IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i8p4789-d795500.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Feeding Landscape: Bird and Human Use of Food Resources across a Biocultural Landscape of the Colombian Andes

Author

Listed:
  • Rubén Ortega-Álvarez

    (Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad (IIES), Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Campus Morelia, Antigua Carretera a Pátzcuaro 8711, Col. San José de la Huerta, Morelia 58190, Michoacán, Mexico)

  • Alejandro Casas

    (Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad (IIES), Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Campus Morelia, Antigua Carretera a Pátzcuaro 8711, Col. San José de la Huerta, Morelia 58190, Michoacán, Mexico)

Abstract

Agriculture impacts both human welfare and biodiversity at the same time. Still, social and ecological assessments have commonly analyzed the relevance of agroecosystems separately. We evaluated the human and avian feeding use of the biocultural landscape in Jardín, Colombia, using a socioecological approach. Together with farmers, we identified the main socioecological units of the landscape (i.e., fincas, grazing lands, town, forests) and determined the use of each unit in terms of food foraging from forests, crop cultivation, cattle grazing, food commercialization, and food industrialization. We compared the richness of the food resources produced among finca sections (i.e., gardens, coffee–banana plantations, grazing lands). Then, we surveyed avian behavior to contrast the richness of bird species, feeding use and intensity, and food types consumed by birds among the units. Fincas were shown to play a pivotal role in feeding both humans and birds. Gardens provide food for people as well as nectarivore and frugivore birds. Coffee–banana plantations are economically relevant, but their food provision is limited and could be enhanced by increasing the diversity of the food crops within them. The town supports commerce and granivorous birds, whereas grazing lands have limited feeding importance. Forests are used by birds to capture invertebrates but do not supply much food for the people. Our approach fosters the identification of key socioecological units, demonstrating that studying both humans and wildlife enhances the comprehension of biocultural landscapes.

Suggested Citation

  • Rubén Ortega-Álvarez & Alejandro Casas, 2022. "The Feeding Landscape: Bird and Human Use of Food Resources across a Biocultural Landscape of the Colombian Andes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-21, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:8:p:4789-:d:795500
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/8/4789/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/8/4789/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Chappell & Liliana LaValle, 2011. "Food security and biodiversity: can we have both? An agroecological analysis," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(1), pages 3-26, February.
    2. Francisco J. Rendón-Sandoval & Alejandro Casas & Ana I. Moreno-Calles & Ignacio Torres-García & Eduardo García-Frapolli, 2020. "Traditional Agroforestry Systems and Conservation of Native Plant Diversity of Seasonally Dry Tropical Forests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-27, June.
    3. Bob B.M. Wong & Ulrika Candolin, 2015. "Behavioral responses to changing environments," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(3), pages 665-673.
    4. Chauncy D. Harris & Edward L. Ullman, 1945. "The Nature of Cities," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 242(1), pages 7-17, November.
    5. Calvet-Mir, Laura & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Reyes-García, Victoria, 2012. "Beyond food production: Ecosystem services provided by home gardens. A case study in Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, Northeastern Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 153-160.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    2. Fábio T. F. Silva & Alexandre Szklo & Amanda Vinhoza & Ana Célia Nogueira & André F. P. Lucena & Antônio Marcos Mendonça & Camilla Marcolino & Felipe Nunes & Francielle M. Carvalho & Isabela Tagomori , 2022. "Inter-sectoral prioritization of climate technologies: insights from a Technology Needs Assessment for mitigation in Brazil," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 27(7), pages 1-39, October.
    3. Hannah Romanowski & Lauren Blake, 2023. "Neonicotinoid seed treatment on sugar beet in England: a qualitative analysis of the controversy, existing policy and viability of alternatives," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 13(3), pages 453-472, September.
    4. Imen Turki Abdelhedi & Sonia Zouari Zouari, 2020. "Agriculture and Food Security in North Africa: a Theoretical and Empirical Approach," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(1), pages 193-210, March.
    5. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    6. Théodore Nikiema & Eugène C. Ezin & Sylvain Kpenavoun Chogou, 2023. "Bibliometric Analysis of the State of Research on Agroecology Adoption and Methods Used for Its Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-18, November.
    7. Julie Sardos & Sara Muller & Marie-France Duval & Jean-Louis Noyer & Vincent Lebot, 2016. "Root crops diversity and agricultural resilience: a case study of traditional agrosystems in Vanuatu (Oceania)," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 33(3), pages 721-736, September.
    8. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    9. Zegar, Józef S., 2012. "Gospodarstwa Rodzinne Wobec Wyzwań Wyżywienia I Ochrony Środowiska – Ujęcie Globalne," Village and Agriculture (Wieś i Rolnictwo), Polish Academy of Sciences (IRWiR PAN), Institute of Rural and Agricultural Development, vol. 4(157).
    10. Long, X. & Ji, Xi & Ulgiati, S., 2017. "Is urbanization eco-friendly? An energy and land use cross-country analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 387-396.
    11. Rau, Anna-Lena & von Wehrden, Henrik & Abson, David J., 2018. "Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 122-130.
    12. Carrie Furman & Carla Roncoli & Donald Nelson & Gerrit Hoogenboom, 2014. "Growing food, growing a movement: climate adaptation and civic agriculture in the southeastern United States," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(1), pages 69-82, March.
    13. Joel Isabirye, 2021. "The Behavioral Theory of the Firm: Foundations, Tenets and Relevance," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 19(1), pages 324-335, May.
    14. Fischer, Joern & Abson, David J. & Butsic, Van & Chappell, M. Jahi & Ekroos, Johan & Hanspach, Jan & Kuemmerle, Tobias & Smith, Henrik G. & von Wehrden, Henrik, 2014. "Land sparing versus land sharing: Moving forward," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 7(3), pages 149-157.
    15. Sarkki, Simo & Karjalainen, Timo P., 2015. "Ecosystem service valuation in a governance debate: Practitioners' strategic argumentation on forestry in northern Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 13-22.
    16. Bliss, Sam & Egler, Megan, 2020. "Ecological Economics Beyond Markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    17. Izak B. Foster & Trevor McIntyre & Natalie S. Haussmann, 2019. "Understanding the relationship between farmers and burrowing mammals on South African farms: are burrowers friends or foes?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(4), pages 719-731, December.
    18. Carina Lackmann & Antonio Šimić & Sandra Ečimović & Alma Mikuška & Thomas-Benjamin Seiler & Henner Hollert & Mirna Velki, 2023. "Subcellular Responses and Avoidance Behavior in Earthworm Eisenia andrei Exposed to Pesticides in the Artificial Soil," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, January.
    19. Palomo-Campesino, Sara & García-Llorente, Marina & Hevia, Violeta & Boeraeve, Fanny & Dendoncker, Nicolas & González, José A., 2022. "Do agroecological practices enhance the supply of ecosystem services? A comparison between agroecological and conventional horticultural farms," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    20. Feng Ren & Jinbo Zhang & Xiuyun Yang, 2023. "Study on the Effect of Job Accessibility and Residential Location on Housing Occupancy Rate: A Case Study of Xiamen, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-21, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:8:p:4789-:d:795500. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.