Pest Management Strategies Against the Coffee Berry Borer

Subscriber access provided by UNIV OF NEW ENGLAND ARMIDALE

Agricultural and Environmental Chemistry

Pest Management Strategies Against the Coffee Berry Borer (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Francisco Infante J. Agric. Food Chem., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.7b04875 • Publication Date (Web): 12 Mar 2018 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on March 13, 2018

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 24

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

1

For: Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

2

Running Title: Pest Management of the CBB

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Pest Management Strategies Against the Coffee Berry Borer

10

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae)

11

Francisco Infante

12 13

El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), Carretera Antiguo Aeropuerto km 2.5,

14

Tapachula, 30700 Chiapas, México

15 16 17

Address Correspondence to:

18

Dr. Francisco Infante

19

Carretera Antiguo Aeropuerto km 2.5

20

Tapachula, 30700 Chiapas, México

21

Phone: +52 962-6289800 Fax: +52 962-6289806

22

E-mail: [email protected]

23

ACS Paragon Plus Environment


Page 2 of 24

2 24

ABSTRACT: Coffee (Coffea arabica and C. canephora) is one of the most widely traded

25

agricultural commodities and the main cash crop in ca. 80 tropical countries. Among the

26

factors that limit coffee production, the coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei

27

(Ferrari) has been considered the main insect pest, causing losses of over US$500

28

million dollars annually. Control of this pest has been hindered by two main factors: the

29

cryptic nature of the insect (i.e., protected inside the coffee berry), and the availability of

30

coffee berries in the field allowing the survival of the pest from one generation to the

31

next. Coffee berry borer control has primarily been based on the use of synthetic

32

insecticides. Management strategies have focused on the use of African parasitoids

33

(Cephalonomia stephanoderis, Prorops nasuta and Phymastichus coffea), fungal

34

entomopathogens (Beauveria bassiana), and insect traps. These approaches have had

35

mixed results. Recent work on the basic biology of the insect has provided novel insights

36

that might be useful in developing novel pest management strategies. For example, the

37

discovery of symbiotic bacteria responsible for caffeine breakdown as part of the coffee

38

berry borer microbiome opens new possibilities for pest management via the disruption

39

of these bacteria. Some chemicals with repellent propieties have been identified and

40

these have a high potential for field implementation. Finally, the publication of the CBB

41

genome has provided insights on the biology of the insect that will help us to understand

42

why it has been so successful at exploiting the coffee plant. Here I discuss the tools we

43

now have against the CBB, and likely control strategies that may be useful in the near

44

future.

45 46

KEYWORDS: Hypothenemus hampei, coffee, Rubiaceae, Coffea arabica, Coffea

47

canephora, pest control.


Page 3 of 24


3 48 49

INTRODUCTION

50

Coffee (Coffea sp.) is predominantly an African genus that comprises 124 species.

51

Arabica coffee (Coffea arabica L.) and Robusta coffee (Coffea canephora Pierre ex A.

52

Froehner), are the two commercial species that are widely cultivated and used in the

53

production of coffee. Although Africa is the origin of both species, they came from

54

different environments; C. arabica originated in the upland evergreen forests of southern

55

Ethiopia, whereas C. canephora is native to the lowland humid forests between Uganda

56

and Cameroon.

57

subtropical countries, where they are now among the most important cash crops.

58

Approximately 11 million hectares worldwide are planted with coffee producing

59

approximately 9 million tonnes annually.

60

market, coffee remains one of the most valuable agricultural commodity in international

61

world trade. The economic revenue in coffee producing countries is about US$12 billion

62

annually, while the value of the coffee industry has been estimated at US$173 billion. 5

63

The perennial evergreen nature of coffee favours the attraction of a number of

64

arthropods.

65

coffee, either as phytophagous arthropods or their predators and parasitoids.

66

these, more than 850 species of insect are known to feed on the coffee tree,

67

approximately 30 species cause economic losses, including the coffee berry borer

68

(Curculionidae), leaf miners (Lyonetiidae), antestia bugs (Pentatomidae), stem borers

69

(Cerambycidae),

70

(Coccidae), aphids (Aphididae), and mealybugs (Pseudococcidae). 6, 9, 10

6

1, 3

1, 2

.

Both species have been introduced into many tropical and

4

Despite the fluctuating prices of the world

More than 3000 species of insects and mites have been associated with

twig

borers

(Curculionidae),

whiteflies


(Aleyrodidae),

7 8

Of and

scales


Page 4 of 24

4 11

71

With losses over US$500 million annually,

72

hampei (Ferrari), is the most devastating pest of coffee worldwide.

73

Central Africa, this pest has now been reported in almost every country where the coffee

74

plant has been introduced. The first report on the presence of H. hampei outside Africa

75

came from Indonesia in 1908.

76

1913.

77

Americas and the Caribbean. Studies involving molecular methods to track the

78

dissemination of the CBB suggested that there were three separate introductions to the

79

Americas, and that West Africa was the origin of introductions into America and Asia.

80

After this, the CBB slowly spread to the rest of coffee producing countries in the world.

81

The most recent detections of this insect in Puerto Rico in 2007,

82

and Papua New Guinea in 2016, show that phytosanitary measures to stop H. hampei

83

had failed in every country.

84

Because H. hampei feeds and reproduces within the coffee seeds inside the coffee

85

berry, it is considered a direct pest that negatively affects the crop by causing losses in

86

yield and quality. Green and ripe berries are susceptible to attack by the insect.

87

dry matter content of the endosperm is the critical factor determining attack; green

88

berries with less than 20% dry matter in the endosperm are either abandoned after an

89

initial attack, or the female waits for several days in the tunnel she has bored until the

90

endosperm has developed.

91

green fruit with less than 20% dry matter, these berries are often lost, either by

92

premature fall or by decay, because H. hampei damage allows the entry of saprophytic

93

microorganisms.

94

dry matter (approximately 2-3 months after flowering), because at this stage adult

13, 14

12

the coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus 5, 9

Originally from

Later, this pest invaded the Americas through Brazil in

From Brazil H. hampei dispersed to other coffee growing areas in the

18, 20, 21

18, 19

16

Hawaii in 2010,

9

15

17

The

Although the coffee berry borer does not breed in

Severe damage also occurs when fruit have more that 20% of


Page 5 of 24


5 22

95

females colonises the seeds (edosperm).

96

H. hampei consume the endosperm, thereby greatly reducing the quality and economic

97

value of infested seeds, which can only be sold as a low-grade product.

98

100 individuals (eggs, larvae and adults) have been recorded in a single coffee fruit,

99

and an estimated density of 11 million borers per hectare has been reported in Mexican 24

During their life cycle, adults and larvae of

20

More than 23

100

coffee plantations.

101

and pest management measures should be performed at earlier stages of infestation, as

102

should become clear farther on. As several reviews have been published on the biology

103

and ecology of this insect,

104

reasonable strategy to manage the coffee berry borer infestations.

Such high infestation levels are difficult to manage at this stage,

5, 19, 20, 21, 25

the aim of the present work is to propose a

105 106

SYNOPSIS OF THE MAIN METHODS FOR CONTROL THE COFFEE BERRY BORER

107

Several pest management strategies have been used against the coffee berry borer.

108

One of the oldest methods is the cultural (manual) control, i. e., the removal and

109

destruction of infested coffee berries (which serve as source for new infestations) to

110

reduce the population levels. In theory, this is perhaps the most effective method of

111

control against the insect that may perform at any stage of coffee fruit development.

112

27, 28

113

approximately 80% of the population.

114

advantageous, this practice greatly increases the costs of production. 30

115

Synthetic insecticides have been widely used against the coffee berry borer. The

116

commercial availability, ease of application in the field, and insecticidal efficacy, have

117

favoured their use in some countries. Brazil pioneered the use of synthetic organic

118

insecticides against H. hampei in 1947,

26,

In Colombia the manual removal of mature berries was found to eliminate 27, 29

31

Despite being effective and environmentally

and this practice was adopted extensively by



Page 6 of 24

6 32

119

African countries in 1949.

120

insecticide endosulfan became the most effective and widely used synthetic compound

121

for controlling the insect. A single application of endosulfan reduced CBB infestation up

122

to 88% and provided good control for up to 12 weeks.

123

insecticide resulted in development of resistance in New Caledonia,

124

problems like chronic human intoxication, toxicity to aquatic fauna and non-target

125

organisms, and environmental persistence of up to eight months.

126

endosulfan has been banned in at least 70 countries. 35, 36 Other insecticides have been

127

evaluated against H. hampei with promising results. For instance, pirimiphos-methyl,

128

fenitrothion, chlorpyrifos and fenthion, resulted in 98% pest mortality when applied at the

129

time the CBB was boring into the coffee berry. 37

130

Biological control of H. hampei using three African parasitoids has been another method

131

widely used in many countries since the 1980’s. The parasitoids Prorops nasuta

132

Waterston (Bethylidae), Cephalonomia stephanoderis Betrem (Bethylidae), and

133

Phymastichus coffea LaSalle (Eulophidae), have been introduced in over 15 countries

134

outside Africa. This pest management strategy is known as classical biological control

135

and unfortunately, results with the coffee berry borer have not been satisfactory.

136

three species have been unable to maintain high population levels in the field, such that

137

multiple releases of parasitoids have to be performed through the growing season.

138

Although the establishment of these species occurs in most coffee plantations,

139

parasitoid populations decreased dramatically in the absence of frequent releases and

140

the pest population does not fall below the economic threshold. 5, 21, 27, 29, 39 The effect of

141

parasitoids on the coffee berry borer has been unsatisfactory as a single method of

142

control and other measures of control are needed to check the pest.

In the 1960’s, the broad-spectrum organochlorine


32

Extensive use of this

34

33

and in other

For these reasons,

29, 38, 39

14

All

5

In the case

Page 7 of 24


7 143

of biological control using entomopathogens, the cosmopolitan fungus Beauveria

144

bassiana (Balsamo) Vuillemin (Ascomicota: Hypocreales) has been found infecting H.

145

hampei adults in coffee plantations wherever the borer is present. The incidence of B.

146

bassiana is usually higher when there are young berries attacked by the insect and

147

under rainy conditions.

148

attempts to control the coffee berry borer. A common practice to increase the natural

149

infection of B. bassiana is to culture isolates collected from the field and spray the

150

conidial suspensions on coffee berry borer infested fruit.

151

levels of mortality up to 84% under field conditions,

152

synthetic insecticides. However, the main disadvantages of using B. bassiana is the

153

slow infection process that allows the adults live long enough to damage the coffee

154

berry, the fast deactivation of conidia after spraying, and high production costs. 30, 40, 43

155

Several types of traps to capture coffee berry borer adults have been developed. One of

156

these traps is commercially available under the name BROCAP® and uses a mixture of

157

ethanol and methanol as an attractant and has been employed in numerous countries.

158

This trap can be used permanently throughout the coffee producing cycle, but is likely to

159

be more valuable in capturing residual adults after the harvest period. According to

160

Dufour

161

day when infestations are high. However, to reduce costs, most coffee growers use

162

artisanal traps to capture this insect. In Mexico, weekly captures of artisanal traps

163

ranged from 83 to 1484,

164

adults per week.

165

these traps a single method of control do not solve the problem, and other measures of

44

40

The fungus has been widely used throughout the world in

42

41

This practice can result in

similar to the performance of

a single BROCAP® trap can capture more than 10,000 H. hampei adults per

46

45

whereas in Brazil, other traps have captured 77 to 609

However effective in capturing coffee berry borer adults, the use of



Page 8 of 24

8 166

control are needed. It is important to point out that alcohol-based traps are not specific to

167

the CBB and they may capture and kill many other insects not considered as pests. 47

168 169

USING WHAT WE HAVE: A STRATEGY TO CONTROL THE COFFEE BERRY

170

BORER

171

An effective strategy to control the coffee berry borer should involve an Integrated Pest

172

Management (IPM) approach, in which multiple tactics are combined to reduce the pest

173

populations to tolerable levels while maintaining a quality environment.

174

available pest control technologies against the coffee berry borer, control measures

175

should start when coffee is being harvested (Fig. 1). In fact, the harvesting and

176

processing of coffee is itself a major mortality factor for the H. hampei population, where

177

most individuals inside the berry die, while a few others escape from the coffee

178

fermentation tanks and return to the field. 49, 50, 51 Considering that the coffee berry borer

179

can only feed and reproduce in coffee, it is important to reduce the number of surviving

180

adults that will eventually infest the fruit of the following coffee cycle. In countries that

181

have only one coffee harvest per year, the recommendations are: (i) to carry out efficient

182

harvesting, avoiding leaving residual fruit on coffee trees or on the ground, and (ii) to use

183

coffee berry borer traps after harvesting to catch and kill residual adults. The

184

effectiveness of these two measures will determine the prevalence of the CBB

185

infestation in the next cycle. The use of traps may continue when fruit are absent in the

186

field and until the following fruiting cycle. A density of 22 traps per hectare uniformly

187

distributed, drastically decreased the prevalence of CBB infestation from one season to

188

the next. 52


48

By using the

Page 9 of 24


9 53

189

Coffee flowering begins immediately after the rainy season.

190

frequency of rainfall, there may be one, two, or more flowering periods. As a

191

consequence, several fructifications may occur in a single year, but there will be always

192

a main fructification that will concentrate most of the coffee berries. 54 Depending on the

193

altitude of coffee plantations, berries will be susceptible to H. hampei attack 2-3 months

194

after flowering.

195

the field on trees or on the ground after harvesting.

196

subsequently leave these fruits to infest the new ones. It is at this time that sprays of B.

197

bassiana are recommended, as conditions at this moment are usually ideal for effective

198

pest control: low population levels of the pest, high humidity favouring survival and

199

germination of the fungus, starving and possibly weak adults that may be more prone to

200

fungal infection, and individuals outside the berry or just initiating the boring of the berry,

201

among others. A novel trap that combines the use of alcohols and B. bassiana has been

202

recently developed.

203

colonizing females, contaminate them with B. bassiana, and disperse the fungus in

204

coffee plantations after CBB females exited the device. With a mortality of CBB adult

205

females from 66 to 92% under field conditions, this trap has a great potential to be used

206

as an IPM component.

207

Phymastichus coffea, can be undertaken 2-3 weeks after B. bassiana sprays in order to

208

reduce the risk of parasitoid mortality due to fungal infection.

209

of H. hampei adults controlled by these two natural enemies, the smaller the number of

210

progeny and coffee berry damage at harvest.

211

Coffee berry borer adults that are not killed by B. bassiana or P. coffea, will penetrate

212

and colonise coffee fruits. Inside the seed, the CBB female will oviposit and larvae will

18, 22

Depending on the

Coffee berry borer adults can survive up to 156 days in fruit left in

55

9

The surviving adults will

Using a mixture of ethanol and methanol, the trap attracts

55

Releases of the coffee berry borer adult parasitoid


56

The higher the number


Page 10 of 24

10 9

213

feed on the same seed to grow and reach the adult stage.

214

field is ca. 45 days.

215

can be increased through releases of the parasitoids C. stephanoderis and P. nasuta,

216

which parasitizes larvae and pupae of the CBB. 20

217

Although all the elements for this conceptual strategy have been known for a long time,

218

and are implemented in some coffee producing countries, their systematic use to

219

achieve a sustainable coffee berry borer management has not been undertaken for

220

several reasons. In some cases only one or two types of control are used regardless the

221

fruiting phenology of coffee. In other cases, control measures against H. hampei are

222

initiated too late in the season, when the insect is already inside the berry and has

223

reached high levels of infestation. Under this situation control is difficult to achieve

224

because the insect is protected within the fruit and has already reproduce. For this

225

reason it is necessary to combine the above mentioned methods of control with due

226

attention to timing and fruiting phenology, in order to obtain adequate control of this pest.

57

The generation time in the

Mortality of the coffee berry borer population during this phase

227 228

RECENT FINDINGS WITH POTENTIAL FOR CONTROL OF THE COFFEE BERRY

229

BORER

230

Studies on the microbiota of the coffee berry borer have revealed a wide array of

231

microorganisms associated with this insect. Pérez et al.

232

in 21 genera isolated from the insect cuticle, gut, and faeces. Fusarium, Penicillium,

233

Candida and Aspergillus were the dominant genera. Carrión & Bonet

234

fungal species associated with the adult stage. More recently, Ceja-Navarro et al.

235

identified 13 bacterial species in the alimentary canal that were able to breakdown

236

caffeine: Brachybacterium rhamnosum, Enterobacter sp., Jonesiaceae, Kosakonia


58

reported 39 species of fungi

59

identified 12 60

Page 11 of 24


11 237

cowanii, Microbacterium binotii, Novosphigobium sp., Ochrobactrum sp., Pantoea

238

vagans,

239

Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Antibiotics added to H. hampei artificial diet eliminated

240

caffeine degradation, demonstrating the involvement of bacteria in the process. The

241

caffeine demethylase gene (ndmA) was expressed in vivo in field specimens as well as

242

in P. fulva isolated from the coffee berry borer gut. Diet inoculation with P. fulva restored

243

the ability to degrade caffeine (Fig. 2). The remarkable discovery of caffeine

244

detoxification in H. hampei opens new research options to manage this pest. Right now

245

is too early to propose a practical way to use this information, but the basic idea would

246

be to find a mechanism to interfere with the bacteria involved in caffeine detoxification.

247

This eventual interference would likely result in the death of the insect.

248

Very little is known about the genome of coleopteran species, and a recent study

249

reported the genome of H. hampei, the third species reported for this order of insects.

250

The coffee berry borer genome is approximately 163Mb with 19222 predicted protein-

251

coding genes. Genome analysis revealed four important aspects of the CBB biology: (i)

252

indications of 10 cases of putative horizontal gene transfers from bacteria, (ii)

253

paralogous expansion of the antimicrobial peptide repertoire, (iii) the presence of

254

enzymes involved in the degradation of complex polysaccharides, and (iv) the presence

255

of the gene Rdl, that confers resistance to cyclodiene insecticides, such as endosulfan.

256

60

257

prove useful in the development of novel technologies for the management of this insect.

258

The identification and use of repellents is another promising tool against the CBB.

259

Different degrees of repellency of verbenone and methylcyclohexenone were reported in

260

the coffee berry borer.

P.

septica,

P.

eucalypti,

Pseudomonas

fulva,

P.

fluorescens,

and

61

However more research is needed, the study provides valuable information that may

62

Jaramillo et al.

63

confirmed H. hampei avoidance to



Page 12 of 24

12 261

verbenone and mentioned that α-pinene was another repellent for this insect. Vega et al.

262

64

263

berry borer produced by infested coffee fruits, with remarkable results in a field test in

264

Hawaii. The results showed up to an 80% decrease in CBB captures in traps with 3:1

265

methanol:ethanol attractant, and a bubble cap formulation of (E,E)-α-farnesene,

266

compared to traps containing the attractant only.

267

To conclude, it is clear that the current technologies for coffee berry borer control require

268

intensive labour and careful monitoring to keep the pest under control. Recent studies

269

on the microbiota of H. hampei, its genome, and chemical repellents have greatly

270

expanded our knowledge of this insect, and will likely provide novel insights of use in the

271

development of pest managemernt strategies in the near future.

identified a sesquiterpene, (E,E)-α-farnesene, as a potential repellent of the coffee

272 273

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

274

I would like to thank three anonymous reviewers, whose comments helped improve this

275

manuscript. Trev Williams (INECOL) provided a valuable language revision.

276 277 278 279

REFERENCES (1) Davis, A. P.; Govaerts, R.; Bridson, D. M.; Stoffelen, P. An annotated taxonomic conspectus of the genus Coffea (Rubiaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2006, 152, 465−512.

280

(2) Davis, A. P.; Tosh, J.; Ruch, N.; Fay, M. F. Growing coffee: Psilanthus

281

(Rubiaceae) subsumed on the basis of molecular and morphological data; implications

282

for the size, morphology, distribution and evolutionary history of Coffea. Bot. J. Linn.

283

Soc. 2011, 167, 357−377.


Page 13 of 24


13 284 285

(3) Silva, C. A. P. Café. Cultura e tecnología primaria. Instituto de Investigacao Cientifica Tropical. Lisboa. 1994. 169 pp.

286

(4) ICO. International Coffee Organization—world coffee trade (1963–2013): a review

287

of the markets, challenges and opportunities facing the sector. International Coffee

288

Organization, London, 2014, 111–115 pp.

289

(5) Vega, F. E.; Infante, F.; Johnson, A. J. The genus Hypothenemus, with emphasis

290

on H. hampei, the coffee berry borer. In Bark Beetles: Biology and Ecology of Native and

291

Invasive Species; Vega, F. E., Hoffstetter, R. W., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA,

292

USA, 2015; pp 427−494.

293 294

(6) Barrera, J. F. Coffee pests and their management. In Encyclopedia of Entomology Capinera, J. L., Ed., Springer, Dordrecht, 2008; pp. 961–998.

295

(7) Waller, J. M.; Bigger, M.; Hillocks, R. J. Berry-feeding insects, In Coffee Pests,

296

Diseases and their Management; Waller, J. M., Bigger, M., Hillocks, R. J. Eds. CABI

297

Publishing, London, 2007; pp 68–90.

298

(8) LePelley, R. H. Coffee insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1973, 18, 121–142.

299

(9) LePelley, R. H. Pests of coffee. Longmans Green and Co., London; 1968; 590 pp.

300

(10) Vega, F. E.; Posada, F. J.; Infante, F. Coffee insects: ecology and control.

301

Encyclopedia of Pest Management; Pimentel, D., Ed. 2006; Taylor & Francis, Boca

302

Raton, FL. pp 1–4.

303 304 305 306

(11) Vega, F. E.; Franqui, R. A.; Benavides, P. b. The presence of the coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei, in Puerto Rico: fact or fiction? J. Insect Sci. 2002, 2: 1–3. (12) Hagedorn, M. Wieder ein neuer Kaffeeschadling. Entomologische Blatter 1910, 6, 1–4.



Page 14 of 24

14 307 308 309 310

(13) Berthet, J. J. A. Praga do cafeeiro no oriente. Boletim de Agricultura Sao Paulo 1913, 14, 701. (14) Infante, F.; Pérez, J.; Vega, F. E. The coffee berry borer: the centenary of a biological invasion in Brazil. Brazilian J. Biol. 2014, 74 (Suppl), 125–126.

311

(15) Benavides, P.; Vega, F. E.; Romero-Severson, J.; Bustillo, A. E. Stuart, J. J.

312

Biodiversity and biogeography of an important inbreed pest of coffee, coffee berry borer

313

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2005, 98, 359–366.

314

(16) NAPPO. North American Plant Protection Organization’s Phytosanitary Alert

315

System. Detections of coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei, in Puerto Rico—

316

United States. Available online: http://www.pestalert.org/oprDetail.cfm?oprlD=281.

317 318 319

(17) Burbano, E.; Wright, M.; Bright, D. E.; Vega, F. E. New record for the coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei, in Hawaii. J. Insect Sci. 2011, 11, 117. (18) Barrera, J. F. Dynamique des populations du scolyte des fruits du caféier,

320

Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), et lutte biologique avec le parasitoide

321

Cephalonomia stephanoderis (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae), au Chiapas, Mexique. Ph.D.

322

thesis, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France, 1994, 301 pp.

323

(19) Jaramillo, J.; Borgemeister, C.; Baker, P. Coffee berry borer Hypothenemus

324

hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): searching for sustainable control strategies. Bull.

325

Entomol. Res. 2006, 96, 223-233.

326

(20) Murphy, S. T.; Moore, D.. Biological control of the coffee berry borer,

327

Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) (Coleoptera, Scolytidae): previous programmes and

328

possibilities for the future. Biocontrol News and Information 1990, 11, 107-117.


Page 15 of 24


15 329

(21) Damon, A. A review of the biology and control of the coffee berry borer,

330

Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 2000, 90, 453–

331

465.

332

(22) Baker, P. S. Some aspects of the behavior of the coffee berry borer in relation to

333

its control in southern Mexico (Coleoptera, Scolytidae). Folia Entomol. Mex. 1984, 61, 9–

334

24.

335

(23) Jaramillo, J.; Chabi-Olaye, A.; Poehling, H.; Kamonjo, C.; Borgemeister, C.

336

Development of an improved laboratory production technique for the coffee berry borer

337

Hypothenemus hampei, using fresh coffee berries. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2009, 130, 275-

338

281.

339

(24) Baker, P. S.; Barrera, J. F. A field study of a population of coffee berry borer,

340

Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera; Scolytidae), in Chiapas, Mexico. Trop. Agric. 1993,

341

70, 351-355.

342

(25) Waterhouse, D. F. Biological control of insect pests: Southeast Asian prospects.

343

Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Canberra. Monograph

344

Series, 1998, vol. 51, 548 pp.

345

(26) Bergamin, J. O “repase” como método de controle da broca do café

346

“Hypothenemus hampei (Ferr., 1867)” (Col. Ipidae). Arquivos do Instituto Biológico, Sao

347

Paulo 1944, 15, 197-208.

348

(27) Bustillo, A. E.; Cárdenas, R.; Villalba, D. A.; Benavides, P.; Orozco, J.; Posada,

349

F. J. Manejo integrado de la broca del café Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) en

350

Colombia. Centro Nacional de Investigaciones de Café (Cenicafe). Chinchiná,

351

Colombia. 1998, 134 pp.



Page 16 of 24

16 352

(28) Aristizábal, L. F.; Jiménez, M.; Bustillo, A. E.; Arthurs, S. P. Monitoring cultural

353

practices for coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae:

354

Scolytinae) management in a small coffee farm in Colombia. Fla. Entomol. 2011, 94,

355

685-687.

356

(29) Bustillo Pardey, A. E. Una revisión sobre la broca del café, Hypothenemus

357

hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), en Colombia. Revista Colomb.

358

Entomol. 2006, 32, 101-116.

359

(30) Baker, P. S. The coffee berry borer in Colombia. Final report of the DFID-

360

Cenicafé- CABI Bioscience IPM for coffee project. Chinchiná. (Colombia), DFID –

361

CENICAFÉ, 1999, 154 pp.

362 363 364 365

(31) Sauer, H. F. G.; Duval, G.; Falanghe, O. Combate á broca do café e a possibilidae do emprego de inseticidas. O Biológico 1947, 13, 205-214. (32) Mansingh, A. Limitations of insecticides in the management of the coffee berry borer. J. Coffee Res. 1991, 21, 67-98.

366

(33) Brun, L. O.; Marcillaud, C.; Gaudichon, V.; Suckling, D. M. Endosulfan resistance

367

in Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in New Caledonia. J. Econ. Entomol.

368

1989, 82, 1311-1316.

369 370 371 372

(34) Tomlin, C. The pesticide manual. A world compendium. Tenth edition. British Crop Protection Council; 1994, 1341 pp. (35) Lubick, N. Endosulfan’s exit: U.S. EPA pesticide review leads to a ban. Science 2010, 328, 1466.

373

(36) Janssen, M. P. M. Endosulfan. A closer look at the arguments against a

374

worldwide phase out. RIVM letter report 601356002/2011. National Institute for Public


Page 17 of 24


17 375

Health and the Environment. Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, 2011, The

376

Netherlands.

377 378

(37) Bustillo Pardey, A. E. El manejo de cafetales y su relación con el control de la broca del café en Colombia. Boletín Técnico Cenicafé 2002, No. 24, 40 pp.

379

(38) Infante, F.; Mumford, J.; Mendez, I. Non-recovery of Prorops nasuta

380

(Hymenoptera: Bethylidae), an imported parasitoid of the coffee berry borer (Coleoptera:

381

Scolytidae) in Mexico. Southwest. Entomol. 2001, 26, 159-163.

382

(39) Damon, A.; Valle, J. Comparison of two release techniques for the use of

383

Cephalonomia stephanoderis (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae), to control the coffee berry

384

borer Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in Soconusco, Southeastern

385

Mexico. Biol. Control 2002, 24, 117-127.

386

(40) Baker, P. S.; Jackson, J.; Murphy, S. T. Natural enemies, natural allies. The

387

Commodities Press. CABI Commodities. Egham, UK and Cenicafé, Chinchiná,

388

Colombia. 2002, 131 pp.

389

(41) de la Rosa, W.; Godinez, J. L. Alatorre, R. Trujillo, J. Susceptibilidad del

390

parasitoide Cephalonomia stephanoderis a diferentes cepas de Beauveria bassiana y

391

Metarhizium anisopliae. Southwest. Entomol. 1997, 22, 233-242.

392

(42) Bustillo Pardey, A. E. El papel del control biológico en el manejo integrado de la

393

broca del café, Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae).

394

Rev. Acad. Colomb. Cienc. 2005, 110, 55-68.

395

(43) Edgington, S.; Segura, H.; de la Rosa, W.; Williams, T. Photoprotection of

396

Beauveria bassiana: testing simple formulations for control of the coffee berry borer. Int.

397

J. Pest Manage. 2000, 46, 169-176.



Page 18 of 24

18 398

(44) Dufour, B. Importance of trapping for integrated management (IPM) of the coffee

399

berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei Ferr. Recherche et Cafeiculture, 2002, pp. 108-116.

400

(45) Barrera, J. F.; Herrera, J.; Chiu, M.; Gómez, J.; Valle-Mora, J. La trampa de una

401

ventana (ECOIAPAR) captura más broca del café Hypothenemus hampei que la trampa

402

de tres ventanas (ETOTRAP). Entomol. Mexicana 2008, 7, 619-624.

403

(46) Uemura-Lima, D. H.; Ventura, M. U.; Mikami, A. Y.; da Silva, F. C.; Morales, L.

404

Responses of coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) (Coleoptera:

405

Scolytidae), to vertical distribution of methanol: ethanol traps. Neotrop. Entomol. 2010,

406

39, 930-933.

407

(47) Pereira, A. E.; Vilela, E. F.; Tinoco, R. S.; de Lima, J. O. G.; Fantine, A. K.;

408

Morais, E. G. F.; Franca, C. F. M. Correlation between numbers captured and infestation

409

levels of the coffee berry-borer, Hypothenemus hampei: a preliminary basis for an action

410

threshold using baited traps. Int. J. Pest Manage. 2012, 58, 183-190.

411 412

(48) Pedigo, L. P.; Rice, M. E. Entomology and pest management. Sixth ed., 2015, Waveland Press Inc. Long Grove, IL.

413

(49) Castro, L.; Benavides, P.; Bustillo, A. E. Dispersión y mortalidad de

414

Hypothenemus hampei durante la recolección y beneficio del café. Manejo Integrado de

415

Plagas 1998, 50, 19-28.

416

(50) Moreno-Valencia, D.; Bustillo-Pardey, A. E.; Benavides-Machado, P.; Montoya-

417

Restrepo, E. C. Escape y mortalidad de Hypothenemus hampei en los procesos de

418

recolección y beneficio del café en Colombia. Cenicafé 2001, 52, 111-116.

419

(51) Benavides Machado, P. Evite la dispersión de la broca durante la recolección y

420

beneficio del café. BROCARTA, Boletín Informativo sobre la Broca del Café No. 40,

421

Cenicafé 2010, Chinchiná, Caldas, Colombia.


Page 19 of 24


19 422

(52) Dufour, B.; Frérot, B. Optimization of coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei

423

Ferrari (Col., Scolytidae), mass trapping with an attractant mixture. J. Appl. Entomol.

424

2008, 132, 591-600.

425

(53) Krishnan, S.; Kushalappab, C. G.; Shaanker, R. U.; Ghazoul, J. Status of

426

pollinators and their efficiency in coffee fruit set in a fragmented landscape mosaic in

427

South India. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2012, 13, 277-285.

428 429

(54) Villaseñor Luque, A. Cafeticultura moderna en México. 1987, Editorial Futura, Texcoco, México. 469 pp.

430

(55) Costa Mota, L. H.; Silva, W. D.; Alcarde Sermarini, R.; Borges Demétrio, C. G.;

431

Bento, J. M. S.; Delalibera, I. Autoinoculation trap for management of Hypothenemus

432

hampei (Ferrari) with Beauveria bassiana (Bals.) in coffee crops. Biol. Control 2017,

433

111, 32-39.

434

(56) Castillo, A.; Gómez, J.; Infante, F.; Vega, F. E. Susceptibilidad del parasitoide

435

Phymastichus coffea LaSalle (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) a Beauveria bassiana en

436

condiciones de laboratorio. Neotrop. Entomol. 2009, 38, 665-670.

437

(57) Baker, P. S.; Barrera, J. F.; Rivas, A. Life-history studies of the coffee berry borer

438

(Hypothenemus hampei, Scolytidae) on coffee trees in southern Mexico. J. App. Ecol.

439

1992, 29, 656-662.

440

(58) Pérez, J.; Infante, F.; Vega, F. E.; Holguín, F.; Macías, J.; Valle, J.; Nieto, G.;

441

Peterson, F. W.; Kurtzman, C. P.; O’Donnell, K. Mycobiota associated with the coffee

442

berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) in Mexico. Mycol. Res. 2003, 107, 879-887.

443

(59) Carrión, G.; Bonet, A. Mycobiota associated with the coffee berry borer

444

(Coleoptera: Scolytidae) and its galleries in fruit. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2004, 97, 492-

445

499.



Page 20 of 24

20 446

(60) Ceja-Navarro, J. A.; Vega, F. E.; Karaoz, U.; Hao, Z.; Jenkins, S.; Lim, H. C.;

447

Kosina, P.; Infante, F.; Northen, T. R.; Brodie, E. L. Gut microbiota mediate caffeine

448

detoxification in the primary insect pest of coffee. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 7618.

449

(61) Vega, F. E.; Brown, S. M.; Chen, H.; Shen, E.; Nair, M. B.; Ceja-Navarro, J. A.;

450

Brodie, E. L.; Infante, F.; Dowd, P. F.; Pain, A. Draft genome of the most devastating

451

insect pest of coffee worldwide: the coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei. Sci. Rep.

452

2015, 5, 12525.

453

(62) Borbón-Martínez, O., Mora Alfaro, O.; Cam Oehlschlager, A.; González, L. M.

454

Proyecto de trampas, atrayentes y repelentes para el control de la broca del fruto de

455

cafeto, Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Memoria del XIX Simposio

456

Latinoamericano de Caficultura, San José, Costa Rica, 2000, pp. 331-348.

457

(63) Jaramillo, J.; Torto, B.; Mwenda, D.; Troeger, A.; Borgemeister, C.; Poehling, H.

458

M.; Francke, W. Coffee berry borer joins bark beetles in coffee klatch. PLoS ONE, 2013,

459

8, e74277.

460

(64) Vega, F. E.; Simpkins, A.; Miranda, J.; Harnly, J.; Infante, F.; Castillo, A.;

461

Wakarchuk, D.; Cossé, A. A potential repellent against the coffee berry borer

462

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). J. Insect Sci. 2017, 17(6): 122; 1-9.

463 464


Page 21 of 24


21 465 Figure Legends

466 467 468

Fig. 1. The conceptual strategy to control the coffee berry borer, using a combination of

469

several methods of control, based on the fruiting phenology of coffee.

470 471

Fig. 2. Graphic representation of the experiment conducted by Ceja-Navarro et al.

472

(2015) confirming that the bacterium Pseudomonas fulva plays an important role in

473

caffeine degradation in the alimentary canal of the coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus

474

hampei.

475



TOC Graphic 254x190mm (96 x 96 DPI)


Page 22 of 24

Page 23 of 24


Figure 1 254x190mm (96 x 96 DPI)



Figure 2 254x190mm (96 x 96 DPI)


Page 24 of 24

Pest Management Strategies Against the Coffee Berry Borer

Recommend Documents