CoffeariumBeta
  1. Plant
  2. Farm
  3. Process
  4. Trade
  5. Roast
  6. Brew
  7. Cup
Botany · Species and varieties

Coffea canephora (robusta)

The species behind robusta coffee, about two-fifths of the world crop. A lowland African tree that cannot pollinate itself, so it is grown from clones and mixed plantings, and it holds more caffeine than arabica.

Source-checkedby Coffearium verification pass· Last source-checked 16 Oct 2026· Prepared with AI assistance· 21 sources (15 tier A)· 2 contested· Updated 22 Oct 2026
Reading depth
Contents
  • Robusta coffee comes from *Coffea canephora*; “robusta” began as the name of a separately described plant and is now listed as a synonym.1
  • The species is diploid (2n = 22) and outcrossing; arabica (2n = 44) descends from a cross with *C. eugenioides*.2
  • Self-incompatibility means farms plant several compatible clones together, or seed from controlled crosses.7,5
  • A 2020 yield study puts robusta’s optimum temperature below 20.5 °C, cooler than earlier estimates.9
  • The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) forecasts 83.8 million 60-kg bags of robusta for 2026/27, led by Vietnam and Brazil.16

One species, several names#

Coffea canephora is one of the two species that give almost all the world’s coffee. Its seeds are traded as robusta. Kew’s Plants of the World Online (POWO) lists it as a tree of the wet tropics.1

“Robusta” is not a variety in the botanical sense. A plant once described as its own species, Coffea robusta, is now listed as a synonym of C. canephora. So is the rank “subvariety robusta”.1 The species was first divided into a Kouillou and a Robusta type; the Brazilian conilon comes from a single selection of the Kouillou type.5 In trade, “robusta” stands for the whole species. The ICE robusta futures contract, for example, accepts robusta from any origin.17

Where it grows wild#

The species is native from West tropical Africa to South Sudan and northern Angola. POWO lists 18 countries and areas, from Guinea and Ivory Coast to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda and Tanzania.1 A 2006 review places its home in the lowland forests of the Congo River basin, reaching Lake Victoria in Uganda. There it grew as a midstorey tree in dense equatorial rainforest.10

The wild populations fall into two main genetic groups. The Guinean group comes from Guinea and Ivory Coast; the Congolese group comes mainly from Central Africa.3,5 A 2013 study links this pattern to climatic refuges during the last ice age.4 The coffee species index shows C. canephora among all the accepted species, with its native countries.

Tool

Coffee species index

All 133 accepted coffee species: where each grows wild and how threatened it is. Search a name or a country, filter by region and Red List category.

Open as a standalone tool →
Species shown
Threatened
Grown as cropsnow or in the past

Extinction risk (IUCN Red List)

    133 accepted species in Plants of the World Online (Kew), accessed 12 October 2026; native regions grouped by us. The hybrid C. ×heterocalyx is not counted. Red List categories: IUCN Red List version 2026-1 via GBIF (C. liberica checked on the IUCN Red List website, 12 October 2026: Least Concern); 2 names without a clean match are shown as “Not matched”.

    A plant that needs a partner#

    Most arabica flowers pollinate themselves. C. canephora cannot: it is self-incompatible, meaning a flower rejects pollen from its own plant.19,7 It is an outcrossing species, so its seedlings vary from tree to tree.2,3

    This shapes how farms are planted. A clone is a group of plants grown from cuttings of one tree, so all are genetically identical. Planting clones that cannot pollinate each other can cost yield.7 Farms therefore plant several clones that can pollinate one another, or seed from controlled crosses between selected parents.7,5

    Conilon in Brazil#

    Brazil grows C. canephora mainly as conilon. Significant production began in the 1960s, especially in Espírito Santo state.8 Most commercial conilon fields are planted with clonal cultivars, each made of several genotypes.8 Several of these cultivars came from mass selection, the choice of the best trees within a population.5 As of the USDA’s July 2026 forecast, Brazil is the second-largest robusta producer after Vietnam.16

    Climate: less robust than its name#

    Robusta has long been seen as a warm-lowland coffee. A 2006 review gives an optimum annual mean temperature of 22–26 °C.10 A 2020 study of yields on 798 farms in South-East Asia found the optimum below 20.5 °C instead.9 Above its thresholds, each 1 °C rise in growing-season temperature went with yields about 14% lower.9 Arabica tolerates cold better than C. canephora.10,6

    14161820222426283032°CArabica, optimum annualmean(2006 review)18–2110 Robusta, optimum annualmean(2006 review)22–2610 Robusta, after anotherauthor(2006 review)24–3010 Robusta, optimum fromyields(2020)below 20.59 Robusta, mean min / maxthresholds(2020)≤16.29 ≤24.19
    Data table
    Point°CSource
    Arabica, optimum annual mean (2006 review)18–2118–2110
    Robusta, optimum annual mean (2006 review)22–2622–2610
    Robusta, after another author (2006 review)24–3024–3010
    Robusta, optimum from yields (2020)below 20.520.59
    Robusta, mean min / max thresholds (2020)≤16.216.29
    Robusta, mean min / max thresholds (2020)≤24.124.19
    Published optimum temperatures for arabica and robusta: ranges from a 2006 review and the thresholds from a 2020 yield study.10,9

    How it differs from arabica in the cup#

    Green robusta holds more caffeine than green arabica.12,14 A 2021 review gives 0.9–1.5% of dry weight for arabica and 1.2–2.4% for robusta (basis not stated).11 Arabica holds more sucrose and trigonelline, two flavour precursors in roasting.12,14 Green arabica averages about 15% lipids (oils and waxes), robusta around 10%.13

    Genome and origin of arabica#

    C. canephora is diploid, with 2n = 2x = 22 chromosomes, and highly heterozygous. A 2014 study sequenced its genome of about 710 Mb.2 C. arabica (2n = 4x = 44) arose from a hybridisation between C. canephora and C. eugenioides, which makes C. canephora one of arabica’s two parent species.2 How old that hybridisation is is treated in The coffee genus.

    Genetic groups#

    Microsatellite studies divide the species into a Guinean and a Congolese group.3,4 A 2013 analysis of 293 trees from 17 populations found six subgroups, two Guinean and four Congolese, and linked the structure to refuge zones during the Last Glacial Maximum.4 The Guinean group, separated geographically by the Dahomey Gap, corresponds to diversity group D; groups A, B, C and E occur in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cameroon and the Central African Republic.3

    According to a 2017 textbook chapter, the subgroups are labelled D (Guinean), A or SG1 (conilon), B or SG2 (Central African Republic), E (Congolese), C (Cameroon), O (Uganda) and R (Democratic Republic of the Congo).5 The same chapter describes the Kouillou type as a small group of low diversity, from which a single selection gave conilon.5 Group letters differ slightly between studies; the A–E labels above are the ones both sources share.

    Self-incompatibility and planting design#

    The incompatibility in C. canephora is gametophytic: pollen is rejected when it shares an S-allele with the receiving plant.7 A 2018 study in Rondônia, Brazil, made 80 controlled crosses in a balanced diallel and assigned 12 superior genotypes to three compatibility groups. It notes that planting incompatible clones together can compromise yield, and that knowing each clone’s group allows clones to be arranged in the field accordingly.7 The authors caution that their results should not be used to justify planting only a few clones.7

    Breeding follows from the same trait. Programmes select clones for vegetative propagation, or clonal hybrids propagated by seed from controlled pollination.5 The chapter describes mass selection, applied mainly in Brazil and Vietnam, and hybridisation between distant genetic groups, extended in Ivory Coast to reciprocal recurrent selection.5 Rooted cuttings are used mostly for robusta clones, and grafting and in vitro somatic embryos also propagate them.6 Arabica in turn is often grafted onto C. canephora rootstock to control nematodes, and grafted plants have shown better drought resistance.6

    Plant habit and fruit cycle#

    POWO classes C. canephora as a tree.1 Arabica, by contrast, evolved as a shrub of the forest undergrowth in south-western Ethiopia and northern Kenya.5 In a 2025 Brazilian trial, each conilon plant was grown with three upright (orthotropic) stems.8

    The time from flowering to harvest varies with clone and site. The same 2025 trial at a transitional altitude recorded 252–308 days from anthesis to harvest across conilon genotypes. It cites earlier studies giving 216–238 days for early-maturing genotypes at low altitude.8 For comparison, a Cenicafé study on arabica var. Colombia found the best cups from fruit picked 210–224 days after flowering.21 The two studies measured different things at different sites, so they do not establish a fixed gap between the species.

    Climate in detail#

    The 2006 review gives 18–21 °C as the optimum mean annual temperature for arabica, and for robusta 22–26 °C, or 24–30 °C after another author.10 The review compiles these estimates from earlier authors.10 The 2020 study instead modelled ten years of yield records from 798 farms in South-East Asia with hierarchical Bayesian methods.9 It found an optimum below 20.5 °C, or mean minimum and maximum temperatures of ≤16.2 °C and ≤24.1 °C. Above those values, every 1 °C rise in mean minimum or maximum temperature during the growing season corresponded to yield losses of about 14%, or 350–460 kg/ha.9

    A 2017 textbook chapter describes climatic clusters for robusta growing (wet, hot-dry, dry and cool-wet) and states that fine robustas come mainly from the cool-wet cluster, with examples from mountainous regions of Uganda.6 Climatic limits, frost and site choice for both species are treated in Site selection and climate.

    Comparison with arabica#

    Trait C. arabica C. canephora
    Habit Shrub of the forest undergrowth5 Tree; midstorey tree of lowland rainforest1,10
    Chromosomes 2n = 4x = 44 (hybrid of C. canephora × C. eugenioides)2 2n = 2x = 222
    Breeding system Self-pollinating19 Self-incompatible (gametophytic), outcrossing7,2
    Usual propagation Seed (see Arabica varieties) Clones planted together, or seed from controlled crosses5,8
    Flowering to harvest Best cups from fruit picked 210–224 days after flowering (var. Colombia)21 252–308 days (conilon, transitional altitude); 216–238 days cited for early genotypes at low altitude8
    Caffeine, green coffee 0.9–1.5% dry weight11 1.2–2.4% (basis not stated)11
    Lipids, green coffee ≈15%13 ≈10%13
    Sucrose and trigonelline Higher12,14 Lower12,14
    Chlorogenic acids Lower in two sources; very similar profiles in a meta-analysis (see Contested)12,15 Higher in two sources12,14
    Optimum temperature 18–21 °C mean annual10 22–26 °C mean annual (2006 review); below 20.5 °C (2020 yield study)10,9
    Share of world production, 2026/27 forecast ≈56% (105.9 of 189.7 million bags)16 ≈44% (83.8 of 189.7 million bags)16
    Benchmark futures contract ICE Coffee “C”, 37,500 lb (≈17 t) lots18 ICE Robusta, 10 t lots, US dollars per tonne17

    Shares are our calculation from the USDA’s production table.16 Composition values refer to green coffee on a dry-weight basis where the source states one; the lipid averages carry no stated basis in the source.13

    Production by country#

    As of its July 2026 report, the USDA forecasts world coffee production for 2026/27 at a record 189.7 million 60-kg bags, of which 83.8 million are robusta.16 For 2025/26 it estimates 84.4 million bags of robusta out of 178.8 million, about 47% by our calculation.16 Vietnam leads with a forecast 31.4 million bags of robusta, followed by Brazil (24.4 million), Indonesia (10.0 million), Uganda (6.0 million) and India (4.6 million).16 These are forecasts and estimates by marketing year, not final harvests.

    05101520253035million 60-kg bagsVietnam31.416 Brazil24.416 Indonesia10.016 Uganda6.016 India4.616
    Data table
    million 60-kg bagsSource
    Vietnam31.416
    Brazil24.416
    Indonesia10.016
    Uganda6.016
    India4.616
    Robusta production forecast for 2026/27 by country, in million 60-kg bags, from the USDA’s July 2026 report.16

    Fine robusta and specialty robusta#

    Robusta has long been sold mainly as a commercial grade. In a series of workshops in Uganda, coffee professionals cupped robusta from several origins side by side. The outcome was a robusta cupping form, a cupping protocol and a green robusta grading handbook.19 The Coffee Quality Institute (CQI) and the Uganda Coffee Development Authority (UCDA) drew up a classification system for fine robusta, and the name “fine robusta” was chosen to set these coffees apart from “specialty arabica”.19,20 According to the CQI, these standards and procedures are similar to those for specialty arabica.20

    The robusta cupping form records attributes that include a bitter/sweet and a salt/acid aspect ratio.19 According to the same chapter, robusta coffees show greater differences in cup quality than arabica coffees, which the authors attribute to cross-pollination.19 Grading rules and cupping scores are covered in Green coffee grading and Cupping.

    Open questions#

    • How far the 2020 temperature optimum, measured on South-East Asian farms, holds for conilon in Brazil and for robusta in Africa is not established in the sources opened for this entry.9
    • Whether C. canephora contains more chlorogenic acids than arabica in a consistent way remains disputed (see Contested).12,15
    • No source opened for this entry gives a sourced, species-wide flowering-to-harvest period for both species under the same conditions.

    Key studies#

    Kath et al., 2020 – Not so robust. Modelled ten years of yield records from 798 robusta farms in South-East Asia against temperature. Found an optimum below 20.5 °C, 1.5–9 °C below earlier estimates, and yields about 14% lower per 1 °C rise in growing-season mean minimum or maximum temperature above 16.2/24.1 °C.

    Global Change Biology 26(6), 3677–3688 · doi:10.1111/gcb.15097

    Denoeud et al., 2014 – The robusta genome. Sequenced and assembled the genome of *C. canephora*. Compared its caffeine genes with those of other plants and concluded that caffeine biosynthesis in coffee evolved convergently.

    Science 345(6201), 1181–1184 · doi:10.1126/science.1255274

    Cubry et al., 2013 – Diversity across the Guineo-Congolese region. Genotyped 293 wild and cultivated trees from 17 populations with 39 microsatellite markers. Found a Guinean and a Congolese group with six subgroups, shaped by ice-age forest refuges and later migration.

    Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 60(2), 483–501 · agritrop.cirad.fr/567363

    Moraes et al., 2018 – Compatibility groups of superior clones. Made controlled crosses between elite genotypes in Rondônia, Brazil, and sorted 12 of them into three compatibility groups. Notes that planting incompatible clones can compromise yield and that known groups let growers arrange clones in the field.

    Genetics and Molecular Research 17(1), gmr16039876 · doi:10.4238/gmr16039876

    Contested
    • Temperature optimum: a 2006 review gives an optimum annual mean of 22–26 °C, or 24–30 °C after another author10; a 2020 study of yields on 798 farms puts the optimum below 20.5 °C.9 The older figures are compiled from earlier literature; the newer one was derived from yield records.
    • Chlorogenic acids by species: a 2001 study of wild accessions and a roasting chemistry chapter report more chlorogenic acids in *C. canephora*12,14; a 2021 meta-analysis in a master’s thesis finds the chlorogenic acid profiles of the two species very similar and roast level more important than species, except for total feruloylquinic and dicaffeoylquinic acids.15
    Share or cite this entry

    Change log

    • – Chlorogenic acids by species: the meta-analysis view is now cited to the author's master's thesis (UC Davis 2021) instead of an SCA News interview, and restated as in the thesis (very similar profiles; roast level matters more than species except for total FQA and diCQA). Reason: The interview was a news item that may not stand alone, and the thesis does not state "not statistically significant".

    Sources

    1. ARoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew (2026). Coffea canephora Pierre ex A.Froehner. Plants of the World Online (World Checklist of Vascular Plants).
    2. ADenoeud, F.; Carretero-Paulet, L.; Dereeper, A.; et al. (2014). The coffee genome provides insight into the convergent evolution of caffeine biosynthesis. Science 345(6201), 1181–1184. doi:10.1126/science.1255274 · other copies
    3. AAkpertey, A.; Padi, F. K.; Meinhardt, L.; Zhang, D. (2021). Effectiveness of Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Markers in Genotyping Germplasm Collections of Coffea canephora Using KASP Assay. Frontiers in Plant Science 11, 612593. doi:10.3389/fpls.2020.612593 · other copies
    4. ACubry, P.; De Bellis, F.; Pot, D.; Musoli, P.; Leroy, T. (2013). Global analysis of Coffea canephora Pierre ex Froehner (Rubiaceae) from the Guineo-Congolese region reveals impacts from climatic refuges and migration effects. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 60(2), 483–501.
    5. BHerrera, J. C.; Lambot, C. (2017). The Coffee Tree – Genetic Diversity and Origin. In: Folmer, B. (ed.), The Craft and Science of Coffee, Academic Press, ch. 1, pp. 1–16. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-803520-7.00001-3 · other copies
    6. BLambot, C.; Herrera, J. C.; Bertrand, B.; Sadeghian, S.; Benavides, P.; Gaitán, A. (2017). Cultivating Coffee Quality – Terroir and Agro-Ecosystem. In: Folmer, B. (ed.), The Craft and Science of Coffee, Academic Press, ch. 2, pp. 17–49. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-803520-7.00002-5 · other copies
    7. AMoraes, M. S.; Teixeira, A. L.; Ramalho, A. R.; Espíndula, M. C.; Ferrão, M. A. G.; Rocha, R. B. (2018). Characterization of gametophytic self-incompatibility of superior clones of Coffea canephora. Genetics and Molecular Research 17(1), gmr16039876. doi:10.4238/gmr16039876 · other copies
    8. AColodetti, T. V.; Tomaz, M. A.; Sartori, L.; de Salles, R. A.; de Souza, I. V.; Senra, J. F. de B.; Rodrigues, W. N. (2025). From anthesis to harvest: evolution of the fructification of Conilon coffee genotypes grown at a transitional altitude. Bragantia 84, e20250028. doi:10.1590/1678-4499.20250028 · other copies
    9. AKath, J.; Byrareddy, V. M.; Craparo, A.; Nguyen-Huy, T.; Mushtaq, S.; Cao, L.; Bossolasco, L. (2020). Not so robust: robusta coffee production is highly sensitive to temperature. Global Change Biology 26(6), 3677–3688. doi:10.1111/gcb.15097 · other copies
    10. ADaMatta, F. M.; Ramalho, J. D. C. (2006). Impacts of drought and temperature stress on coffee physiology and production: a review. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology 18(1), 55–81. doi:10.1590/S1677-04202006000100006 · other copies
    11. AOlechno, E.; Puścion-Jakubik, A.; Zujko, M. E.; Socha, K. (2021). Influence of Various Factors on Caffeine Content in Coffee Brews. Foods 10(6), 1208. doi:10.3390/foods10061208 · other copies
    12. AKy, C.-L.; Louarn, J.; Dussert, S.; Guyot, B.; Hamon, S.; Noirot, M. (2001). Caffeine, trigonelline, chlorogenic acids and sucrose diversity in wild Coffea arabica L. and C. canephora P. accessions. Food Chemistry 75(2), 223–230.
    13. ASpeer, K.; Kölling-Speer, I. (2006). The lipid fraction of the coffee bean. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology 18(1), 201–216. doi:10.1590/S1677-04202006000100014 · other copies
    14. BPoisson, L.; Blank, I.; Dunkel, A.; Hofmann, T. (2017). The Chemistry of Roasting – Decoding Flavor Formation. In: Folmer, B. (ed.), The Craft and Science of Coffee, Academic Press, ch. 12, pp. 273–309. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-803520-7.00012-8 · other copies
    15. BYeager, S. E. (2021). A Meta-Analysis of Acids in Coffee and a Quantification of Coffee Beverage Color. University of California, Davis (MSc thesis; chapter 2 is the meta-analysis later published by Yeager, Batali, Guinard and Ristenpart in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition).
    16. AUSDA Foreign Agricultural Service (2026). Coffee: World Markets and Trade (July 2026). United States Department of Agriculture.
    17. AICE Futures Europe (2026). Robusta Coffee Futures: contract specifications. Intercontinental Exchange.
    18. AICE Futures U.S. (2026). Coffee “C”® Futures: contract specifications. Intercontinental Exchange.
    19. BLingle, T. R.; Menon, S. N. (2017). Cupping and Grading – Discovering Character and Quality. In: Folmer, B. (ed.), The Craft and Science of Coffee, Academic Press, ch. 8, pp. 181–203. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-803520-7.00008-6 · other copies
    20. BCoffee Quality Institute (2026). Uganda. Coffee Quality Institute, Global impact.
    21. AMarín-López, S. M.; Arcila-Pulgarín, J.; Montoya-Restrepo, E. C.; Oliveros-Tascón, C. E. (2003). Cambios físicos y químicos durante la maduración del fruto de café (Coffea arabica L. var. Colombia). Cenicafé 54(3), 208–225.

    Tier A · authoritative · B · trade and expert · C · general. Supporting quotes for every source are in the data version of this entry. If a publisher’s site refuses access, try the doi link or “other copies”.

    Suggest a change

    On Coffea canephora (robusta). Tell us what you would change and why. A source that supports it helps most.