Hypothenemus hampei
Creators: name: Bustillo, Alex
Publisher: name: The American Phytopathological Society
Year: 2015
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Coleoptera
Curculionidae
Hypothenemus
Hypothenemus hampei

description: The coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae),   
is the most serious pest of coffee all around the world wherever coffee is grown. It spread via the coffee trade from Central Africa, which is believed to be the place of origin, across Africa, Asia, and Central and South America. In the Americas, the coffee berry borer was introduced to Brazil around 1913. In 1962, it was found in Peru and then in Guatemala (1971). Honduras (1977), Mexico and Jamaica (1978), El Salvador and Ecuador (1981), Colombia (1989), Nicaragua and Cuba (1990), the Dominican Republic and Venezuela (1995), Costa Rica (2000). and finally Panama (2005).  
The coffee berry borer is a small black beetle, 1.5 mm long. All of the immature life stages take place inside the coffee berry. The female adult is larger than the male, and females generally outnumber males in a ratio of 10:1. Males mate inside the berry with females, but they never emerge. The male lives 50—75 days, while the female survives 100-150 days. The female enters the coffee berry through a circular hole that it makes, usually in the tip of the berry (Fig. 90). The female tunnels within the bean and starts laying eggs at a rate of two to three per day, for a period of about 1 month. The eggs hatch in 5 days. Larvae are white and legless and are found feeding inside the coffee beans, rendering the beans unsuitable for commerce or greatly lowering their quality. The larval stage passes through two instars, lasting about 25 days, and the pupal stage lasts about 15 days (Fig. 91). Complete development from egg laying to adult is between 45 and 60 days under conditions of 21 or 18°C, respectively. Mated females emerge to fly and search for a new berry, bore into it to lay eggs, and start a new cycle. It is estimated that only about 65% of all emerged adults are fertilized, and they are the ones that can successfully colonize new berries.  
 Coffee berries at different stages of development can be attacked by the coffee berry borer. However, the borer only lays eggs in those berries that have more than 20% dry weight. In some regions, this stage is reached 120-150 days after flowering. In Colombia, the optimal time for borer attack is reached when berries have developed for more than 150 days. In these berries, oviposition takes place 4-5 days after the coffee berry borer enters the seed. Under these conditions, the coffee berry borer is only capable of having two generations during the coffee plant production season. The coffee berry borer is usually dispersed by migrant coffee pickers, who bring coffee for personal use along with them from previous jobs. Adult flight dispersal is also important since H. hampei flies upright and can be transported by the wind for several hours over long distances. Borers initially find host berries by responding to volatile chemicals emitted by the coffee berry during its de ­ velopment. The borers position themselves close to the berries using sight, and the borers prefer red berries.   
The coffee berry borer causes damage by boring and de ­ positing eggs into the berry. Larvae emerge and feed on the seed of the berry, destroying it. Immature, infested berries may fall because of injury or secondary infection. The economic damage is twofold: berries that prematurely drop reduce the total yield, and damaged berries that remain on the tree until the harvest have a lower commercial value because of reduced bean weight and downgraded quality. Severe infestations may result in heavy crop losses. Worldwide, the coffee berry borer causes an estimated USD $500 million in losses.  
 The coffee berry borer is difficult to control by spraying insecticides since much of its life cycle takes place deep inside the berry. Therefore, other methods must be devised. Cultural control methods, including completely harvesting all berries from the coffee trees, have a limited impact. In some countries, picking up the fallen berries from the ground at the end of the harvest season is recommended, but this is laborious and very expensive. Therefore, the backbone of H. hampei population management is to very carefully harvest the coffee so that ripe berries on the tree and fallen berries on the ground are not left behind.   
An integrated pest management approach is the best strategy to reduce borer populations to under the economic damage threshold. Neither the application of chemicals nor the cultural or biological methods have proven to be sufficiently effective as a single method of control. However, each may have an important contribution to an integrated pest management program. The recommended methods include insect monitoring, using good harvesting practices, avoiding the escape of borers from the processing area, releasing biological control agents into the field, and integrating cultural practices, such as harvesting every berry left on the trees and those fallen on the ground. Rational use of agrochemicals, such as chlorpyrifos, pirimiphosmethyl, and fenitrothion, can be incorporated where necessary.  
 Several parasitic wasps, such as Cephalonomia stephanoderis Betrem, Prorops nasuta Waterston, and Phymastichus coffea LaSalle (Fig. 92), attack the coffee berry borer in its African center of origin, as does the parasitic fungus Beauveria bassiana (Bals.-Criv.) Vuill. (Fig. 93). This entomopathogenic fungus and the parasitoids have been successfully mass produced in several countries in South and Central America and in India. The parasitoids have been released by the millions in Colombia, and B. bassiana has been sprayed in almost all of the infested coffee-growing areas, where it has become the main mortality factor of the coffee berry borer.
description: Published as part of Bustillo, Alex, 2015, Part II. Pests, pp. 45-60 in Compendium of Coffee Diseases and Pests, United States of America :The American Phytopathological Society on pages 52-53, DOI: 10.1094/9780890544723.003, http://zenodo.org/record/10571463