season locally, while November is well after it ends).
Yellow-naped Parrot Amazona auropalliata (Vulnerable)
I failed to record this this species in 2006, but did so in 2016; at least one pair was at Finca
Peru-Paris/San Nicolas, at one point investigating a potential nest tree (“guayabo”) about
midway down the slope in the San Ramon section of the farm on 6 Feb. 2016 (Figure 9). On
4 Feb. 2016, a pair of Yellow-naped Parrots were seen and heard flying from Finca San
Nicolas toward Peru-Paris north of the casco area, which might have been the same pair. At
Finca Hamburgo, three pairs of Yellow-naped Parrots were observed high in treetops at the
“Bellotas” section at dusk on 7 Feb. 2016, calling to each other. Presumably, this is either a
roost for the species, or they were investigating potential nesting locations; either way, it was
a significant observation.

36
Figure 9. Large guayabo that held a pair of Yellow-naped Parrots on 6 Feb. 2016, Finca Peru-
Paris.
Painted Bunting Passerina ciris (Near Threatened)
Up to four individuals per day were detected at five of the seven fincas visited, and more
were likely present here and at the other fincas in the study. Birds were usually seen in forest
edge or in the understory of cafetal, feeding with Indigo Buntings and other seed-eating
species. Small numbers (1-2 per site) were also found here in 2006.
Azure-rumped (“Cabanis’s”) Tanager Tangara cabanisi (Endangered)
See above for a description of four birds found at Finca Cuilco.
D. Neotropical migrants
From the 2006 report, “Shade coffee is invariably marketed as being ‘friendly’ to wintering
songbirds from North America (“Neotropical migrants”), and indeed these were counted
among the most abundant birds in the fincas surveyed. Previous researchers (e.g.,
Greenberg et al. 1997) have also commented on the abundance of these same species
wintering in coffee farms in eastern Chiapas, particularly around blooming Inga and other
shade trees, and even at sites with very low tree/shrub diversity (e.g., Shaded and Unshaded
monocultures). The Neotropical migrants in southeastern Chiapas represent an interesting
mix of species that breed in various parts of North America, including the boreal forests of
the far north (e.g., Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina), Northwestern redwood forests
(Townsend’s Warbler Dendroica townsendi), and southeastern deciduous woodland (Summer
Tanager Piranga rubra)…a total of 38 species of Neotropical Migrant Songbirds were
recorded on the seven fincas (Table 4), with the most abundant being Tennessee Warbler

37
Vermivora peregrina (up to 100 at most sites), Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla (up to 60 per
site), and Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus (up to 50 per site)…Other common migrant
songbirds recorded in good numbers at each site include the Black-throated Green Warbler
Dendroica virens, Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia, Summer Tanager and Baltimore
Oriole Icterus galbula.”
In 2016, the same common species found in 2006 were also found commonly, with
Tennessee Warbler, Wilson’s Warbler, and Least Flycatcher among the most numerous and
widespread. During this recent visit, a total of 17 Neotropical wood-warbler species were
found, illustrating the importance of these fincas to migratory birds. Since most of these
species are not particularly associated with forest habitat, they are not analyzed further here;
even comparison of counts would be biased by the survey methods employed in 2016, since
little effort was made to census species in pure cafetal habitat, which appears to be preferred
by several of these species (especially Tennessee Warbler). Notably, numbers of this and
other nectar-feeding species appeared to be lower in February 2016 than November 2006,
presumably due to the fact that flowers (particularly flowering Inga trees) were much more
scarce during the February visit than the November one.
VI. Recommendations
In 2006, I wrote, “I observed a remarkably wide variation in management and land-use
philosophy at the fincas studied, even (especially?) on adjacent properties such as Peru-
Paris/San Nicolas and Irlanda/Hamburgo. This was inevitable, as each property has
evolved its own style generation after generation, and there has historically been little
incentive for developing joint conservation goals.”
By 2016, the consolidation of several fincas within Rogers Family Company, and the
coordination of management practices has resulted in a much more homogenous look to the
cafetal at several farms. In general, the trend has been toward increased cultivation intensity,
no doubt exaggerated by the fact that I was visiting during the height of the renovación
process.
In 2006, I identified factors that likely most strongly affect bird communities at this group of
fincas, which still hold true in 2016:
1) Amount of native vegetation (non-planted) along roadsides and lanes through cafetal.
2) Use of Rustic management or Polyculture (multi-level shade) over cafetal.
3) Retention and connectivity of intact forest patches, including ridgelines and arroyos,
where no coffee is cultivated.
4) Outreach materials, including graphic signage.
I did not identify herbicide/fungicide use among these factors, in part because they were not
quantitatively assessed or compared across the fincas, but also because I was focusing my
surveys in forest patches (i.e., where forest birds would be located), rather than in the cafetal

38
itself, where the spraying would be located. Thus, the conservation recommendations for
each finca presented in 2006 would still apply in 2016, with only minor changes (Table 4).
As I wrote in 2006, “of the seven sites visited, Fincas Irlanda, Peru-Paris, La Patria and La
Victoria stand out as having made long-term commitments to these measures, which have
been widely publicized through programs such as ‘Bird-Friendly’ certification, organic
certifications, and C.A.F.E. standards used by Starbucks. However, this does not mean that
effective conservation is not taking place at the non-certified or conventional farms – quite
the contrary. For example, some of the most robust and most forest-species-rich habitat I
saw was at Finca Hamburgo, which will not be qualifying as organic nor even shade-grown
without major changes in management. This property, as well as San Nicolas and La Paz,
presumably employs a management philosophy that compartmentalizes land into production
and non-production areas, with intensively cultivated coffee surrounded by smaller areas
essentially un-managed.”
In 2016, this more intensive cultivation model is now shared by all seven properties I visited,
meaning each of the seven farms now features large areas of pure cafetal with almost no
forest patches or stringers of forest along streams, and smaller patches of forest, typically at
the property edges. This varies somewhat by property; it is most dramatically the case with
El Final (almost no forest anywhere on the property), while Finca Peru-Paris still feature
stringers of forest along streams that wind through coffee production areas.
The primary question raised by this adoption of this model, “how does this affect the bird
community?” is difficult to answer with a single return to the farms, 10 years later.
However, based on this preliminary re-survey, I did not find that forest bird diversity had
dropped noticeably at any of the seven farms (with the possible exception of La Patria, but
see “Results”, above). Somewhat remarkably, even Peru-Paris, which has seen perhaps the
most dramatic shift in management style, from overgrown ravines with coffee almost an
understory plant in a forest, to a more “technified” model with stringers and small patches
of forest amid “cleaned-up” rows of coffee, still supported a relatively high diversity and
number of forest birds ten years later (including several additional forest-dependent birds
not found in 2006, such as Brown-backed Solitaire).
Of course, these results should not be taken as the final word on how well the farms are
supporting forest bird species; it may be that five years after renovación, these same forest
birds will start dropping off, and Peru-Paris and the other farms will no longer support
them. Or, it may be that these species are not actually resident or successfully reproducing
in the farms, but are just visiting to feed on seasonally-available resources such as flowers or
fruit. These questions can be more conclusively answered by more intensive investigation.
However, based on this study alone, we did not find that the shift in more intensive coffee
production has had an appreciable effect on the forest bird community of the five farms re-
surveyed.
Still, we feel the recommendations made in 2006 are still valid, and would still translate into
more forest birds where they are being adopted (contrast the low species diversity of El
Final and neighboring Peru-Paris, for example). For example:

39
“The development of a multi-level shade canopy, specifically through planting, has been
investigated in several previous studies…this technique should be complimented with the
retention of areas of native (i.e., no coffee) understory. At the very least, perhaps small
“demonstration areas” of brushy roadsides and lanes within the cafetal could be
encouraged…to provide ecological connections between reserves.”
We noted shrubs planted as intercrops along lanes through the cafetal at most fincas visited in
2016, and these did seem to be buzzing with bird activity during the survey (notably, ground-
sparrows, Wilson’s Warbler and Least Flycatcher).
Also recommended in 2006:
“Forest habitat, including small ‘microhabitats’ of large, moss and epiphyte-covered relict
trees should be retained on these properties where possible (see Cruz-Angon and Greenberg
2005), and these areas should be connected through strips of non-cultivated habitat along
arroyos or ridgetops…these properties could develop modest (e.g., 10 m-wide) strips of
natural vegetation along their ridgetops or along the bottoms of arroyos.”
Even intensively-planted areas of the fincas where these huge, remnant forest trees had been
left in place, such as at La Patria, particularly where located near forested arroyos, proved
“bird magnets” in the 2016 survey. Managers of all properties I spoke with in 2016 seemed
to understand the value of these trees and areas, and a few suggested they could be
somewhat less aggressive in planting along arroyos and springs (i.e., could leave a bit more
forest intact along corridors and roads).
The signage and public education information (about conservation) observed in 2006 at
Finca Peru-Paris had not spread to the other properties by 2016, so this could be another
area for improvement in the future.

40
Table 4. Site-specific conservation suggestions.
Finca
Suggestions (2006)
Suggestions (2016)
La Patria
Encourage natural vegetation along
arroyos and in ecological reserves; sign
and mark boundaries of ecological
reserves, including access points and
road/trail crossings.
(same)
El Final
N/A
Establish small ecological
reserves at natural springs and
within strips along arroyos;
sign and mark boundaries of
ecological reserves, including
access points and road/trail
crossings.
Peru-Paris
Consider initiating amphibian survey to
locate three most sensitive species.
Consider expanding
uncultivated areas along
arroyos, at springs, and on
steepest slopes; continue
ecological research (e.g., small
mammal survey conducted
through Smithsonian in 2010)
San Nicolas
Consider expanding areas where
natural vegetation is allowed to thrive,
e.g., road-cuts and arroyos.
Same
Hamburgo
Consider expanding areas where
natural vegetation is allowed to thrive,
e.g., road-cuts and arroyos.
Attempt to link natural areas using
corridors of non-coffee vegetation,
e.g., from border of Finca Irlanda to
Bellotas/Chiripa.
Install signage similar to that of Finca
Peru-Paris in natural areas such as
Bellotas/Chiripa.
Same
Cuilco
N/A
None
La Paz
Consider expanding areas where
natural vegetation is allowed to thrive,
e.g., road-cuts and arroyos.
Attempt to link natural areas using
corridors of non-coffee vegetation,
e.g., from slope behind house to forest
patch adjacent to Banderas.
Refrain from removing native forest
trees within the cafetal.
Same; refrain from dumping
tree cuttings directly into
arroyos.

41
VII. Literature cited
Cooper, D.S. 2003. New distributional and ecological information on birds in southwestern
Guatemala. Cotinga 19:61-63.
Cooper, D.S. 2006. Birds of Finca Dos Marias: A preliminary checklist (unpublished).
Updated March 2006.
Cruz-Angon, A. and R. Greenberg. 2005. Are epiphytes important for birds in coffee
plantations? An experimental assessment. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:150-159.
Greenberg, R., P. Bichier and J. Sterling. 1997. Bird populations in rustic and planted shade
coffee plantations of eastern Chiapas, Mexico. Biotropica 29(4):501-514.
Howell, S.N.G. and S. Webb. 1995. A Field Guide to the Birds of Mexico and Northern Central
America. Oxford Univ. Press. Oxford, UK.
Mas, A.H. and T.V. Dietsch. 2004. Linking shade coffee certification to biodiversity
conservation: butterflies and birds in Chiapas, Mexico. Ecological Applications 14(3):642-
654.
Moguel, P. and V.M. Toledo. 1999. Biodiversity conservation in traditional coffee systems of
Mexico. Conservation Biology 13(1):11-21.
Stattersfield, A.J., M.J. Crosby, A.J. Long and D.C. Wege. 1998. Endemic Bird Areas of the
World: Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 7. BirdLife
International. Cambridge, UK.
VIII. Acknowledgments
This re-survey would not have been possible without the support of Peter Rogers of Rogers
Family Co., Inc., who recognized the need to refine management practices of their supplier
farms. Andros Bracamontes organized the logistics of my visit, and made sure I was picked
up, dropped off, and fed. I am especially indebted to the generosity of my hosts during the
study, including Eduardo, Eva and Andros Bracamontes (Finca Peru-Paris), Tomas, Maria
and Tomas Bruno Edelman (Finca Hamburgo), Ricardo “Pico” Trampe (Finca La Paz),
Rodolfo Mora, and Gerardo Safra.