Translator Disclaimer
1 December 2011 Economic Injury Level for the Coffee Berry Borer (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) using Attractive Traps in Brazilian Coffee Fields
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

The currently existing sample procedures available for decision-making regarding the control of the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) are time-consuming, expensive, and difficult to perform, compromising their adoption. In addition, the damage functions incorporated in such decision levels only consider the quantitative losses, while dismissing the qualitative losses. Traps containing ethanol, methanol, and benzaldehyde may allow cheap and easy decision-making. Our objective was to determine the economic injury level (EIL) for the adults of the coffee berry borer by using attractant-baited traps. We considered both qualitative and quantitative losses caused by the coffee borer in estimating the EILs. These EILs were determined for conventional and organic coffee under high and average plant yield. When the quantitative losses caused by H. hampei were considered alone, the EILs ranged from 7.9 to 23.7% of bored berries for high and average-yield conventional crops, respectively. For high and average-yield organic coffee the EILs varied from 24.4 to 47.6% of bored berries, respectively. When qualitative and quantitative losses caused by the pest were considered together, the EIL was 4.3% of bored berries for both conventional and organic coffee. The EILs for H. hampei associated to the coffee plants in the flowering, pinhead fruit, and ripening fruit stages were 426, 85, and 28 adults per attractive trap, respectively.

© 2011 Entomological Society of America
F. L. Fernandes, M. C. Picanço, S. O. Campos, C. S. Bastos, M. Chediak, R.N.C. Guedes, and R. S. Da Silva "Economic Injury Level for the Coffee Berry Borer (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) using Attractive Traps in Brazilian Coffee Fields," Journal of Economic Entomology 104(6), 1909-1917, (1 December 2011). https://doi.org/10.1603/EC11032
Received: 29 January 2011; Accepted: 1 August 2011; Published: 1 December 2011
JOURNAL ARTICLE
9 PAGES

This article is only available to subscribers.
It is not available for individual sale.
+ SAVE TO MY LIBRARY

SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top