Vincent de Leijster

177 Appendices Table A5-9. The effect of tree arrangement on ecosystem service indicators. ‘Monoculture’ is monoculture practices ( † this is the reference group, which is not included in the trajectory analysis), ‘Disp’ is trees dispersed over the farm, ‘Alley + LF’ is trees planted in alley formation, ‘LF’is trees planted in living fences surrounding the farm. Significant differences between groups are given by letters obtained from a Tukey post-hoc test. The following distributions are used, different from normal distribution: *GLM-Poisson, **GLM-Negative binomial, ***GLM-gamma Ecosystem service Indicator Unit P-value n Monoculture Mean±SD n Dispersed Mean±SD n Alley Mean±SD n LF Mean±SD Carbon stock Above-ground carbon (AGC) Mg C / ha 0.02 11 5.2±4.2 c 26 30±18 a 12 22±11 ab 12 15±14 bc Below-ground carbon (BGC) Mg C / ha 0.16 11 71±28 26 85±32 12 66±11 12 78±30 Total carbon stock Mg C / ha 0.06 11 76±31 26 115±43 12 88±15 12 93±44 Erosion control Soil loss (RUSLE) Mg soil loss / ha / y 0.01 6.5±4.9 a 3.0±3.8 b 3.4±2.0 ab 3.9±2.9 ab Understory vegetation cover % soil covered 0.77 28±19 28±19 37±24 35±18 Litter cover % soil covered 0.003 54±30 b 85±11 a 63±23 b 66±19 ab Soil stability Stability score 0.82 3.3±0.9 3.1±0.9 3.1±0.7 2.8±1.2 Habitat provisioning Butterfly richness # species 0.07* 7 11±3.5 16 16±1.9 10 13±3.6 6 13±5.3 Butterfly abundance # individuals 0.30 7 39±26 16 44±13 10 25±9.0 6 47±19 Butterfly diversity Shannon index 0.05 7 1.8±0.4 b 16 2.5±0.2 a 10 2.2±0.2 ab 6 2.2±0.3 ab Epiphyte group richness # groups 0.82 1 1.4±- 5 2.1±0.9 5 1.7±0.9 3 1.9±1.0 Pest control Coffee berry borer incidence % incidence 0.23 12 7.8±11 26 24±28 12 18±19 12 26±28 Leaf miner; Plant damage Damage score (0-4) 0.19 4 0.8±0.3 10 1.2±0.5 4 1.4±0.5 4 1.7±1.0 Leaf miner; Leaf damage Damage score (0-4) 0.12 4 0.8±0.3 10 1.4±0.5 4 1.4±0.3 4 1.5±0.5