RESEARCH ARTICLE

 

Effectiveness of different traps and lures for coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari, 1867) in São Tomé Island

 

 

M Carvalho^{I, II}; A Lopes^II; A Bento^III; L Santos^II; RNC Guedes^IV; PA Casquero^I

^IUniversidad de León, Department of Engineering and Agricultural Sciences, Environment Institute Natural Resources and Biodiversity, León, Spain
^IICenter of Technological and Agricultural Investigation of São Tomé and Principe, Experimental Base of Industrial Crops (CIAT/STP-BECI), Potó Madalena, São Tomé
^IIIMountain Research Center (CIMO), ESA, Polytechnic Institute of Braganga, Santa Apolónia Campus, Bragança, Portugal
^IVDepartamento de Entomologia, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, MG, 36570-900, Brazil

Correspondence

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

Coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari, 1867), is a serious insect pest of organic coffee plantation in Säo Tomé Island. To date, limited information regarding the seasonal phenology of this pest species on the islands limits the implementation of integrated pest management (IPM) programmes. As part of a coffee farmer training programme, three attractants were evaluated in red vs. transparent traps to assess olfactory and visual stimuli. The experiment was delineated in a split-block design with three types of attractants: commercial ethanol + 40 g of ripe Robusta coffee (A1), proportion 3:1 methanol and ethanol (A2), and commercial ethanol + 10 g of ground roasted Arabica coffee (A3); and two home-made transparent (D1) and red (D2) traps. The results showed that there was significant interaction between the trap model and the attractant for borer capture. The transparent trap baited with methanol and ethanol exhibited the best result with an average of 14.3 ± 5.4 adults/trap/week. Transparent traps baited captured more borers and largest numbers of beetles were trapped late May through September. In short, home-made traps alone are not effective for controlling the coffee berry borer, but they are useful in monitoring this species.

Keywords: attractants, coffee, infestation level, integrated pest management (IPM)

---

 

 

INTRODUCTION

Coffee remains the most important export crop for many countries both in terms of earnings and its impact on socio-economic life of the rural folk engaged in its production. Many African producer countries depend almost entirely on foreign exchange earnings from coffee exports, while large sections of their population earn their livelihood from coffee cultivation, processing and marketing establishments (Kucel et al. 2009). Agriculture is the most important economic sector in the West African island nation of Säo Tomé and Principe, located on the Equator in the Gulf of Guinea. Coffee is the sixth most important export crop of the island after palm oil, cacao, copra, copra oil, and pepper in the islands, thriving in the volcanic soils and equatorial climate (INE 2021). In recent years, there has been a significant decline in coffee production due to phytosanitary problems (Espírito Santo 2008), especially as a result of direct and indirect damage caused by different pest species. Among the most important insect pests in coffee plantations worldwide, the coffee berry borer (CBB), Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari, 1867) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae) is considered the most damaging, as it reduces both crop quality and yield (Bustillo-Pardey 2006; Messing 2012; Vega & Hofstetter 2015), with losses over US$500 million annually (Infante 2018). This species originated in Central Africa (Infante et al. 2009; Gauthier 2010) and was first discovered in Säo Tomé and Principe in 1929 (Kaden 1930), but was of little economic significance at the time (de Carvalho 1968).

Control of this pest is carried out differently depending on the cultivation system (Bustillo-Pardey 2006), and it has been hindered by two main factors: the cryptic nature of the insect (i.e., protected inside the coffee berry), and the presence of unharvested or fallen coffee berries in the field allowing the survival of the pest from one season to the next (Infante 2018). CBB control has primarily been based on the use of synthetic insecticides (Brun et al. 1989; Souza et al. 2013). Management strategies have focused on the use of African parasitoids (Cephalonomia stephanoderis, Prorops nasuta and Phymastichus coffea), a fungal entomopathogen (Beauveria bassiana) (Bustillo-Pardey 2005; Vera-Montoya et al. 2007), and insect traps (Infante 2018).

Several trap models for CBB mass capture have been developed by many authors, since the early development (Mendoza 1991) of the "ESALQ-84" traps (Berti & Flechtmann 1986), and the multiple funnel model (Lindgren (1983). The ESALQ-84 was developed from the modification of the Luiz de Queiroz trap model at the Luiz de Queiroz School of Agriculture, University of Säo Paulo, Brazil (Berti & Flechtmann 1986). Lindgren's trap (multiple funnel model/party trap) was developed later in Costa Rica; this trap comprises three white disposable cups.

Apart from these experiments, and with the exception of the party trap in Costa Rica, the multiple funnel trap was not as widely used (Borbón et al. 2000). The ESALQ-84 model sparked more interest, from which similar models emerged, like the "Hampei" (Gutiérrez-Martínez et al. 1993) and the "Ecobroca" traps (Velasco et al. 1999) in Mexico. In Colombia, an artisanal trap was developed by CENICAFÉ (Herrera (1997).

PROCAFÉ in El Salvador and CIRAD of France developed the red coloured "Brocap"» trap (Gonzalez & Dufour 2000), which has been validated in several Latin American countries (Cárdenas 2000; Dufour 2002; Guzmán & Contreras 2003; Barrera et al. 2004a; García-Verdugo et al. 2004). Currently, due to demand in several countries, this trap is possibly the only patented one marketed under a trademark for borer control (Barrera et al. 2006). However, in recent years, different models of home-made traps from different types of plastic packaging, mainly polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle traps (Gutiérrez-Martínez et al. 1993, Barrera et al. 2006), have stood out. The "IAPAR" trap developed by researchers from the Agronomic Institute of Parana, Brazil (Villacorta et al. 2001), defined one of the most interesting concepts of the home-made trap, combining low cost (recyclable materials) and ease of manufacturing and handling (accessible to producers) with mass capture efficiency. Taking this concept into account, the "ECOIAPAR" trap was created as a result of the combination of ECOSUR and IAPAR traps (Barrera et al. 2006). Therefore, the use of chemically-baited traps for mass capturing of CBB adults may provide an efficient and inexpensive alternative for CBB control (Moreno et al. 2010; Fernandes et al. 2011). Over the years, several studies have been carried out using trap attractants containing a mixture of alcohols, such as ethanol and methanol, for CBB mass capture (Mathieu et al. 1997; Dufour & Frérot 2008; Rostaman & Prakoso 2020). An attractant mixture of ethanol (99.9% purity) and methanol (100% purity), in the proportion of 1:3, is efficient in the mass capture of CBB adults (Barrera et al. 2004; Barrera et al. 2006; Dufour & Frérot 2008; Pereira et al. 2012).

In São Tomé and Principe, organic coffee plantations (Agroforestry) are predominant and the Biological Coffee Export Cooperative (CECAFEB) has shown enormous growth through the expansion of the domestic market. In CECAFEB, Coffea arabica L. and C. canephora Pierre ex A. Froehner (Robusta), are grown on about 560 ha, from which 552 farmers produce an estimated 86,300 kg of cherries valued at €48 328 in the 2018/2019 harvest (CECAFEB 2020). Despite the favourable economic climate, CECAFEB faces some difficulties, especially regarding pest management, including the control of the CBB. Various pests, including CBB, present major difficulties for the Islands' coffee industry, resulting in low coffee yield and quality, and reduction in product value (Barrera 2002; Bustillo-Pardey 2006; Burbano et al. 2011). Initially, CECAFEB used neem oil for CBB control with no significant impact on the pest species population (CECAFEB 2014). Neem oil was replaced by the use of Bacillus thuringiensis (Dipel), which proved effective in CBB control, but was banned in organic coffee production (COLEACP 2020). Currently, CECAFEB is using home-made transparent traps with two openings with attractants containing ethanol for CBB mass capturing (CECAFEB 2020). Sanitation, including the complete removal of coffee berries from the trees and ground after the main harvest, is the most important aspect of any IPM programme for CBB (Benavides et al. 2003; Ruiz-Cárdenas & Baker 2010; Constantino et al. 2017). However, this cultural control practice is particularly difficult in regions such as Säo Tomé and Principe, which has year-round growing conditions that require continuous harvesting (da Silva 1958).

In the present study, we evaluated three CBB attractants in red vs. transparent traps to assess potential for using mass trapping for CBB mass trapping.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study area

Säo Tomé Island is located at latitude 0° and longitude 6°30' E with an area about 859 km² and is dominated by a volcanic mountain, which culminates at 2024 m above sea level (asl). Säo Tomé's climate is sub-equatorial with very high rainfall. The average annual rainfall varies from 1.5 mm to 1 000 mm in the low altitude (north and northeast) to more than 230 mm to 6 000 mm in the high altitude (south and south-west). The driest months are June, July, and August and the wettest months are March, April, and May. The annual atmospheric humidity is very high and annual average temperature at sea level is 25.4 °C (Afonso 1969; World bank 2017).

Our studies were conducted in two coffee plantations of CECAFEB located in two regions. More details of experimental areas are shown in Table 1. The cultural practices on these coffee plantations are: weeding, pruning and prophylactic harvesting, with the exception of pesticide use.

 

 

Trapping design

The experiments were carried out from August to December 2018 and from January to July 2019 in two plots belonging to the Biological Coffee Export Cooperative (CECAFEB) (Bem-Posta and Novo Destino (Säo Tomé Island). Thirty traps were distributed per hectare to cover the entire area (Fernandes et al. 2014), and monitored monthly. The traps were spaced at 10 m intervals according (Pan-UK 2014), placed in August of 2018, and finished in July 2019. For surface areas and the characteristics, refer to the data in Table 1.

The traps used were the "ECOIAPAR" design (Figure 1). Traps were attached to the tree approximately 1.5 m above the ground level (Barrera et al. 2004; Aristizábal et al. 2016) with galvanised wire. At the bottom of the trap, 120 ml of water with 5% neutral detergent were added (Barrera et al. 2004; Dufour & Frérot 2008).

 

 

Attractant A1 consisted of 40 g of ripe Robusta coffee berry pulp in 1 l of commercial ethanol (96% purity). The coffee berry pulp was allowed to sit for 4 days in the ethanol prior to use in the traps to ensure that all volatiles contained in the pulp were adequately released into the ethanol. This mixture release rate was 0.67 ml/day. Attractant A2 contained a mixture of ethanol (96.0% purity) and methanol (100% purity) in the proportion of 1:3 (Moreno et al. 2010; Rosalía et al. 2015). This mixture release rate was 1.3 ml/day. Finally, attractant A3 was a blend of commercial ethanol (96.0% purity) + 10 g of ground roasted Arabica coffee per litre with a release rate 0.67 ml/day. The fluid inside the traps was changed at each evaluation. More details of experimental are shown in Table 2.

 

 

Experimental design

The experiment was delineated into "split blocks" where the main or large blocks were the trap types and the small blocks (sub-blocks) were the different types of attractants. Five replicates were used for each treatment. The size of each sub-block was 33 χ 50 m. More details of experimental coffee plantation are shown in Table 2.

Each trap was checked monthly and the contents filtered through a fine-mesh sieve. The filtered trap contents were placed into plastic bags with 70% ethanol. CBB adults were counted under 20χ magnification using a stereoscope and other insects/beetles in the traps were separated (Moreno et al. 2010; Fernandes et al. 2011; Johnson et al. 2018). We also sampled borer populations in Bem-Posta using a scheme 30-tree sampling of fruits following the "CENICAFÉ method" (Bustillo et al. 1998), to evaluate the trap effectiveness or to determine whether the trapping reduced damage to the fruits. Infestation levels were calculated by equation 1.

Data analysis

Data analysis was carried out with IBM SPSS Statistics 23. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed with trap type and attractant as independent variables and the treatment means were subjected to Tukey's HSD test (P < 0.05), whenever appropriate. Correlation analysis (Pearson's r) was performed between numbers captured and fruit infestation levels of CBB.

 

RESULTS

Attractant in home-made trap baited against Hypothenemus hampei

The trap D1A2 produced the highest adult numbers captured per week (14.3 ± 5.4; mean ± standard error (SE)) and the trap D2A1 had the lowest catches (1.3 ± 0.8). There was a significant interaction (df = 806, F = 13.43, P < 0.001 between trap model and attractant in CBB mass capture. Significant differences (P < 0.001) were observed between D1A2 and the other treatments, but not between D2A3 (3.2 ± 1.3), D1A1 (4.1 ± 1.1) and D2A2 (4.1 ± 1.4) (df = 806, F = 13.43, P = 0.96) (Figure 2). The D1A2 trap captured an average 215.9 ± 61.3 adults/trap in August, September (542.4 ± 65.2), in October (218.9 ± 54.6), May (436.1 ± 164.7), June (305.1 ± 66.3), and July (448.1 ± 104.1). In contrast, D2A1 captured an average 30.4 ± 8.6 adults/ trap in August, February (64.1 ± 33.0), May (47.1 ± 18.2), and June (39.8 ± 11.5). Highly significant differences (df = 806; F = 33.734, P < 0.001) were found in the monthly adult capture with the different traps (Figure 3). The D2 trap also captured other beetles, and the D1 trap captured Ceratitis capitata.

 

 

 

 

The highest adult capture rate was achieved with the D1 trap, with an average of 102.2 ± 41.7 adults captured per trap per month in Bem-Posta, and 123.4 ± 59.4 in Novo Destino. The lowest capture was obtained with D2 29.6 ± 14.3 adults captured per trap per month in Bem-Posta, and 50.5 ± 21.1 in Novo Destino. There were significant differences (P < 0.001) between traps D1 and D2. The highest CBB capture with the D1 trap was registered in Novo Destino and the lowest in Bem-Posta. There was significant interaction (df = 806, F = 9.842, P < 0.001) between trap model and attractant for CBB mass capture. The highest monthly captures were registered in Novo Destino 87.5 ± 7.8 adults/trap/month and with significant differences (P = 0.03) for Bem-Posta which had 65.9 ± 5.8 adults/trap/month (Table 3). The total of CBB captured was 65 765 females.

 

 

There was no positive correlation between number of CBB captured and infestation level (r = 0.10, df=155, P = 0.56).

 

DISCUSSION

We investigated the effectiveness of three attractants in red vs. transparent traps to assess CBB mass capture. Although the number of seasonal CBB generations is unclear, we captured CBB in all months sampled, with highest numbers from late May through September during the weeks following the main harvesting season and the formation of new green berries. The prevailing period of flight activity of CBB occurred in the dry season on São Tomé Island (June through September). In Brazil two peaks (in July and October) in CBB capture usually take place, with the highest peak in July (Oliveira et al. 2018). In this trial the highest peak of CBB capture was recorded in September. The highest number of CBB adults captured were recorded between January and March in Colombia (Aristizábal et al. 2015). High infestations were observed (>250 CBB/trap/ week) during berry development, in May and June (Kona, Hawaii) and June and July (Kau, Hawaii) (Aristizábal et al. 2017). In Colombia higher numbers of CBB were captured, peaking in Jan and Feb with an average of 1.65 to 6.12 CBB per trap/week (Aristizábal et al. 2015).

A statistically significant interaction between trap model and attractant was observed in this study. Significant interaction between trap colour and attractant was also observed previously (Mathieu et al. 1997; da Silva et al. 2006a). Several factors are involved in determining the efficiency of the traps. Intrinsic factors, such as colours, attractants, release rates, height above ground, and place of setting (plant or stake), contrast with the landscape, interact with each other and likely interact with characteristics of the environment, e.g. the coffee production system (densely planted, semi-densely planted and conventional), shaded or not, variety, microclimate and relief (da Silva et al. 2006b). Transparent traps with two openings captured more CBB during the field trial, but in lower numbers when compared with another study (Leiva-Espinoza et al. 2019), which captured a maximum of 4.000 CBB/trap/week with red trap (home-made) with five openings in Peru. These results may be explained by the fact that the transparent trap had two openings and the red trap one. In a previous study, we found no statistically significant differences in CBB densities in the two study areas (Carvalho et al. 2021). The multiple funnel trap produced better results for CBB mass capture (Mendoza 1991). The same pattern was observed in Colombia with a five-funnel trap (Cárdenas 2000). Transparent traps are efficient in attracting and capturing the CBB (da Silva et al. 2006a). Transparent traps also proved to be effective in attracting and capturing CBB in this trial. In contrast, many authors highlight that red traps are more efficient than the transparent traps in mass capture of CBB adults (Mathieu et al. 1997; Barrera et al. 2006; Dufour & Frérot 2008). Red trap with alcohol as attractant without essence of coffee is more efficient in the CBB mass capture (Leiva-Espinoza et al. 2019).

Our data suggest that home-made traps can be used for monitoring the CBB, but not for CBB mass-trapping as a management tool, which requires far higher levels of capture. However, the lack of correlation between CBB field infestation and trap capture numbers invites larger scale study in different areas to validate the use of such traps for CBB capturing on Säo Tomé Island. Other authors have suggested that traps baited with methanol and ethanol could be used to monitor flight activity so that the timing of pesticide sprays could be improved (Aristizábal et al. 2016). Many papers highlight that traps should not be used alone for CBB control; rather they shoud be one component of multi-faceted IPM programmes to be implemented (Infante 2018).

 

CONCLUSIONS

From the results obtained, it can be concluded that the traps caught more CBB from late May through September, because they were more efficient when the humidity is lower in Säo Tomé Island. Taken together, these findings expand the understanding of the use of trapping systems as a useful strategy for IPM programmes against CBB, and will likely provide novel insights of use in the development of IPM in the near future. All of the attractants tested could be used as tools for monitoring and a possible mass trapping coffee berry borer on coffee crops on Säo Tomé Island at a low cost and with local availability.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The study was carried out thanks to the Center of Technological and Agricultural Investigation of São Tomé and Principe-Experimental base of industrial crops (CIAT/STP-BECI) and Biological Coffee Export Cooperative (CECAFEB).

 

ORCID IDs

Miclay Carvalho - https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0215-695X

Alex Lopes - https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8560-1491

Albino Bento - https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5215-785X

Luis Santos - https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4709-4505

Raul Guedes - https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6229-7549

PA Casquero - https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4432-9794

 

REFERENCES

Afonso M. 1969. S. Tomé. Esboço da carta dos climas, 1:164.000, 1969, jpg 260 KB [accessed 2 December 2019]. http://atlas.saotomeprincipe.eu/1969_alonso_climas.jpg

Aristizábal LF, Bustillo AE, Arthurs SP. 2016. Integrated pest management of coffee berry borer: strategies from Latin America that could be useful for coffee farmers in Hawaii. Insects 7(1): 6-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects7010006        [ Links ]

Aristizábal LF, Jiménez M, Bustillo AE, Trujillo HI, Arthurs SP. 2015. Monitoring coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), populations with alcohol-baited funnel traps in coffee farms in Colombia. Florida Entomology 98(1): 381-383. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.098.0165        [ Links ]

Aristizábal LF, Shriner S, Hollingsworth R, Arthurs S. 2017. Field and forage crops flight activity and field infestation relationships for coffee berry borer in commercial coffee plantations in Kona and Kau Districts, Hawaii Material and Methods. Journal of Economic Entomology 110(6): 2421-2427. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tox215        [ Links ]

Barrera J. 2002. La Broca del café: Una plaga que llegó para quedarse. El Colegio de la Frontera Sur. [accessed 28 December 2017]. http://www2.tap-ecosur.edu.mx/mip/Publicaciones/pdf/09_Capitulo04c.pdf

Barrera JF, Herrera J, Villacorta A, Garcia H, Cruz L. 2006. Trampas de Metanol-Etanol para Detección, Monitoreo y Control de la Broca del Café Hypothenemus hampei. Sociedad Mexicana de Entomologia y El Colegio de la Frontera Sur Manzanillo, Colima, México, pp.71-83. [accessed 10 December 2019]. https://www.academia.edu/6007736/Methanol_ethanol_traps_for_detection_monitoring_and_control_of_the_coffee_berry_borer_Hypothenemus_hampei

Barrera JF, Villacorta A, Herrera J, Garcia H, Cruz L. 2004a. Aplicación de trampas para el muestreo de la broca del café en México. En: Workshop Internacional sobre o Manejo da Broca-do-Café. 28 de noviembre a 2 de diciembre de 2004. Londrina, Paraná, Brasil.

Barrera JF, Villacorta A, Herrera J. 2004. Fluctuación estacional de las capturas de la «broca del café» (Hypothenemus hampei) con trampas de etanol-metanol e implicaciones sobre el número de trampas. Entomologia Mexicana 3: 540-544.         [ Links ]

Benavides P, Bustillo AE, Cárdenas-Murillo R, Montoya-Restrepo EC. 2003. Análisis biológico y económico del manejo integrado de la broca del café en colombia. Cenicafé 54(1): 5-23.         [ Links ]

Berti FE, Flechtmann CAH. 1986. A model of ethanol trap to collect Scolytidae and Platypodidae (Insecta, Coleoptera). IPEF 34: 53-56.         [ Links ]

Borbón, M.O., Mora, O.A., Oehlschlager, A.C. & GONZALEZ. L.M. 2000. Proyecto trampas, atrayentes y repelentes para el control de la broca del fruto de cafeto, Hypothenemus hampei F. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). En: XIX Simposio Latinoamericano de Caficultura. pp. 331-348, 2 al 6 de octubre de 2000, San José, Costa Rica.

Brun LO, Marcillaud C, Gaudichon V, Suckling DM. 1989. Endosulfan resistance in Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in New Caledonia. Journal of Economic Entomology 82(5): 1311-1316. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/82.5.1311        [ Links ]

Burbano E, Wright M, Bright DE, Vega FE. 2011. New record for the coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei, in Hawaii. Journal of Insect Science 11 (117):1-3. https://doi.org/10.1673/031.011.11701        [ Links ]

Bustillo AE, Cárdenas R, Villalba D, Benavides P, Orozco J, Posada F. 1998. Manejo Integrado de la Broca del Café, Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) en Colombia. 1st ed. Chinchiná, Colombia: Cenicafé.

Bustillo-Pardey AE. 2005. El papel del control biológico Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) (Coleoptera : Curculionidae : Scolytinae). Manejo integrado de la broca del café, Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias 29(110):55-68.         [ Links ]

Bustillo-Pardey AE. 2006. Una revision sobre la broca del café, Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), en Colombia. Revista Colombiana De Entomologia 32(2): 101-116. https://doi.org/10.25100/socolen.v32i2.9376        [ Links ]

Cárdenas MR. 2000. Trampas y atrayentes para monitoreo de poblaciones de broca del café Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) (Col., Scolytidae). En: XIX Simposio Latinoamericano de Caficultura, pp. 369-379, Costa Rica.

Carvalho M , Lopes A, Bento A, Santos L, Guedes R N C, Casquero PA. 2021. Can coffee variety affect the population dynamics of coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) on São Tomé Island. International Journal of Advanced Research 9(02): 592-603. https://doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/12487        [ Links ]

CECAFEB (Cooperativa de Exportação de Café Biológico). 2014. Relatório anual do ano de 2013.

CECAFEB (Cooperativa de Exportação de Café Biológico). 2020. Relatório anual do ano 2019.

COLEACP. [International Association of Companies and Experts Committed to Sustainable Agriculture]. 2020. Important update on the expiry of EU PPP approvals in 2019-2022. [accessed 2 July 2020]. https://eservices.coleacp.org/en/actu/important-update-on-the-expiry-of-eu-ppp-approvals-in-2019-2022

Constantino LM, Oliveros C, Alberto C, Giraldo S, Augusto C, Gómez R. 2017. Dispositivo recolector de frutos de café del suelo para el manejo integrado de la broca. Cenicafé 68(1): 22-37.         [ Links ]

da Silva FC, Ventura MU, Morales L. 2006a. Capture of Hypothenemus hampei Ferrari (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) in response to trap characteristics. Scientia Agricola 63(6): 567-571. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162006000600010        [ Links ]

da Silva FC, Ventura MU, Morales L. 2006b. The role of semiochemical traps in the management of coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei. Ciências Agrárias, Londrina. 27(3): 399-406.         [ Links ]

da Silva HL. 1958. São Tomé e Príncipe e a Cultura do Café. Memórias da Junta de Investigates do Ultramar (1.a ed.). Lisboa, Portugal.

de Carvalho JP. 1968. Notas sobre a Reuniäo de Entomologistas Realizada em São Tomé e Principe de 8 a 22 de agosto de 1967. Instituto de Investigação Agronómica de Angola (Vol. 1). Luanda, Angola.

Dufour B. 2002. Validación de la trampa Brocap® para el control de la broca del café. Boletin de Promecafé 93: 14-20.         [ Links ]

Dufour BP, Frérot B. 2008. Optimization of coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei Ferrari (Col. Scolytidae), mass trapping with an attractant mixture. Journal of Applied Entomology 132(7): 591600. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.2008.01291.x        [ Links ]

Espirito Santo SN. 2008. Programas de ajustamento estrutural, produção agricola Segurança alimentar na áfrica sub-sahariana: caso especifico de S.Tomé e Principe. [Ph.D. thesis]. Instituto Superior de Agronomia. Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.         [ Links ]

Fernandes FL, Picanço MC, Campos SO, Bastos CS, Chediak M, Guedes RNC, da Silva RS. 2011. 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. https://doi.org/10.1603/EC11032.         [ Links ]

Fernandes FL, Picanço MC, da Silva RS, da Silva ÍW, de Sena Fernandes ME, Ribeiro LH. 2014. Controle massal da broca-do-café com armadilhas de garrafa PET vermelha em cafeeiro. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira 49(8): 587-594. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2014000800002.         [ Links ]

Garcia-Verdugo H, Barrera JF, Pinson E, Valle FJ, Herrera J. 2004. Comparación de tres tipos de trampas para la captura de la broca del café. En: Resúmenes del I Congreso Internacional sobre Desarrollo de Zonas Cafetaleras. 6-8 de Octubre de 2004, pp. 45. Tapachula, Chiapas, México.

Gauthier N. 2010/ Multiple cryptic genetic units in Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytinae): evidence from microsatellite and mitochondrial DNA sequence data. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 101(1): 113-129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2010.01483.x        [ Links ]

González MO, Dufour BP. 2000. Diseño, desarrollo y evaluación del trampeo en el manejo integrado de la broca del café Hypothenemus hampei Ferr. In: Simposio Latinoamericano de Caficultura XIX, El Salvador. Costa Rica; p. 381-396.

Gutiérrez-Martinez A, Hernández SR, Virgen AS. 1993. Trampeo en campo de la broca del fruto de café Hypothenemus hampei Ferrari (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) con los semioquimicos volátiles del fruto de café robusta (Coffea canephora Pierre ex Froehner). En: Resúmenes del XVI

Guzmán RE, Contreras T. 2003. Validación trampa Brocap® para la captura de la broca del café (Hypothenemus hampei) en San Cristóbal. En: Café, resultados de investigación. IDIAF. pp. 35-40, CODOCAFÉ. República Dominicana.

Herrera CHA. 1997. Búsqueda de sustancias atrayentes para la broca del café Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari 1867). Manizales, Caldas, Colombia: Tesis. Universidad de Caldas, Columbia.

INE (Instituto Nacional de Estatistica). 2021. Estatisticas do comércio externo 2020. Principais Produtos de Exportação nos anos de 2014-2019.

Infante F. 2018. Pest management strategies against the coffee berry borer (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 66(21): 5275-5280. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b04875        [ Links ]

Infante F, Jaramillo J, Castillo A, Vega F. 2009. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): a short review, with recent findings and future research directions, Terrestrial Arthropod Reviews 2(2):129-147. https://doi.org/10.1163/187498209X12525675906031        [ Links ]

Johnson MA, Hollingsworth R, Fortna S, Aristizábal LF, Manoukis NC. 2018. The Hawaii protocol for scientific monitoring of coffee berry borer: a model for coffee agroecosystems worldwide. Journal of Visualized Experiments 133(133): e57204. https://doi.org/10.3791/57204        [ Links ]

Kaden O. 1930. Relatório Anual de 1929, Seccäo de Fitopatologia, Direcção dos Serviços de Agricultura. Imprensa Nacional, pp. 56, Säo Tomé e Principe.

Kucel P, Kangire A, Egonyu JP. 2009. Status and Current Research Strategies for Management of the Coffee Berry Borer (Hypothenemus hampei) in Africa [accessed 13 March 2018]. NaCRRI. http://www.ico.org/event_pdfs/cbb/presentations/Kangire%20NaCRRI.pdf

Leiva-Sspinoza S, Oliva-Cruz M, Rubio-Rojas K, Maicelo-Quintana J, Milla-Pino M. 2019. Uso de trampas de colores y atrayentes alcohólicos para la captura de la broca del café (Hypothenemus hampei) en plantaciones de café altamente infestadas. Revista Colombiana de Entomologia 45(2): 2-7.         [ Links ]

Lindgren BS. 1983. A multiple funnel trap for scolytid beetles (Coleoptera). Canadian Entomology 115(3): 299-302. https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent115299-3        [ Links ]

Mathieu F, Brun LO, Marchillaud C, Frérot B. 1997. Trapping of the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei Ferr. (Col., Scolytidae) within a mesh-enclosed environment: interaction of olfactory and visual stimuli. Journal of Applied Entomology 121: 181-186.         [ Links ]

Mendoza M. J.R. 1991. Resposta da broca-do-café, Hypothenemus hampei, a estímulos visuais e semioquímicos. Dissertação. Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brasil.

Messing RH. 2012. The coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) invades Hawaii: preliminary investigations on trap response and alternate hosts. Insects 3(3): 640-652. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects3030640        [ Links ]

Moreno DR, Alvarez Nunez A, Vasquez Moreno LL, Simonetti JA. 2010. Evaluación de atrayentes para la captura de hembras adultas de broca del café Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) con trampas artesanales. Fitosanidad (Ciudad Habana). 14(3): 177-180.         [ Links ]

Oliveira CM, Santos MJ, Amabile RF, Frizzas MR, Bartholo GF. 2018. Coffee berry borer in conilon coffee in the Brazilian Cerrado: an ancient pest in a new environment. Bulletin of Entomological Research 108(1): 101-107. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485317000530.         [ Links ]

PAN-UK [Pesticide Action Network UK]. 2014. Coffee without endosulfan: experiences using traps with attractant [accessed 2 July 2020]. https://www.pan-uk.org/site/wp-content/uploads/Coffee-Without-Endosulfan-Detailed-Case-Studies.pdf

Pereira AE, Vilela EF, Tinoco RS, De Lima JOG, Fantine AK, Morais EGF, Franca CFM. 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(2): 183-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670874.2012.676219        [ Links ]

Quispe-Condori R, Loza-Murguia MG, Marza-Mamani F, Gutiérrez R, Riquelme C, Aliaga F, Fernández C. 2015. Trampas artesanales con atrayentes alcohólicos en el control de la broca del café, Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari 1867) en la Colonia Bolinda, Caranavi. Journal of the Selva Andina Biosphere 3(1): 2-14. https://doi.org/10.36610/j.jsab.2015.030100002

Rostaman R, Prakoso B. 2020. Response of coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) to alcohol-based attractants on coffee crops in Banjarnegara, Indonesia. Advances in Biological Sciences Research 8: 25-28.         [ Links ]

Ruiz-Cárdenas R, Baker P. 2010. Life table of Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) in relation to coffee berry phenology under Colombian field conditions. Scientia Agricola 67(6): 658-668. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162010000600007        [ Links ]

Souza JC, Reis PR, da Silva RA, Carvalho TAF, Pereira AB. 2013. Controle químico da broca-do-café com cyantraniliprole. Chemical control of the coffee berry borer with cyantraniliprole. Coffee Science 8(4): 404-410.         [ Links ]

Vega FE, Hofstetter R. 2015. Bark Beetles Biology and Ecology of Native and Invasive Species. London, U.K.: Academic Press.         [ Links ]

Velasco-Pascual H, Beristain-Ruiz B, Díaz-Cárdenas S. 1999. Integración de métodos para el control de la broca Hypothenemus hampei Ferr. del fruto del cafeto en la zona Córdoba-Huatusco, Veracruz, México (Informe final). Huatusco, Veracruz, México: Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Centro Regional Universitario Oriente.

Vera-Montoya L, Gil-Palacio ZN, Benavides-Machado P. 2007. Hypothenemus hampei en la zona cafetera. Cenicafé 58(3): 185-195.         [ Links ]

Villacorta A, Possagnolo AF, da Silva RZ, Rodrigues PS. 2001. Um modelo de armadilha com semioquímicos para o manejo integrado da broca do café Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) no Paraná. En: II Simpósio de Pesquisa dos Cafés do Brasil. pp. 2093-2098, Vitória, Espana.

World Bank. 2017. Plano multi-setorial de investimentos para integrar a resiliência às alterações climáticas e o risco de desastres na gestäo da zona costeira de São Tomé e Príncipe. [accessed 2 November 2020]. http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/pt/465151520904870329/pdf/124204-portuguese-wp-public-pmsi-stp-final.pdf.

 

 

Correspondence:
PA Casquero
Email:pacasl@unileon.es

Received:1 January 2022
Accepted: 4 April 2022