Berry-feeding Insects - CABI.org · 4 Berry-feeding Insects Introduction ... Coffee Pests, Diseases...

4 Berry-feeding Insects

Introduction

Many of the insects that feed on green berries are also found on leaves or greenshoots, and these are dealt with in Chapter 5. These include scale insects(Coccoidea) of various kinds, leaf-eating caterpillars (Lepidoptera) in severalfamilies, mites (Acari) and some Orthoptera, including grasshoppers and treecrickets. The insects dealt with in this chapter include the more important speciesthat feed primarily on berries, although Antestia bugs can damage green shootsalso.

Coffee Berry Borer

Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) [Coleoptera: Scolytidae]

Morphology

The female adult beetle is 1.5–2.0 mm long × 1 mm wide; the adult male issmaller, but this can vary somewhat from place to place, American specimensbeing somewhat smaller than Old World specimens. When first emerging, thebeetle is brown, but as it matures over the next few days it becomes black,with a reddish tinge to the thorax. The pupae are a similar length to the adultand the larvae are a little smaller, having a white body and brown head (seeFig. 4.1).

© J.M. Waller, M. Bigger and R.J. Hillocks 2007. Coffee Pests, Diseases and their 68 Management (J.M. Waller, M. Bigger and R.J. Hillocks)

Pest status and distribution

A serious pest in many countries of low-altitude arabica and robusta coffee(CABI, 1981). Damage by the coffee berry borer is rarely severe at altitudes >1370 m, and this species has not been found > 1680 m. The centre of origin ofthe species is in some doubt, but must have been somewhere in West orCentral Africa. Morstatt (1941) considered it to have originated in the areaaround Lake Victoria, but Schedl (1961) disputes this. Bredo (1939) points outthat at the time he was writing, the beetle had never been found in truly wildcoffee in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The beetle was described byFerrari (as Cryphalus) in 1867 from beetles found in stored produce, but thecountry of origin is not recorded.

The first field record of berry borer was from material collected by O.F.Cook in Liberia in 1897, and described as Stephanoderes cooki Hopkins(Hopkins, 1915), now considered to be a synonym of H. hampei. It wasreported from Gabon in 1901, the Congo Republic and Chad in 1902–1904,Uganda in 1908, Angola in 1909 and the Democratic Republic of Congo in1911 (Schedl, 1961). In 1914 in Tanzania, damage to coffee was restricted torobusta to the west of Lake Victoria (Morstatt, 1914), although he found it tooccur in the Usambara Mountains but not on coffee. By 1929 it was affectingareas to the east of Lake Victoria, but did not reach the arabica-growing areasof Kilimanjaro until 1968. The first report of the insect in Kenya was in 1928(Wilkinson, 1928).

It appeared at an early date in Indonesia, presumably as an import from

Berry-feeding Insects 69

Fig. 4.1. Adult and larva of Hypothenemus hampei.

West Africa. Kalshoven (1950–1951) gives 1909 as the date of the first recordfrom Java, but Schedl (1961) cites a report from there by Zimmermann in1904. The first records from Sumatra are around 1919, from Malaysia 1928(Corbett, 1933), from Sri Lanka 1935 (Hutson, 1936) and from the Philippines1965 (Anon, 1965). After the Second World War it spread across the Pacific,being recorded from New Caledonia in 1948 (Cohic, 1958) and Tahiti in 1963(Johnston, 1963). It was found in Irian Jaya in 1961 (Thomas, 1961), but sofar has not reached Papua New Guinea. Hypothenemus hampei was notreported in India until 1990 but, 10 years later, some 36% of the coffee in the‘traditional’ coffee areas was affected (Reddy and Rao, 1999).

The first report from the New World was in 1922, when a new Scolytidfound boring into coffee twigs in the São Paulo region of Brazil was namedXyleborus coffeicola by De Campos Novaes (1922). This was shown by DaCosta Lima (1924) to be synonymous with H. hampei. It gradually spread tothe other coffee-growing states of Brazil, and later to other South andCentral American countries. It reached Peru in 1961 and had moved fromthere to Ecuador by 1981. It gradually spread north through Ecuador andreached Colombia in 1988 (Cárdenas and Posada, 2001) and Venezuela in1995.

In Central America and the Caribbean, it was discovered first in Guatemalain 1971 (Hernandez Paz and Penagos Dardon, 1974), and from thence spreadto Honduras in 1977, Mexico (Baker, 1984) and Jamaica (Reid, 1983) in1978, El Salvador in 1981, Nicaragua in 1988, Cuba in 1994 (Vega et al.,2002), the Dominican Republic in 1995 (Vega et al., 2002) and Costa Rica in2000. Extensive surveys reported by Vega et al. (2002) failed to find the pest inPuerto Rico, and the authors conclude that Le Pelley’s inclusion of the island inthe original distribution list was incorrect.

Damage

Hypothenemus hampei invades mostly older berries and cuts through the berryto penetrate the bean through a small hole at or near the apex of large green orripe berries (see Fig 4.2). In Colombia, a high rate of survival and speedydevelopment of the larvae required berries that were at least 120 days old(Baker, 1999). The larvae then consume one or both seeds (see Plate 4).

Damaged berries either fall or are rotted by secondary bacterial and fungalgrowth. Wet rot in the mesocarp of berries superficially damaged by H. hampeihas been associated with the bacteria Erwinia steartii and E. salicis (Sponagel,1994, cited in Damon, 2000). Attacks are more severe where coffee is grownunder heavy shade and where pruning has been neglected.

Host range

Breeding takes place almost entirely in Coffea species, with C. arabica beingthe most attractive, followed by C. canephora, C. dewevrei, C. dybowskii, C.

70 Chapter 4

excelsa and finally C. liberica (Le Pelley, 1968). It should be noted that in arecent review of the genus Coffea by Davis et al. (see Chapter 1), the status ofsome of these species has changed, and C. dewevrei, C. dybowskii and C.excelsa are shown to be synonyms of C. liberica var. dewevrei. The fruits ofwild coffee growing in dense forest are often heavily infested.

There is quite a long list of plants, other than coffee, from which H. hampeihas been recorded (see Table 4.1), and it has been assumed by many authors(e.g. Le Pelley, 1968; Hill, 1975) that these are either exploratory attacks by thebeetle on plants in which it cannot breed or that the beetle has been confusedwith other, similar, species of Scolytid. However, it seems likely that the beetle isable to breed in certain leguminous hosts.

Ghesquiere (1933) found all stages of the beetle in pods of Dialiumengleranum in Democratic Republic of Congo, and Morallo-Rejesus and Baldos(1980) found eggs, larvae and pupae in Leucaena leucocephala and Gliricidiasepium in the Philippines, as well as in other non-leguminous hosts, whilstCABI (2003) reports that the beetle has been experimentally reared toadulthood on Melicocca bijuga in Colombia and on Cajanus cajan inGuatemala. It seems, therefore, that Leguminosae should not be overlooked aspossible alternative hosts for the beetle.


Fig. 4.2. Cross-section of coffee berry to show how the nest tunnel of Hypothenemushampei is initiated from the apex of the fruit.

72 Chapter 4

Table 4.1. Host plants of H. hampei other than Coffea (from Schedl, 1961 except whereindicated).

Family Species Reported locations

ApocynaceaePleiocarpa tubicina Democratic Republic of Congo

BignoniaceaeSpathodea campanulata Democratic Republic of Congo

DioscoriaceaeDioscorea sp. Philippinesa

GuttiferaeAllanblackia floribunda Democratic Republic of CongoMammea africana Democratic Republic of Congo

Leguminosae (sensu lato)Caesalpinia pulcherrima Democratic Republic of CongoCajanus cajan GuatemalaCentrosema plumeri JavaCrotalaria sp. JavaDialium engleranum Democratic Republic of CongoGliricidia sepium Philippinesa

Leucaena leucocephala Java, Philippinesa

Melicocca bijuga Colombiac

Oxystigma oxyphyllum Democratic Republic of CongoPhaseolus lunatus Uganda, Nigeriab

Tephrosia candida SumatraTephrosia sp. Java

MalvaceaeHibiscus sp. Democratic Republic of Congo

MeliaceaeTrichilia gilgiana Democratic Republic of Congo

MyristicaceaePycnanthus angolensis Democratic Republic of Congo

RosaceaeEriobothrya japonica New CaledoniaRubus sp. Tanzania

RubiaceaeNauclea diderrichii Democratic Republic of CongoOxyanthus sp. UgandaPsychotria (two spp.) Philippinesa

SterculiaceaeCola sp. near lateritia Democratic Republic of CongoTheobroma cacao Democratic Republic of Congo

VerbeneaceaeVitex lanceolaria Java

a Morallo-Rejesus and Baldos (1980).b Ghesquiere (1933).c CABI (2003).

Life cycle

The life cycle of H. hampei takes 28–35 d from egg-laying to the mature beetle,but the beetle often remains in the berry for 1–2 weeks before emerging.Having a preference for older berries, the life cycle may not be completedbefore harvest and there is therefore a danger of spreading the beetle withingreen beans (see Chapter 14). The female beetle bores through the berry intothe bean and lays eggs in the tunnel. Over a period of 3–7 weeks, up to 60eggs may be laid, which hatch in 5–9 d (Ticheler, 1961; Waterhouse andNorris, 1989). The larvae feed on the bean for 10–16 d. The females moulttwice before pupation and the pupal stage lasts for 4–9 d.

The female becomes sexually mature soon after emergence, is fertilized bythe male within the berry and is capable of laying eggs 3–4 d later. Malescannot fly and are capable of fertilizing up to 30 females during their lifespan(Bergamin cit. in Wrigley, 1988). Males live for 20–87 d and females up to 157d (Barrera, 1994). Where coffee berries are present all year round, as inUganda, H. hampei may produce eight or nine generations, completing its lifecycle every 30 d (Hargreaves, H., 1935). In Colombia, however, only two orthree generations are produced each year (Montoya and Cardenas-Murillo,1994).

Rate of growth and reproduction is greatest at 29–33°C. The mating systemappears to be inbreeding, with a male:female ratio of 1:10, and there are threeinstars (Vijayalakshmi et al., 2002). Many species of Scolytidae rely on thepresence of ‘ambrosia’ fungi within their burrows as a source of nutrients, andit has recently been shown (Morales-Ramos et al., 2000) that H. hampei isdependent on Fusarium solani for successful breeding, and that the spores ofthis fungus accumulate in pits situated behind upward- and backward-pointingasperites on the prothorax of the female beetle, and so are carried by her to afresh burrow.

Control

At altitudes where berry borer is a problem, the incidence of damage caused bythe pest can be reduced by thinning of shade trees and pruning the coffeebushes to open the canopy. The crop should be picked at 2-week intervalsduring peak fruiting season, and all ripe or dried berries should be removedfrom the tree, cleared from the ground and destroyed.

Although there are several insecticides that are effective against berry borer,the beetle is protected to some extent from their effect by spending much of itslife cycle within the berry. Spraying may do more harm than good, bydestroying natural enemies. However, effective control has been achieved withendosulphan, and its use has been widely adopted in South America (Baker,1999) and, more recently, its use has been evaluated in India (Rahman andVijayalakshmi, 1999).

By the late 1980s, resistance to the insecticide had already begun toappear in New Caledonia following 10 years of use (Brun et al., 1989; Brun


and Suckling, 1992). Concerns over the human toxicity of endosulphan, andits misuse by poorly educated farmers in developing countries, have led to callsfor it to be banned. The active ingredient was banned for use on coffee inColombia in 1978, but it is only recently that steps have been taken to enforcethe ban (Tovigan et al., 2001). Chlorpyrifos is reported to be as effective asendosulphan in India (Balakrishnan et al., 2001).

Hypothenemus hampei is indigenous to central Africa, where threeimportant natural enemies have been known for more than 40 years. Two ofthese are Bethylid wasps: Prorops nasuta Waterston and Cephalonomiastephanoderis Betrem, and a Braconid: Heterospilus coffeicola Schmiedeknecht.Prorops nasuta acts as both parasite and predator, the adult feeding on eggs andyoung larvae while the larvae attack fully-grown larvae and pupae. Proropsnasuta has been introduced into Indonesia, Brazil and Sri Lanka and, althoughthe number of infested berries was reduced, it was not sufficient to preventserious losses from berry borer.

Prorops nasuta was introduced into Mexico in 1985 and Equador in 1987,where it was successfully reared and released (Murphy and Rangi, 1991), but itfailed to establish in Mexico, due partly to the action of predatory ants andspiders (Infante et al., 2003). Cephalonomia stephanoderis is the mostimportant natural enemy in Côte d’Ivoire, where about half the berries attackedby H. hampei contained the parasite. The larvae parasitize the last larval stageof H. hampei and the adults feed on adult borers, resulting in considerablereduction in the borer population (Ticheler, 1961). Cephalonomiastephanoderis has been introduced into South America and it established wellfollowing its introduction into Mexico in 1985.

Rates of parasitism were high initially close to release sites, but fell to lessthan 10% after only a few months (Gutierrez et al., 1998; Baker, 1999).Heterospilus coffeicola was discovered in Uganda and occurs elsewhere inAfrica. The parasite larvae feed on the eggs of H. hampei, and sometimes onthe young larvae. Several attempts to rear this parasite have failed.

Another wasp, Phymastichus coffea Lasalle, was reported first from Togo(LaSalle, 1990), but it is distributed throughout the coffee-growing areas ofWest Africa across to East Africa, where it has been recorded in Burundi andKenya (Decazy, 1991). The larvae develop endoparsitically on H. hampeiadults. Phymastichus coffea was introduced into Colombia in 1997 (Baker,1999), where it established, and rates of parasitism as high as 67% have beenrecorded, indicating that this might be the most promising of the naturalenemies for classical biological control of the borer.

In the late 1990s, Cephalonomia hyalinipennis Ashmead was discoverednaturally attacking H. hampei in Mexico (Perez-Lachaud and Hardy, 1999),and preliminary investigations suggested that rates of attack were sufficientlyhigh for C. hyalinipennis to be suitable for mass rearing and release. In Mexico,where both C. stephanoderis and C. hylinipennis have been released, theyhave been shown to compete with one another and it was concluded that C.stehanoderis is the more successful (Perez-Lachaud et al., 2002). Damon andValle (2002) estimated that, although kill rates with C. stephanoderis could beimproved by releasing parasitized hosts rather than adults, 59 million

74 Chapter 4

parasitoids would be required per ha of coffee to obtain 65% kill. Theyconcluded that this method of control on its own could never be economicallyviable.

In Colombia, Cenicafé has developed processes for the mass production ofseveral coffee berry borer parasitoids: Cephalonomia stephanoderis, Proropsnasuta and Phymastichus coffea. The technology has been transferred tocommercial laboratories and the commercial preparations are available tocoffee farmers.

Wherever berry borer is found, the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveriabassiana is also present as a natural infection. Conidia of the fungus adhere tothe cuticle of H. hampei, where they germinate and penetrate the cuticle,proliferating internally to destroy the insect. Commercial preparations of thefungus are widely available. Experiments conducted with B. bassiana inColombia have shown mortality rates of berry borer to be over 70% but, intaking up to 30 d to achieve mortality after application of the fungus, damageto the bean was not always prevented. Using high-volume sprayers, it wasconcluded that the large spore numbers required for high mortality rates wereuneconomic. The number of conidia required to reach 70% mortality could bedecreased by using low-volume spinning disc spray technology, but thismethod would still require a higher-quality product than was commerciallyavailable (Baker, 1999).

Research continues in South America (e.g. Edgington et al., 2000), India(e.g. Haraprasad et al., 2001) and elsewhere to improve the quality ofinoculum of B. bassiana and to improve delivery methods. Molecular markershave also been used in an attempt to identify those isolates with the greatestpotential for control of berry borer (Velez-Arango et al., 2001). Some successhas also been reported with a Fusarium sp. (Diaz et al., 2003).

Entomopathogenic nematodes have also been investigated for berry borercontrol: Steinernema carpocapse (Weisser), Steinernema spp. andHeterorhabditis bacteriophora (Poiner) have all showed high mortality rates onH. hampei larvae in laboratory tests (Castillo and Marban-Mendoza, 1996).

Salazar et al. (2003) emphasize the importance of postharvest control inColombia, where farmers are encouraged to cover the harvested berries withplastic lids smeared with grease that prevent entry of, and trap, the borer.

Attempts to integrate cultural control with biological control using B.bassiana in Mexico showed that, as in Colombia, B. bassiana made littlecontribution to control due to the poor quality of the commercial product(Jarquin-Galvez et al., 1999). It was concluded that in organic productionsystems, the most cost-effective measure was to ensure that all berries wereremoved from the tree and cleared from the ground after picking. In India,there are a number of cultural measures recommended to manage the disease.Spot-spraying with endosulphan has also been recommended where outbreaksoccur, but only once, during April–May and, if necessary, once more inJuly–August. Application of endosulphan 35 EC was recommended at the rateof 340 ml/200 l of water, and applied only to the berries in the affected area(Reddy and Rao, 1999).

The use of traps containing alcohols as an IPM component in the


management of borers was developed in Central America and has beenadopted elsewhere (Dufour et al., 2001). In India, following the introduction ofIPM systems in Karnataka, a study of 476 estates conducted in Kodoga Districtfound that 94% practised clean harvesting, 92% collected gleanings, 86% usedpicking mats, 30% had adopted the recently introduced ‘broca’ traps and only16% resorted to spraying, which was discouraged by extension, except as a lastresort (Nagarajaiah and Kumar, 2003).

Where cultural, chemical and biological control with B. bassiana have beenintegrated in Latin America, it has been found that the performance of thebiological control agent is unreliable and that chemical control has to be usedwith cultural control to be fully effective. The main component giving thegreatest economic benefit was cultural control, mainly gleaning of berries(Benavides et al., 2002).

Berry Moth

Prophantis smaragdina (Butler), P. octoguttalis (Felder and Rogenhofer),Thliptoceras longicornalis (Mabile) [Lepidoptera: Pyralidae]

Morphology

The adult is a golden-brown moth with a wingspan of 1.3–2.0 cm. The larva isa pink/red caterpillar with dark markings and about 1.3 cm long when fullygrown. The eggs are scale-like and usually found on green berries (Le Pelley,1968; CRF, 1978) (see Fig. 4.3).


There has been some confusion over the identity of coffee berry-boringPyralids in the past, and they have been reported under a number of differentnames. Prophantis smaragdina is widespread across much of sub-SaharanAfrica and the Indian Ocean islands, including Madagascar and parts of Asia.

On coffee, it has been recorded from Cameroon, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya,Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Nigeria, Réunion, São Tomé and Príncipe,Tanzania, Uganda, Yemen, Democratic Republic of Congo and Zimbabwe.Prophantis octoguttalis is found in Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines andTaiwan, and has been recorded from coffee in India. Thliptoceras longicornalis isknown only from Madagascar and has been recorded on coffee in that country.A record of P. octoguttalis and its parasite, Microbracon sp., from the DemocraticRepublic of Congo (De Saeger, 1943) almost certainly refers to P. smaragdina.

Evidence of berry moth can usually be seen at low incidence in Tanzaniaand Malawi. However, severe attacks have been recorded at low altitude, withheavy loss of berries. Berry moth is said to have been the principal cause of thedecline of coffee cultivation in Réunion (Chevalier, 1947), and is still a cause of

76 Chapter 4

concern to the present revival of coffee on that island (Descroix, 2004). InYemen, up to 60% infestation is reported (Ba-Angood and Al-Sunaidi, 2004).During the late 1970s, it was reported that P. smaragdina was becoming a moreimportant coffee pest in Kenya (CRF, 1978). This suggests that regular sprayingwith insecticides may decrease control by natural enemies. Berry thinningcaused by berry moth and similar pests may be regarded as beneficial when itresults in thinning of overbearing branches.

Damage

The larvae bore into berries and destroy the seed. Sometimes whole berriesmay be consumed, and the larvae have been known to feed on the skin of olderberries or flower buds and even on shoots. Silk webs around affected clusters ofberries indicate the presence of this berry moth larva. Damage by berry mothhas sometimes been confused with that caused by coffee berry disease, but thewebbing on berry clusters is the distinguishing feature (see Plate 5).

Host range

Occurs mostly on C. arabica. The only recorded alternate hosts are therubiaceous shrubs Tricalysia sp. (Le Pelley, 1959) – a genus which is widelydistributed through Africa, and Bertiera zaluzania, endemic to Mauritius(Kaiser, 2005), a genus which is also widely distributed across Africa.

Life cycle

Eggs are laid usually singly, on green berries and hatch in about 6 days. Thelarvae bore into the berries to feed on the seed before moving on to feed on


Fig. 4.3. Prophantis smaragdina, adult.

berries. As they move across the berry cluster they spin a web of silk, thusjoining the cluster together. The larval period lasts about 14 d and the fully-grown larva passes through a resting stage before falling to the ground. Pupationoccurs between two leaves stuck together and lasts for between six and 42 ddepending on conditions (CRF, 1978). After the adult moth emerges, there is apre-oviposition period of 3–4 d and the moth then lives for about 14 d.

Natural enemies

The larvae are heavily parasitized, but the natural enemies are not well studieddue to the low pest status of berry moth. An egg parasite, Trichogrammatoideasp., is reported from Sao Tome and Principe (Derron, 1977), and four speciesof Braconids, an Ichneumonid and two Tachinids attack the larvae (seeAppendix A). Ndungi (1994) summarizes the situation in Kenya.

Control

Berry moth is probably kept in check by its natural enemies, and spraying isnot usually required. If buds or young berries are being eaten in significantnumbers soon after the main flowering period, it may be necessary to spray.Fenitrothion, fenthion, fenvalerate, chlorpyrifos and deltamethrine have beenrecommended in Kenya (Anon, 1992). To be effective, spraying must becarried out before most of the larvae have hatched and entered the berries.

Tapley and Materu (1961) experimented with a 1% spore suspension ofBacillus thuringiensis for control of P. smaragdina in Tanzania in small-scaletests and obtained fairly promising results both in the laboratory and in thefield, but these results were never followed up. In Yemen an extract of Ficussalicifolia has been tested experimentally, apparently with some success (Ba-Angood and Sunaidi, 2004). There are no current recommendations forsuitable insecticides, and local advice should thus be sought.

Berry Butterfly

Deudorix lorisona Hewitson [Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae]

Morphology

The male of this butterfly has a wingspan of around 25 mm. The forewings aredark brown, with two red spots near the middle of the wing, whilst the hindwings are red with a black border and short, hair-like tails. The wings of thefemale are typically brown, with a yellow spot in each wing, but the pattern canbe variable. The larva is green–brown in colour, about 20 mm long and withbristly hairs.

78 Chapter 4


The berry butterfly is a minor pest of coffee. It occurs from West Africa throughto East Africa and southwards into Southern Africa, and on coffee has beenrecorded from Guinea, Sierra Leone, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Cameroon,Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Yemen. In Kenya (Anon, 1967), it issaid to be confined to arabica coffee, but in Sierra Leone, Hargreaves E.(1937) recorded an attack on robusta, excelsa (now = C. liberica var.dewevrei) and liberica coffee, with a preference for larger fruits. A secondaryhost is the rubiaceous shrub Heinsia crinita (Afzel.) G.Taylor.

Life cycle

The single egg is attached to the side of the green berry. Occasionally, two eggsare laid, but only one survives (Hargreaves, E., 1937). The hatching larva eatsdirectly into the berry, where it completely consumes the contents, leaving anempty shell. The larval stage lasts around 21 d and during this time up to tenfruits may be eaten. Pupation takes place in a chamber hollowed out of deadwood (Anon, 1967) and lasts 10–11 d.

Natural enemies

A species of Bracon has been recorded as a natural enemy of the larva inKenya (Le Pelley, 1959) and unspecified hymenopterous parasites in Uganda(Le Pelley, 1968) and Sierra Leone (Hargreaves, E., 1937).

Antestia Bug (variegated coffee bug)

Antestiopsis spp. Mainly A. intricata (Ghesquiere and Carayon) and sub-speciesof A. orbitalis (Westwood) [Hemiptera: Pentatomidae]

Morphology

The eggs are a dull white, about 1.2 × 1.0 mm and usually laid in groups oftwelve. The adult bug has a flattened shield shape, is about 7–9 mm long (seeFig. 4.4) and dark brown in colour, with patches of orange, black and white.Colourings vary with race. Nymphs are similar to the adult in colour but aremore circular in shape, lack wings and reach 3–4 mm in length (Greathead,1966a; Wrigley, 1988).



Antestia bugs are a major pest of arabica coffee in all the main coffee-growingareas of Africa and minor pests in parts of Asia, but do not occur in the NewWorld. The three main African species are: (i) A. intricata (Ghesquiere andCarayon), which has a generally western distribution (CABI, 1978a); (ii) thecentrally located A. orbitalis ghesquierei Carayon; and (iii) A. orbitalisbechuana (Kirkcaldy) to the east (CABI, 1978b).

In addition, there are pockets of other species such as: (i) A. facetoidesGreathead in the eastern parts of Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania; (ii) A.clymeneis galtei (Frappa) in Madagascar; and (iii) forms of A. orbitalis orbitalisin South Africa. Although A. orbitalis is distributed throughout South Africa, inmany localities it does not occur on coffee (Greathead, 1966a, 1969) (see Fig.4.5).

Apart from Africa, species of Antestiopsis and Antestia are found in India,Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Antestia partita wasconsidered to be a serious pest in Java at the beginning of the 20th century, butthereafter declined in importance (Kalshoven, 1950–51).

80 Chapter 4

Fig. 4.4. Adults of the principal African Antestiopsis species: (a) A. orbitalis bechuana, (b) A.orbitalis ghesquierei and (c) A. intricata.

Records of Antestiopsis from coffee are as follows:

● A. intricata: Benin, Cameroon, Congo, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia, Gabon,Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Nigeria, Sudan, Togo, Uganda, DemocraticRepublic of Congo

● A. orbitalis bechuana: Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe● A. orbitalis ghesquierei: Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania,

Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo● A. orbitalis (various forms): Mozambique, South Africa● A. crypta Greathead: Democratic Republic of Congo● A. falsa (Schouteden): Mozambique, South Africa● A. facetoides Greathead: Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Zanzibar● A. clymeneis galtei (Frappa): Madagascar● A. cruciata (Fabricius): India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka● A. semiviridis (Walker): Papua New Guinea● Antestia partita (Walker): Indonesia Java and Sumatra.


Fig. 4.5. Sketch map showing the approximate range of the main African species andsubspecies of Antestiopsis (adapted from distribution maps in Greathead, 1966, 1969).

Although encouraged by dense foliage on the coffee bush, Antestia preferscoffee grown without shade and at lower altitudes rather than the cooler, wetterconditions at higher altitude.

Damage

The adult bug prefers to feed on green berries and flower buds but, ifnecessary, it can also feed on green twigs. Feeding causes blackening of theflower buds and premature falling of berries. Large numbers of Antestia duringthe onset of the rains can greatly reduce the number of flowers that develop.The adult may also feed on mature berries, inserting its proboscis to suck outthe sap. This causes little direct damage to the berry but may introduce twoyeast-like fungi, Nematospora coryli and N. gossypii, and this fungal growthcauses a sunken, discoloured patch on the berry surface.

Development of the fungus within the bean converts it to a soft, whitepaste, a condition known as ‘posho beans’ in Kenya, but the condition variesfrom complete rotting to slight black spotting. Such beans are of no value andthe internal damage may not be seen until the berries are pulped. Antestia isvery mobile and may probe several berries before feeding on one and, in thisway, can quickly spread Nematospora to a large number of berries. After thecrop has been harvested, Antestia bugs sometimes feed on the green shoots atthe tips of the branches, causing shoot proliferation that gives a ‘witches’broom’ effect. If this is extensive, it can be difficult to restore normal branching,requiring several seasons of careful pruning (Le Pelley, 1968).

Host range

The preferred host is Coffea arabica, but both A orbitalis ghesquierei and A.intricata have been recorded from Coffea canephora and the latter from C.liberica, and doubtfully from excelsa (C. liberica var dewevrei). Alternative hostplants of A. intricata were identified by Taylor (1945) in Uganda, and a full listof the known host plants of all the African species is given by Greathead(1966a).

Life cycle

The duration of each stage of the life cycle varies considerably withtemperature, being speeded up at high temperatures and slowed down at lowerones. Kirkpatrick (1937) found the development period of the egg to be 5–6 dat 24°C and 8–10 d at 19°C, while the total period of development from egg toadult varied from about 50 d at 24°C to 90 d at 19°C. The female does notbegin to lay eggs until about 19 d after becoming an adult. Thereafter, it will layabout 160 eggs during its lifetime of about 3 months (Kirkpatrick, 1937; seeFig. 4.6).

82 Chapter 4

Natural enemies

Several species of hymenopterous parasites attack the eggs (see Appendix A fora full list) and, broadly speaking, these are common to the three main Antestiaspecies (Greathead, 1996b). The Scelionids, Telenomus seychellensis Kiefferand Gryon fulviventre (Crawford), are the most important, (dealt with by LePelley, 1968 as Asolcus seychellensis and Hadronotus antestiae), causingbetween 63 and 90% mortality (Le Pelley, 1968).

A further set of parasites attack the adults and nymphs, including aStrepsipteran, Corioxenos antestiae Blair. This does not actually kill the adults,


Fig. 4.6. Life cycle of Antestiopsis orbitalis bechuana in East Africa.

but renders them sterile. Some Reduviid predators of adults and nymphs of A.intricata have been recorded from West Africa (Carayon, 1954), but do notappear to have much effect as control agents.

Control

Insecticidal sprays should be avoided if possible in coffee gardens, but Antestiacan cause losses at low population density. Two – or, in wetter areas, a singlebug or nymph – per tree is the action threshold. With its long life and highfecundity, Antestia would be a much more serious pest if it were not for naturalcontrol by parasites.

However, natural control is sometimes insufficient to keep the pestpopulation below the very low action threshold. If spraying becomes necessary,fenitrothion is the insecticide most commonly recommended. Pest levels maybe kept below the action threshold, certainly in drier areas, by pruning thecoffee bushes for an open canopy, as Antestia prefers dense foliage (Le Pelley,1968).

Fruit Fly

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann), Trirhithrum coffeae Bezzi, Anastrephafraterculus (Wiedemann) [Diptera: Tephritidae]

Morphology

Ceratitis capitata is a colourful fly, 5–6 mm long, with red eyes. The thorax isyellowish white with a number of black spots and patches, and with theabdomen predominantly yellow to orange brown. The wings are clear withbrown patches.

The adult of A. fraterculus has a yellowish or orange brown thorax withpaler longitudinal stripes laterally, and the transparent wings are patterned withtranverse brown stripes. Trirhithrum coffeae is dark brown in colour with awhite face and irregular dark wing markings. The larvae of all species aretypical legless white fly larvae, around 5 mm long when fully grown, with acylindrical body tapering towards the head end and the extremity of theabdomen, where the spiracles are situated, flat. (see Fig. 4.7).


A number of species of Tephritidae have been recorded from coffee in thegenera Anastrepha, Batrocera, Ceratitis and Trirhithrum, but the most importantare: (i) Anastrepha fraterculus, found throughout South and Central America; (ii)Trirhithrum coffeae, which is distributed across sub-Saharan Africa; and (iii)

84 Chapter 4

Ceratitis capitata, the Mediterranean fruit fly, which is now distributed widelyaround the Mediterranean, Africa and Central and South America (CABI,1984).

The latter was introduced into Hawaii around 1910 and Brazil about 1923,and has since spread through many South and Central American countries,reaching Costa Rica in 1955, El Salvador in 1975 and Mexico in 1977. Speciesof Anastrepha are difficult to distinguish and it is very likely that mis-identifications have occurred in the past, so they have not been specified in thelist below.

Records of the species found on coffee are as follows:

Anastrepha spp.

● Central America and Caribbean: Panama, Trinidad and Tobago, Cuba● South America: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela

Ceratitis capitata

● Central America: Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua● South America: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela● Atlantic Ocean: Canary Islands, Madeira, São Tomé and Príncipe● West Africa: Cameroon, Togo● Central Africa: Democratic Republic of Congo● Eastern Africa: Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda● Southern Africa: South Africa, Zimbabwe● Indian Ocean: Réunion, Yemen● Pacific Ocean: Hawaii


Fig. 4.7. Adult and larva of Ceratitis capitata.

Trirhithrum coffeae

● West Africa: Cameroon, Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Togo● Central Africa: Democratic Republic of Congo● Eastern Africa: Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda.

The larvae of fruit flies feed in the pulp of the ripe berries and do notdirectly damage the beans within. There is some controversy as to whethereconomic damage is caused to coffee by their feeding. In Brazil, Souza et al.(2005) considered that fruit flies cause premature dropping of fruit and decreasecoffee quality, and in Colombia it was found that there was detriment to qualityif attack began when the fruits were first ripening (Portilla et al., 1995).

On the other hand, Abasa (1973) could not induce off-flavour in coffeeliquor by exposing berries to C. capitata attack in Kenya, and premature fruit-fall as a result of this exposure was only 2.8%. Le Pelley (1968) quotes work byStolp in the Democratic Republic of Congo in which he found off-flavour inArabica coffee to be due to a bacterium that he thought was gaining entry tothe cherry during oviposition by the fruit flies. There is no doubt, however, thatthe primary importance of coffee as a fruit fly host is because it provides areservoir from which citrus and many other tropical and sub-tropical fruits areinfested.

Life cycle

The eggs of C. capitata are laid within the pulp of the cherry and hatch in 2–4d. The larvae feed on the pulp, leaving the epidermis and the beans intact for6–11 d. When mature, they leave the cherries and drop to the ground, wherethey pupate under the soil. The pupal stage lasts a further 6–11 d.

Natural enemies

Because of the importance of C. capitata as a fruit pest in Hawaii, parasiteshave been sought for many years and, consequently, the parasites of Africanfruit flies have been well studied. Diachasmimorpha tryoni (Cameron) andDirhinus giffardii Silvestri were introduced into Hawaii as early as 1913, andDiachasmimorpha fullawayi (Silvestri) in 1914. For a full list of parasitesrecorded from coffee, see Appendix A.

References

Abasa, R.O. (1973) Observations on the seasonal emergence of fruit flies on a Kenya coffeeestate and studies of the pest status of Ceratitis capitata Wied. in coffee. East AfricanAgricultural and Forestry Journal 39, 144–148.

Anon (1965) New country records in the region. Quarterly Newsletter of the Plant ProtectionCommission for S.E. Asia 8, 6–8.

86 Chapter 4

Anon (1967) Coffee Pests and their Control. Coffee Research Foundation, Kenya, 90 pp.Anon (1992) Control of Berry Moth, Prophantis smaragdina (Butler), in coffee. Coffee Research

Foundation Technical Circular No 75. Kenya Coffee 57, 1427–1428.Ba-Angood, S. and Al-Sunaidi, S.M.A. (2004) Assessment of damage caused by the coffee berry

moth, Prophantis smaragdina, in different flowering and fruit setting dates in Yafe’a area,Republic of Yemen. Yemeni Scientific Research Foundation, Science Conference Sana’a,11–13 October 2004.

Baker, P.S. (1984) Some aspects of the behaviour of the coffee borer in relation to its control insouthern Mexico (Coleoptera, Scolytidae). Folia Entomologia Mexicana 61, 9–24.

Baker, P.S. (1999) The coffee berry borer in Colombia. Final Report of the DFID–Cenicafe–CABIBioScience IPM for Coffee Project. CABI BioScience, Ascot, UK, 144 pp.

Balakrishnan, M.M., Abjayan, K.J. and Sreedharan, K. (2001) Comparative efficacy of endosul-phan 35 EC and chlorpyrifos 20 EC against coffee berry borer. Journal of Coffee Research,29, 78–80.

Barrera, J.F. (1994) Dynamique des populations du scolyte des fruits du caféier, Hypothenemushampei et lutte biologique avec le parasitoide Cephalonomia stephanoderis au Chiapas,Mexique. PhD Thesis, University Paul-Sabatier, Toulouse, France, 301 pp.

Benavides, M.P., Bustillo, P.A.E., Montoya, R.E.C., Cárdenas, M.R. and Megia, M.C.G. (2002)Participation of cultural, chemical and biological control in the management of coffee berryborer. Revista Colombiana de Entomologia 28, 161–165.

Bredo, H.J. (1939) Catalogue des principaux insectes et nematodes parasites des caféiers auCongo Belge. Bulletin Agricole du Congo Belge 30, 266–307.

Brun, L.O. and Suckling, D. (1992) Field selection for endosulphan resistance in coffee berryborer in New Caledonia. Journal of Economic Entomology 85, 325–334.

Brun, L.O., Marcillaud, C., Gausichon, V. and Suckling, D. (1989) Endosulphan resistance inHypothenemus hampei in New Caledonia. Journal of Economic Entomology 82,1311–1316.

CABI (1978a) Antestiopsis intricata (Ghesq. and Carayon). Distribution Maps of Pests No. 381,CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 2 pp.

CABI (1978b) Antestiopsis orbitalis (Westwood). Distribution Maps of Pests No. 382, CABInternational, Wallingford, UK, 2 pp.

CABI (1981) Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari). Distribution Maps of Pests No. 170 (revised), CABInternational, Wallingford, UK, 2 pp.

CABI (1984) Ceratitis capitata (Westwood). Distribution Maps of Pests No. 1 (revised), CABInternational, Wallingford, UK, 2 pp.

CABI (2003) Crop Protection Compendium 2003 Edition. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Carayon, J. (1954) Les Antestiopsis du Caféier en Afrique tropicale francaise. Bulletin

Scientifique. Ministere des Colonies de la France d’Outre Mer. Section Techniqued’Agriculture Tropicale 5, 363–373.

Cárdenas, M.R. and Posada, F.J. (2001) Los Insectos y Otres Habitantes de Cafetales yPlatanales. Centro Nacional de Investigaciones de Café, Colombia, 250 pp.

Castillo, A. and Marban-Mendoza, N. (1996) Laboratory evaluation of steinernematid and heterorhabidid nematodes for biological control of the coffee berry borer. Nematropica 26,101–109.

Chevalier, A. (1947) Les caféiers du globe fasc 3, systematique des caféiers et faux-caféiers mal-adies et insectes nuisibles. Encyclopédie Biologique 28, 356 pp.

Cohic, H. (1958) Le ‘scolyte du grain de café’ en Nouvelle-Calédonie. Café, Cacao, Thé 2,10–14.

Corbett, G.H. (1933) Some preliminary observations on the coffee berry beetle borerStephanoderes (Cryphalus) hampei Ferr. Malayan Agricultural Journal 21, 8–22.

CRF (1978) An Atlas of Coffee Pests and Diseases. Coffee Board of Kenya, Nairobi, 150 pp.


Da Costa Lima, A.M. (1924) Sobre a broca do café (Stephanoderes coffeae, Hag.). Chacaras eQuintaes 30, 413–416.

Damon, A. (2000) A review of the biology and control of the coffee berry borer, Hypothenemushampei (Coleoptera:Scolytidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 90, 453–465.

Damon, A. and Valle, J. (2002) Comparison of two release techniques for the use ofCephalonomia stephanoderis to control the coffee berry borer in Soconusco, southernMexico. Biological Control 24, 117–127.

De Campos Novaes, J. (1922) Um broqueador do cafeeiro Xyleborus coffeicola n.sp. Fam.Ipidae. Boletino de Agricultura Secretaria de Agricultura, Comercio e Obras Publicas, SaoPaulo 23, 67–70.

Decazy, B. (1991) Investigaciones conducidas en Francia y en Africa sobre la broca del café.Proceedings of the First Intercontinental Workshop on Coffee Berry Borer, Tapachula,Mexico, pp. 47–49.

Derron, M. (1977) Prophantis smaragdina Butler and Cryptophlebia colivora Meyrick, two impor-tant pests on Coffea arabica L. on the island of São Tomé. Mitteilungen der SchweizerischenEntomologischen Gesellschaft 50, 149–151.

De Saeger, H. (1943) Quelques braconides nouveaux du genre Microbracon. Revue de Zoologieet de Botanique Africaines 36, 361–389.

Descroix, F. (2004) Une filière café gourmet à la Réunion: intérêt et viabilité. Rapport AnnuelCIRAD Réunion 2004, 91–96.

Diaz, P.P., Gomez, Y.A., de Polania, I.Z. and Vargas, A. (2003) Evaluation of strains of Fusariumsp. for the management of the coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei. RevistaColombiana de Entomologia 29, 71–76.

Dufour, B.P., Picasso, C. and Gonzales, M.O. (2001) Contribution au développement d’un piègepour capturer le scolyte du café Hypothenemus hampei Ferr. en El Salvador. Proceedings ofthe 19th International Scientific Colloquium on Coffee, Trieste, Italy, 14–18 May 2001.International Scientific Association of Coffee (ASIC), pp. 1–12.

Edgington, S., Segura, H., Rosa, W. de la and Williams, T. (2000) Photoprotection of Beauveriabassiana: testing simple formulations for control of coffee berry borer. International Journalof Pest Management 46, 169 –176.

Ghesquiere, J. (1933) Rôle des Ipides dans la destruction des végétaux au Congo Belge. Annalsde Gembloux 39, 24–37.

Greathead, D.J. (1966a) A taxomomic study of the species of Antestiopsis associated with Coffeaarabica in Africa. Bulletin of Entomological Research 56, 515–554.

Greathead, D.J. (1966b) The parasites of Antestiopsis spp. in East Africa and a discussion of thepossibilities of biological control. Technical Bulletin of the Commonwealth Institute ofBiological Control 7, 113–137.

Greathead, D.J. (1969) On the taxonomy of Antestiopsis spp. (Hem., Pentatomidae) ofMadagascar, with notes on their biology. Bulletin of Entomological Research 59, 307–315.

Gutierrez, A.P., Villacorta, A., Cure, J.R. and Ellis, C.K. (1998) Tritrophic analysis of the coffeeberry borer parasitoid system. Annals of the Entomological Society of Brazil 27, 357–385.

Haraprasad, N., Niranjana, S.R., Prakash, H.S., Shetty, H.S. and Wahab, S. (2001) Beauveriabassiana: a potential mycoparasite for the efficient control of coffee berry borer in India.Biocontrol Science and Technology 11, 251–260.

Hargreaves, E. (1937) Entomological work. Report of the Department of Agriculture, SierraLeone 1937, 39–43.

Hargreaves, H. (1935) Stephanoderes hampei Ferr., coffee berry borer in Uganda. East AfricanAgriculture Journal 1, 218–224.

Hernandez Paz, M. and Penagos Dardon, H. (1974) Evaluacion del sistina de aplicacion de bajovolumen en el control de la broca del fruto del café, Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari). RevistaCafetalera 134, 15–21.

88 Chapter 4

Hill, D.S. (1975) Agricultural Insect Pests of the Tropics and their Control. Cambridge UniversityPress, London, 516 pp.

Hopkins, A.D. (1915) Classification of the Cryphalinae with Descriptions of New Genera andSpecies. United States Department of Agriculture Report 99, 75 pp.

Hutson, J.C. (1936) The coffee berry borer in Ceylon (Stephanoderes hampei Ferr.). TropicalAgriculturist 87, 378–383.

Infante, F., Mumford, J. and Garcia, B.A. (2003) Predation by native arthropods on the Africanparasitoid Prorops nasuta (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae) in coffee plantations in Mexico. FloridaEntomologist 86, 86–88.

Jarquin-Galvez, R., Barrera-Gaytan, J.F., Nelson, K.C. and Martinez-Quezada, A. (1999) Metodosno quimicos contra la broca del café y su transferencia tecnologica en los altos de Chiapas,Mexico. Agrociencia 33, 431–438.

Johnston, A. (1963) Stephanoderes hampei in Tahiti. Information Letter FAO Plant ProtectionCommission for S.E. Asia No. 23, 4 pp.

Kaiser, C. (2005) Facultative or competitive interactions for pollination between an invasive and anative species: an experimental approach. Abstracts of the Annual Meeting of the SwissZoological, Botanical and Mycological Societies, 24–25 February 2005.

Kalshoven, L.G.E. (1950–1951) De Plagen van de Cultuurgewassen in Indonesië. Van Hoeve,Gravenhage (Netherlands)/Bandoeng (Indonesia), 1065 pp.

Kirkpatrick, T.W. (1937) Studies on the ecology of coffee plantations in East Africa. II. The aute-cology of Antestia spp. (Pentatoimidea) with a particular account of a Strepsipterous parasite.Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society, London 86, 247–343.

LaSalle, J. (1990) A new genus and species of Tetrastichinae (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) parasitic on the coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei. Bulletin of Entomological Research 80, 7–10.

Le Pelley, R.H. (1959) Agricultural Insects of East Africa. East African High Commission, Nairobi,307 pp.

Le Pelley, R.H. (1968) Pests of Coffee. Longman, London, 415 pp.Montoya, S.A. and Cárdenas-Murillo, R. (1994) Biologia de Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) en

frutos de café de diferentes edades. Cenicafé 45, 5–13.Morales-Ramos, J.A., Rojas, M.G., Sittertz-Bhaktar, H. and Saldana, G. (2000) Symbiotic rela-

tionship between Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) and Fusarium solani(Moniliales: Tuberculariaceae) Annals of the Entomological Society of America 93, 541–547.

Morallo-Rejesus, B. and Baldos, E. (1980) The biology of the coffee borer Hypothenemus hampei(Ferr.) (Scolytidae, Coleoptera). Philippine Entomologist 4, 303–316.

Morstatt, H.A. (1914) Kaffeekultur, kaffeeschädlinge und andere schädliche insekten im BezirkBukoba. Der Pflanzer 10, 133–141.

Morstatt, H.A. (1941) Über herkunft und verbreitung afrikanischer schädlinge. Zeitschrift fürPflanzenkrankheiten. Pflanzenpathologie und Pflanzenschutz 51, 209–217.

Murphy, S.T. and Rangi, D.K. (1991) The use of the African wasp, Prorops nasuta for the controlof the coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei in Mexico and Ecuador. Insect Science andits Application 12, 27–34.

Nagarajaiah, N.V. and Kumar, R. (2003) Position and management of coffee berry borer in SouthKogoga. Indian Coffee 67, 10.

Ndungi, A.W. (1994) New natural enemies of the coffee berry moth, Prophantis smaragdina(Butler). Kenya Coffee 59, 1725–1726.

Perez-Lachaud, G. and Hardy, I.C.W. (1999) Reproductive biology of Cephalonomia hyalinipen-nis (Hymenoptera:Bethylidae), a native parasitoid of the coffee berry borer, Hypothenemushampei in Chiapas, Mexico. Biological Control 14, 152–158.

Perez-Lachaud, G., Hardy, I.C.W., Lachaud, J.P. and Johnson, M.W. (2002). Insect gladiators:comparative interactions between three species of bethylid wasps attacking coffee berryborer. Biological Control 25, 231–238.


Portilla, M., González, G.G. and Nuñez-Bueno, L. (1995) Evaluación y descripción del dano oca-sionado por Ceratitis capitata al café. Revista Colombiana de Entomologia 21, 15–24.

Rahman, P.A. and Vijayalakshmi, C.K. (1999) Evaluation of low-volume and high-volume appli-cation of endosulphan for the control of coffee berry borer in India. Insects and Environment5, 120–121.

Reddy-Samba Murthy, A.G. and Rao, L.V.A. (1999) Incidence of coffee berry borer in non-conventional coffee area of Karnataka. Indian Coffee 63, 15–16.

Reid, J.E. (1983) Distribution of the coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) within Jamaica,following its discovery in 1978. Tropical Pest Management 29, 224–230.

Salazar, E.H., Aristizabal, A.L. and Mejia, C.G. (2003) Participatory research with coffee growerson post-harvest management of coffee berry borer. Revista Colombiana de Entomologia 29,57–62.

Schedl, K.E. (1961) Scolytidae und Platypodidae Afrikas. Band I (Part). Revista Entomologia deMocambique 4, 335–742.

Souza, S.A.S., Resende, A.L.S., Strikis, P.C., Costa, J.R., Ricci, M.S.F. and Aguiar-Menezes, E.L.(2005) Infestação natural de moscas frugivoras (Diptera: Tephritoidea) em café arábica, sobcultivo orgânico arborizado e a pleno sol, em Valença, RJ. Neotropical Entomology 34,639–648.

Tapley, R.G. and Materu, M.E.A. (1961) Microbial control of lepidopteran coffee pests. KenyaCoffee 26, 213.

Taylor, T.C.H. (1945) Recent investigations of Antestia species in Uganda. East AfricanAgricultural Journal 10, 223–233; 11, 47–55.

Thomas, R.T.S. (1961) Coffee pests in Netherlands New Guinea. Bulletin of Economic AffairsNetherlands New Guinea (Agricultural Series) 1961, 19–24.

Ticheler, J.H.G. (1961) An anlaytical study of the epidemiology of the coffee berry borer in Côted’Ivoire. Mededeelingen Landbouwhoogeschool, Wageningen 61, 1–49.

Tovigan, S., Vodouhe, S.D. and Dinham, B. (2001) Cotton pesticides cause more deaths inBenin. Pesticides News 52, 12–14.

Vega, F.E., Franqui, R.A. and Benavides, P. (2002) The presence of the coffee berry borer inPuerto Rico: fact or fiction? Journal of Insect Science, Tucson 2, 1–3.

Velez-Arango, P.E., Estrada, V.M.N., Gonzales, G.M.T., Valderama, F.A.M. and Bustillo, P.A.E.(2001) Characterization of Beauvaria bassiana isolates for the control of coffee berry borer.Manejo Integradas de Plantas 62, 38–53.

Vijayalakshmi, C.K., Rahiman, P.A., Vijayan, V.A., Prakasan, C.B. and Sreedharan, K. (2002)Biology of the coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) under varying thermalconditions. Journal of Entomological Research 26, 67–70.

Waterhouse, D.F. and Norris, K.R. (1989) Biological Control, Pacific Prospects, Hypothenemushampei (Ferrari). Australian Centre for Agricultural Research, Canberra, Suppl. 1,pp. 56–75.

Wilkinson, H. (1928) The Coffee Berry Borer Beetle, Stephanoderes hampei (Ferr.). Colony andProtectorate of Kenya, 10 pp.

Wrigley, G. (1988) Coffee. Longman (Tropical Agriculture Series), Harlow, UK, 639 pp.

90 Chapter 4

Berry-feeding Insects - CABI.org · 4 Berry-feeding Insects Introduction ... Coffee Pests, Diseases...

Documents

Transcript of Berry-feeding Insects - CABI.org · 4 Berry-feeding Insects Introduction ... Coffee Pests, Diseases...