Translator Disclaimer
1 March 2015 Monitoring Coffee Berry Borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Populations with Alcohol-Baited Funnel Traps in Coffee Farms in Colombia
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

We monitored dispersing coffee berry borer (CBB), Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), with easily-manufactured, alcohol-baited funnel traps and quantified associated berry infestation on 8 coffee farms in 2 regions in Caldas, Colombia. Flight activity and damage to berries was highest in the 2–3 months after the main harvest (Jan through Mar) and was greater in large farms, where insecticides were used, compared with small farms where efficient and frequent cultural control was implemented. The use of traps and attractants will help farmers track CBB populations and localize efforts to control this pest.

The coffee berry borer (CBB), Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), is the most important insect pest in coffee (Coffea arabica L.) (Gentianales: Rubiaceae) plantations worldwide (Vega et al. 2009). The CBB is a serious pest in Colombia where nearly one million ha of coffee are managed by over half a million growers, with 96% of farms less than 5 ha (FEDERACAFE 2013). Developing larvae feed on the seed, reducing the quality and yield of coffee (Bustillo et al. 1998; Vega et al. 2009). Control is difficult because the CBB spends most of its lifecycle inside berries, limiting the effectiveness of insecticide applications (Baker 1999).

Some newly mated adult females stay and lay eggs in the berry where they were born (Baker et al. 1992). Others leave their native berry in search of new host berries (> 100 days old) (Baker 1999) where they bore a hole, create galleries, and oviposit (Damon 2000). CBB females are attracted to kairomones released by developing berries (Giordanengo et al. 1993; Mathieu et al. 2001; Mendesil et al. 2009; Cruz et al. 2013). Some alcohols, produced in high quantities in ripe berries, are attractive to mated female CBB under field conditions. Traps baited with the synergistic mixture of ethanol and methanol have been used to survey CBB in Mexico (Gutierrez & Ondarza 1996), Central America (Borbón et al. 2002; Dufour & Frérot 2008), Brazil (Silva et al. 2006; Uemura-Lima et al. 2010; Fernandes et al. 2011; Pereira et al. 2012), and Hawaii (Messing 2012). However, results of CBB trapping studies in Colombia have not been reported. Identification of periods with high flight activity of the CBB female can help growers make management decisions and evaluate the efficacy of IPM programs (Aristizábal et al. 2012). Here we used traps to monitor seasonal CBB activity in the central coffee region and compared how trap collection correlated with berry infestation in the field.

Coffee farmers were selected from a participatory research project on integrated CBB management conducted by the National Coffee Research Center, Cenicafé (Aristizábal et al. 2002, 2004). In total, 4 large coffee farms (≥ 20 ha) located in Risaralda municipality, Department of Caldas and 4 small family coffee farms (≤⃒ 3 ha) in Viterbo, Caldas, were selected for trap placement and monitoring between Dec 2003 and Oct 2004. Individual farms were separated by < 2 km, with ≈ 25 km between regions. All farms produced C. arabica cv. ‘Colombia'. High density production (10,000 trees/ha) occurred in large farms, with coffee in smaller farms grown at lower densities (< 5,000 trees/ha) under shade in association with banana (Musa acuminaten Colla) and native trees. Smaller farms were at higher elevations (1,300–1,450 m asl), with cooler, drier conditions (mean 21 °C and 1,121 mm precipitation during the study) compared with larger farms (1,150–1,280 m asl; 23.5 °C and 1,823 mm precipitation) (Cenicafé 2005).

The study was initiated after the main harvest period that occurred from Sep through Dec (when many ripe or overripe berries were present) and continued beyond a second smaller harvest (Mar though May) (Arcila et al. 1993). Management practices for CBB differed among the farms. In small farms, berries were manually harvested by a permanent, skilled farm staff and family members every 2–3 weeks throughout the season (Aristizábal et al. 2011). In large farms, harvesting was conducted at 3–4 week intervals by a limited, less skilled, temporary workforce, while CBB control was supplemented by 3 applications of the insecticides Beauveria bassiana (Feb, Apr, and Oct) and endosulfan (Mar and Jun).

Lindgren-type red funnel traps (ChemTica International, Costa Rica) baited with a 3:1 methanol-ethanol mixture enclosed in a semi-permeable plastic membrane (elution rate 186 mg/day; Borbónet al. 2002) (AgBio, Inc., Westminster Colorado, USA) were used to monitor populations of dispersing CBB (Fig. 1). Trap collection cups contained 200 mL soapy water (5% v/v). Traps were placed ≈ 1.2 m high at a density one trap per 500 trees (0.1 ha); i.e. 10 traps per large coffee farm (≈ 1 ha) and 5 per small coffee farm (≈ 0.5 ha). These parameters (color, lure and placement) were optimized for trap effectiveness (Mathieu et al. 1996; Mendoza-Mora 1991; Dufour & Frérot 2008). The number of captured CBB was recorded weekly over 43 and 35 weeks for large and small farms, respectively. Lures were changed at 2 month intervals. Concurrently, CBB infestations in berries were evaluated monthly in the same location by examining all berries for entry holes from a single branch from 30 randomly selected trees using methods described in Bustillo et al. (1998).

In total, 1.65 million CBB were collected from 55 traps during the study. Higher numbers were captured in large coffee farms, peaking in Jan and Feb with an average of 1,650 to 6,120 CBB per trap/week. Highest berry infestation (17–28%) was observed at this time (Fig. 2A). CBB populations declined through the smaller harvest (Mar-Jun). Fewer CBB were collected in the small coffee farms (Viterbo) (averages of 38 to 105 CBB per trap/week), however, a similar seasonal trend was observed, with captures peaking from Jan-Mar (Fig. 2B). The start of the peak flight activity on smaller farms (Jan) again correlated with higher berry infestation (> 2.5%), and dropped later in the year as flight activity declined. A positive linear correlation (Pearson coefficient) between number of CBB captured and percent berry infestation was observed for both large (r2 = 0.90) and small (r2 = 0.68) farms. A similar relationship was reported by Pereira et al. (2012) in Brazil. However, their regression model could not determine an action threshold for CBB, since the intercept indicated that no CBB were caught at a low field infestation (≈3 to 5% berry infestation), which was not observed in our study.

Fig. 1.

A red funnel trap used to capture CBB (Hypothenemus hampei) (A) and the methanol—ethanol lure (3: 1 ratio) enclosed in a semi-permeable membrane (B). CBB were collected in a plastic container containing 200 mL of soapy water. Photo Alex. E. Bustillo.

f01_381.jpg

Our data provide information on the seasonal activity of CBB in the Central Coffee region of Colombia. In southern India (with a similar latitude), the greatest collection of CBB by alcohol baited traps was also reported from Jan to Mar (Saravanan & Chozhan 2003). CBB flight periods elsewhere may differ due to climatic differences (Pereira et al. 2012). The lower CBB flight activity and field infestation observed in small farms was significant, given that no insecticides were used. Small farms were managed by more a more efficient work force, which likely contributed to maintaining low berry infestation rates (< 5%). Other factors, such as cooler temperatures, lower planting densities and association with banana may also have played a role in lower CBB populations. The reasons for higher CBB levels in the large farms are unknown, but may reflect warmer and wetter conditions (Baker 1999), higher density plantings, and reduced harvest worker efficiency.

Fig. 2.

Number of CBB (Hypothenemus hampei) captured per trap per month (mean ± SEM) and corresponding berry infestation (%) on large coffee farms (≥ 20 ha) in Risaralda, Caldas, Colombia (A), and on small coffee farms (≤ 3 ha) in Viterbo, Caldas, Colombia (B) in 2003–2004. Note differences in axis scales.

f02_381.jpg

This study was part of the project ‘Integrated Pest Management of Coffee Berry Borer through Participatory Research with Small Coffee Growers' and financially supported by Cenicafé and Colciencias (Colombian Department of Science, Technology and Innovation) in Colombia. The authors thank coffee growers from Risaralda and Viterbo (Caldas) and the employees of Cenicafé.

References Cited

1.

J Arcila , A Jaramillo , V Baldión , AE Bustillo. 1993. La floración del cafeto y su relación con el control de la broca. Cenicafé, Avances Técnicos No. 193. 6 pp. Google Scholar

2.

LF Aristizábal , HM Salazar , CG Mejía. 2002. Cambios en la adopción de los componentes del manejo integrado de la broca del café, Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) a través de metodologías participativas. Revista Colombiana de Entomología 28: 153–160. Google Scholar

3.

LF Aristizábal , PAE Bustillo , QM Jiménez , EH. I Trujillo. 2004. V Encuentro de caficultores experimentadores. Manejo integrado de la broca del café a través de investigación participativa. Convenio Colciencias-Federacafé, Cenicafé, Fundación Manuel Mejia, Chinchiná, 21-22-XI-2004. 70 pp. Google Scholar

4.

LF Aristizábal , M Jiménez , AE Bustillo , SP Arthurs. 2011. Monitoring cultural practices for coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) management in a small coffee farm in Colombia. Florida Entomologist 94: 685–687. Google Scholar

5.

LF Aristizábal , O Lara , SP Arthurs . 2012. Implementing an integrated pest management program for coffee berry borer in a specialty coffee plantation in Colombia. Journal of Integrated Pest Management 3: G1–G5. Google Scholar

6.

PS Baker , C Lay , R Balbuena , JF Barrera. 1992. Factors affecting the emergence of Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) from coffee berries. Bulletin of Entomological Research 82: 145–150. Google Scholar

7.

PS Baker. 1999. The coffee berry borer in Colombia. Final report of the DFID - Cenicafé CABI Bioscience IPM for coffee project (CNTR 93/1536A). Chinchiná (Colombia), 154 pp. Google Scholar

8.

MO Borbón , AO Mora , AC Oehlschlager , LM González. 2002. Proyecto de trampas, atrayentes y repelentes para el control de la broca del fruto de cafeto, Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Informe ICAFE, San José, Costa Rica, 18 pp. Google Scholar

9.

PAE Bustillo , MR Cardenas , D Villalba , J Orozco , MP Benavides , FFJ Posada. 1998. Manejo integrado de la broca del café Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) en Colombia. Cenicafé. Chinchiná, Colombia. 134 pp. Google Scholar

10.

CENICAFE 2005. Anuario Meteorológico Cafetero Centro Nacional de Investigaciones del Café ‘Pedro Uribe Mejía', Chinchiná. Colombia. 574 p. Google Scholar

11.

Roblero EN Cruz , EA Malo. 2013. Chemical analysis of coffee berry volátiles that elicit an antennal response from the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei. Journal of the Mexican Chemical Society 57: 321–327. Google Scholar

12.

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

13.

BP Dufour , B Frérot. 2008. Optimization of coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei Ferrari (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), mass trapping with an attractant mixture. Journal of Applied Entomology 132: 591–600. Google Scholar

14.

FEDERACAFE 2013. Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia.  www.Federaciondecafeteros.org (18-IX-2014). Google Scholar

15.

FL Fernandes , MC Picanço , SO Campos , CS Bastos , M Chediak , RNC Guedes , RS Da Silva. 2011. Economic injury level for the coffee berry borer (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) using attractive traps in Brazilian coffee fields. Journal of Economic Entomology 104: 1909–1917. Google Scholar

16.

P Giordanengo , LO Brun , B Frérot. 1993. Evidence for allelochemical attraction of the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei by coffee berries. Journal of Chemical Ecology 19: 763–769. Google Scholar

17.

A Gutierrez-Martinez , RN Ondarza. 1996. Kairomone effect of extracts from Coffea canephora over Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Environmental Entomology 25: 96–100. Google Scholar

18.

F Mathieu , LO Brun , C Marcillaud , B Frérot. 1996. Trapping of the coffee berry borer within a mesh-enclosed environment: Interaction of olfactory and visual stimuli. Journal of Applied Entomology 121: 181–186. Google Scholar

19.

F Mathieu , V Gaudichon , LO Brun , B Frérot. 2001. Effect of physiological status on olfactory and visual responses of female Hypothenemus hampei during host plant colonization. Physiological Entomology 26: 189–193. Google Scholar

20.

E Mendesil , TJA Bruce , CM Woodcock , ES Caulfield , JA Pickett. 2009. Semiochemical used in host location by the coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei. Journal of Chemical Ecology 35: 944–950. Google Scholar

21.

JR Mendoza-Mora. 1991. Resposta da broca-do-cafe, Hypothenemus hampei, a estimulos visuais e semioquimicos. Magister Scientiae, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Brazil. Google Scholar

22.

RH Messing. 2012. The coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) invades Hawaii: Preliminary investigations of traps response and alternate hosts. Insects 3: 640–652. doi: 10.3390/insects3030640Google Scholar

23.

AE Pereira , EF Vilela , RS Tinoco , JOG De Lima , AK Fantine , EG Morais , CF França. 2012. Correlation between numbers captured and infestation levels of the coffee berry-borer, Hypothenemus hampei: A preliminary basis for an action threshold using baited traps. International Journal of Pest Management 58: 183–190. Google Scholar

24.

PA Saravanan , K Chozhan. 2003. Monitoring and management of coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei Ferrari (Scolytidae: Coleoptera). Crop Research 26: 154–158. Google Scholar

25.

FCD Silva , MU Ventura , L Morales. 2006. Capture of Hypothenemus hampei Ferrari (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in response to trap characteristics. Scientific Agriculture 63: 567–571. Google Scholar

26.

DH Uemura-Lima , MU Ventura , AY Mikami , FC Da Silva , L Morales. 2010. Responses of coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to vertical distribution of methanol: ethanol traps. Neotropical Entomology 39: 930–933. Google Scholar

27.

FE Vega , F Infante , A Castillo , J Jaramillo. 2009. The coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): a short review, with recent findings and future research directions. Terrestrial Arthropod Review 2: 129–147. Google Scholar
Luis F. Aristizábal, Mauricio Jiménez, Alex E. Bustillo, Héctor I. Trujillo, and Steven P. Arthurs "Monitoring Coffee Berry Borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Populations with Alcohol-Baited Funnel Traps in Coffee Farms in Colombia," Florida Entomologist 98(1), 381-383, (1 March 2015). https://doi.org/10.1653/024.098.0165
Published: 1 March 2015
JOURNAL ARTICLE
3 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top