CoffeariumBeta
  1. Plant
  2. Farm
  3. Process
  4. Trade
  5. Roast
  6. Brew
  7. Cup
Farm management · Pest or disease

Coffee berry borer

The small beetle that breeds inside the coffee seed. How Hypothenemus hampei lives and spreads, why warming lifts it to higher farms, what it does to weight and grade, and how producers and mills keep it down.

Across the chain: History · Science

Source-checkedby Coffearium verification pass· Last source-checked 16 Oct 2026· Prepared with AI assistance· 19 sources (16 tier A)· 3 contested· Updated 16 Oct 2026
Reading depth
Contents
  • The coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) is a small beetle whose females bore into the coffee berry and breed inside the seed.4,5
  • Sisters mate with their brothers inside the berry; males never leave it, and only mated females fly to new berries.3,4,5
  • In a laboratory study, development from egg to adult succeeded only between 20 and 30 °C, with thresholds estimated at 14.9 and 32 °C.1
  • The beetle reached Brazil in 1913, Colombia in 1988, Hawaii in 2010 and Papua New Guinea in 2017.4,8,7
  • Cultural control rests on timely picking and a final pass for left-over fruit; sprays reach the female mainly before she enters the seed.10,11,9

What the coffee berry borer is#

The coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) is a small beetle. It is one of the few herbivores that feed on the coffee seed itself.1 A 2020 review and a 2018 study both call it the most damaging insect pest of coffee worldwide.4,5 In Spanish it is called broca.3

The beetle spends almost its whole life hidden inside the coffee berry. Females spend most of their lives there.5 Males never leave it.3 According to a 2017 textbook chapter, coffee berries are its only host.15 It attacks and develops in both arabica (C. arabica) and robusta (C. canephora).1 The same book notes that cultivated coffee varieties lack genetic resistance to it.16

How the beetle lives inside the berry#

A mated female flies to a berry and bores a hole, usually through the disc.4,5 A 2017 textbook chapter places the hole at the tip of the fruit.15 She tunnels through the pulp into one seed and digs galleries there. Along them she lays her eggs.5

The larvae hatch and feed on the seed tissue.15 They pupate inside the seed and become adults there.5 Far more daughters than sons are born: about ten females for each male, according to a Colombian review.3 The young females mate with their brothers before they leave.3,4 Males cannot fly and never leave the berry.3,5

The mated females then leave through the entry hole and look for new berries.4 At 24.5 °C, one cycle from egg to adult takes about 27.5 days.3 Depending on climate, the beetle completes between 2 and 13 generations a year.4

Researchers describe four positions of the founder female, named A to D.1 In A she is starting to enter a new berry but has not yet pierced the skin. In B she is in the pulp. In C she has begun to bore into the seed. In D she has made a gallery in the seed and breeds there.1,4 The positions matter for control, as explained below.

12345678
  1. Position A. A mated female starts to bore into a new berry, usually through the disc.1,5
  2. Position B. She is inside the berry but has not yet reached the seed.1
  3. Position C. She starts to bore into the seed but has not laid eggs yet.1 In one micro-CT scan, only one of the two seeds was infested.5
  4. Position D. Her gallery in the seed holds eggs or other young stages.1,5
  5. Larvae. The larvae feed on the seed tissue (endosperm).5,15
  6. Pupae. Larvae pupate in cells inside the seed.5 From egg to adult takes about 27.5 days at 24.5 °C.3
  7. New adults. Females far outnumber males. Siblings mate inside the berry; the smaller males stay there.3,4,5
  8. Dispersal. Mated females leave their natal berry and fly to new berries.4
The life cycle of the coffee berry borer inside a coffee berry cut lengthwise, with the four positions of the founder female. Schematic, not to scale.1,3,4,5

Which berries it attacks#

Females can attack young berries, from about 70 days after flowering.3 They breed only in older fruit, when the seed has more than about 20% dry weight.3,4 That is roughly 120–150 days after flowering.3,4

Berries left on the tree or fallen to the ground keep the beetles alive between crops.11 In a Colombian trial, 30.4–58.3% of the fruit on the ground was infested.11 These berries are the source of the next attack.10,11

What it does to the crop and the cup#

The beetle eats the part of the berry that is sold. According to a 2015 study, infestations can reduce yield by up to 80%.6 According to a Colombian review, borer damage cost dry parchment coffee 18.1% of its weight on average.3 Losses worldwide have been estimated at more than USD 500 million a year (estimate cited in 2011 and 2020).2,4

Damaged seeds also lower the grade. The beetle leaves holes and tunnels in the seed.15 The Specialty Coffee Association (SCA) physical assessment counts insect damage as a defect.14 For severe insect damage, 5 beans count as 1 full category 1 defect.14 For slight insect damage, 10 beans count as 1 category 2 defect.14

According to a 2017 textbook chapter, the holes open a way for bacteria and moulds.15 The chapter reports that heavily damaged beans can give fermented or mouldy off-flavours.15 For premium markets, it states, the tolerance is nil.15

From Africa to Hawaii#

The beetle comes from Africa, but where exactly is unclear.4 Its original host was probably robusta.1,2 It was first described in 1867, under the name Cryphalus hampei.4 The first report from Africa came from Liberia in 1897.4

It was reported in Java, Indonesia, in 1908.4 It reached Brazil in 1913, at Campinas in São Paulo state.4 Colombia first reported it in 1988, in Nariño in the south.3,8 Puerto Rico confirmed it officially in 2007.4

In August 2010 it was found in Kona, on Hawaii Island.7 It was later confirmed on O‘ahu (2014), Maui (2016), Kaua‘i (2020) and Lāna‘i (2020).4 Papua New Guinea detected it on smallholder farms in early 2017.4

186018801900192019401960198020002020123456798
  1. 1867. Described as Cryphalus hampei.4
  2. 1897. First report from Africa, in Liberia.4
  3. 1908. First report from Indonesia, in West Java.4
  4. 1913. Introduced to Brazil, at Campinas, São Paulo.4
  5. 1988. First reported in Colombia, in Nariño.3,8
  6. 2007. Officially confirmed in Puerto Rico.4
  7. 2010. Found in Kona, Hawaii Island (August).7
  8. 2010–2020. Spread across the Hawaiian islands: O‘ahu 2014, Maui 2016, Kaua‘i and Lāna‘i 2020.4
  9. 2017. Detected in Papua New Guinea (early 2017).4
How the coffee berry borer spread, 1867–2020. Dates to scale; markers schematic.3,4,7,8

A 2020 review stated that the borer had reached nearly every coffee-producing country.4 Sources of different dates disagree on which countries are free of it; see Contested. No list of borer-free countries dated 2026 was opened for this entry (as of October 2026).

Warmer climates, higher farms#

The beetle is sensitive to temperature. In a 2009 laboratory study, it developed from egg to adult only between 20 and 30 °C.1 Below about 15 °C and above about 32 °C it could not develop.1

Cool, high farms were long spared. For decades, no attacks above 1,500 m were reported.2,16 A 2011 study dates the first such reports to the previous ten years.2 A 2009 study cites researchers in Uganda and Indonesia who reported attacks as high as 1,864 m.1 On Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania, it moved about 300 m uphill in ten years.2,16

A 2011 modelling study projects more generations a year across East Africa’s arabica zones by 2050.2 The links between shade, altitude and the beetle are covered under shade and agroforestry and in site selection and climate.

How producers control it#

No single method controls the borer. Programmes combine harvest practice, biological control, traps and, where used, insecticides.4,16

Clean harvesting. Producers pick ripe berries often: every two to three weeks in one Colombian study.10 After the main harvest, a last pass collects every ripe, overripe and dry fruit from the tree and the ground. In Colombia this pass is called repase.10,11 Colombian guidance aims for fewer than five fruits per tree after harvest.10,11 Hawaii uses a similar end-of-season “strip picking”.4,9

Fungus. The fungus Beauveria bassiana infects the borer naturally in almost all regions of Colombia.3 It is also sprayed as a biological insecticide.9,16 It reaches the female mainly while she is in position A or B, before she is protected inside the seed.9

Wasps. Three small African wasps that attack the borer were brought to Colombia through quarantine.3,8,16 In a Colombian pilot in 2021–2022, released wasps cut infested berries per branch by about half or more.8

Traps. Traps baited with methanol and ethanol catch flying females.4 They are used mainly to see when females are flying.3,9

Insecticides. Control has relied mainly on synthetic insecticides, with mixed results.13 Like the fungus, they reach the female mainly before she enters the seed.9 We describe their use; we do not recommend products.

At the mill#

In a Colombian study, adult beetles escaped at every stage of wet processing.12 Most escaped while floaters and low-grade beans were drying.12 Citing earlier Cenicafé work, the publication recommends treating these with hot water or drying them under covered structures.12

A Cenicafé guide advises drying fruit collected from the ground in a mechanical dryer, or solarising it under plastic for 48 h.11 Heated drying kills the borer stages left in parchment coffee, according to a Colombian review.3 Flotation and sorting of damaged fruit are covered in harvesting and sorting.

Biology and reproduction#

Classification. Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari, 1867) is a bark beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae).3,8,13 It feeds on coffee endosperm, which few herbivores can, because it copes with caffeine.1,6

Mating system. Reproduction is highly inbred: almost all mating occurs between siblings inside the natal berry.4 Males have atrophied wing muscles and cannot fly.3 They are smaller than females, with vestigial wings and rudimentary eyes, and never leave the berry.3,5 The sex ratio is strongly biased towards females, but published estimates range from 5:1 to 494:1.4

Egg laying. A Colombian review gives an egg-laying period of about 20 days at two to three eggs a day.3 A 2020 review states that females can lay more than 100 eggs.4 In the 2009 laboratory study, total fecundity of the founder female was highest at 20 °C (296.9 eggs) and lowest at 30 °C (64.3 eggs).1 The values are not directly comparable (see Contested). No source opened for this entry states the lifespan of the female with a measured value, so it is left out.

Timing in the fruit. Females start to search for berries about 100 days after flowering and usually lay eggs about 20 days later.1 A Colombian review states that the beetle can attack fruit from 70 days after flowering but reproduces only in fruit older than 120 days with more than 20% dry weight.3 A 2020 review states that females colonise berries when the seed reaches 20% dry weight, about 120–150 days after flowering.4

Inside the berry: micro-CT#

A 2018 study scanned infested berries with micro-computed tomography (micro-CT), which images the inside in 3D without opening the berry.5 One berry held 47 insects: the founder female, 26 larvae, 12 pupae and 8 unhatched eggs.5 All were in one of the two seeds.5

The female had entered from the side near the stalk, not through the disc, although the disc is the usual route.5 Her galleries branched inside the seed. Second-instar larvae built pupal cells.5 The authors suggest, as a hypothesis, that eggs are placed from the edge of the seed inwards.5

Temperature limits and generations#

The 2009 study reared the borer at eight constant temperatures from 15 to 35 °C.1 Egg-to-adult development succeeded between 20 and 30 °C.1 With linear regression and a modified Logan model, the lower and upper thresholds were estimated at 14.9 and 32 °C.1 Completing the pre-reproductive phase needed 262.47 degree-days above 14.9 °C.1

At 15 °C and 35 °C no eggs were laid.1 At 35 °C, founder females stayed in position B and did not reach the endosperm.1 At 33 °C females laid eggs, but 95% of first-instar larvae died after hatching.1 The intrinsic rate of increase peaked at about 26.7 °C.1 The model predicts an average 8.5% rise in the maximum rate of increase for every 1 °C rise in the thermal optimum.1

From weather data, the study estimated 0–4.71 generations a year across sites in Colombia, Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia.1 At Jimma, Ethiopia, the climate was too cold before 1984 for even one generation a year; after 1984, one to two were possible.1 In Hawaii, a cited study reported 2.1–4.9 generations a year.9

Site Generations per year (estimated range)
Kilimanjaro, Tanzania 2.39–4.711
Chinchiná, Colombia 2.95–4.301
Kisii, Kenya 2.03–3.131
Jimma, Ethiopia 0.0–2.021

Altitude and climate change#

A 2011 study states that until ten years earlier, no attacks on coffee plantations above 1,500 m had been reported.2 A 2017 textbook chapter says the same of the period until the 1990s.16 The 2009 study cites personal communications from Uganda and Indonesia reporting attacks as high as 1,864 m.1 On Mount Kilimanjaro the borer moved about 300 m uphill in ten years.2,16

The 2011 study used the CLIMEX model with two emission scenarios (A2 and B2) for 2050.2 As of 2011 the borer completed 1–4.5 generations a year in East Africa.2 For 2050, the model projects 5–10 generations at 1,400–1,800 m and 11–16 at 900–1,300 m.2 The authors suggest shade trees as one adaptation.2

0246810121416generations per yearKilimanjaro, Tanzania(2009 study)2.39–4.711 Chinchiná, Colombia(2009 study)2.95–4.301 Kisii, Kenya (2009 study)2.03–3.131 Jimma, Ethiopia(2009 study)0.0–2.021 East Africa, 2011 estimate1–4.52 East Africa 2050,1,400–1,800 m(projection)5–102 East Africa 2050,900–1,300 m(projection)11–162
Data table
generations per yearSource
Kilimanjaro, Tanzania (2009 study)2.39–4.711
Chinchiná, Colombia (2009 study)2.95–4.301
Kisii, Kenya (2009 study)2.03–3.131
Jimma, Ethiopia (2009 study)0.0–2.021
East Africa, 2011 estimate1–4.52
East Africa 2050, 1,400–1,800 m (projection)5–102
East Africa 2050, 900–1,300 m (projection)11–162
Generations of the coffee berry borer per year: estimates from weather data at four sites (2009 study), for East Africa as of 2011, and model projections for East Africa in 2050. Data: Jaramillo et al. 2009 and 2011.1,2

In a 2015 study in eastern Uganda, the borer was more common on sun-exposed plantations.19 The abstract reports that the shade effect depended on altitude only for another pest, the white stem borer.19

Caffeine and the gut microbiome#

Caffeine can be toxic to insects and is thought to defend the plant against herbivores.6 A 2015 study showed that caffeine is broken down in the borer’s gut.6 When the gut bacteria were removed with antibiotics, the beetle lost this ability.6

Borers from seven major coffee-producing countries and from laboratory colonies shared a core of gut microorganisms.6 Several Pseudomonas species among them can live on caffeine as their only source of carbon and nitrogen.6 Their caffeine demethylase genes were active in the gut. Reinoculating treated beetles with one Pseudomonas strain restored caffeine breakdown.6 The plant side is covered in caffeine.

Damage, losses and quality#

Yield and weight. According to a 2015 study, infestations can reduce yield by up to 80%.6 A Colombian review reports an average weight loss of 18.1% in dry parchment coffee.3 Global losses are estimated at more than USD 500 million a year.2,4 For Brazil, losses have been estimated at USD 215–358 million a year.4 In Hawaii, the economy-wide loss in crop value for 2011/12 and 2012/13 was estimated at USD 12.7 million.4 These estimates use different bases and years.

Grading. The SCA’s Coffee Value Assessment (CVA) converts defects into full defect equivalents.14 Severe insect damage is a category 1 defect, 5 beans to 1 full defect. Slight insect damage is a category 2 defect, 10 beans to 1.14 The full grading system is explained in green coffee grading standards.

Cup and safety. According to a 2017 textbook chapter, larvae damage the structure and composition of the endosperm.15 The same chapter reports that the holes give access to fungi linked to ochratoxin A, citing earlier studies.15 No primary study on this link was opened for this entry.

Integrated pest management#

The 2020 review groups borer management into monitoring and sampling, and cultural, biological, chemical and physical control.4 Published plans for Hawaii combine field monitoring, B. bassiana and other insecticides, field sanitation and post-harvest control.9 In Hawaii, growers could claim 75% of the cost of B. bassiana from 2014 to 2016.4

Cultural control. On a small Colombian farm, ripe and dry berries were collected every two to three weeks for two years, plus one repase after each main harvest.10 Green berries stayed at 1–3.9% infestation.10 Citing earlier Colombian work, the authors describe the method as highly effective when fewer than 5 such berries per tree remain after harvest, and ineffective when more than 10 remain.10 A Cenicafé guide sets the same target of fewer than five fruits per tree.11 In its trials, collecting fallen fruit with a basket reduced infestation by up to 73.6% against plots without collection.11

Biological control: fungus. B. bassiana has been the most common biological control on coffee farms since the borer arrived, according to a 2017 textbook chapter.16 In Hawaii, 20–70% of females were in the exposed A/B position early in the season.9 Later they were protected inside the endosperm, which explains why applications after July were less effective.9 In Colombian field trials cited in the same study, conidia applied to fallen berries infected about 30–40% of borers and reduced later tree infestation by up to 50%.9

Biological control: parasitoids. Colombia introduced Cephalonomia stephanoderis, Prorops nasuta and Phymastichus coffea through quarantine in England.3,8,16 The two bethylid wasps attack all life stages inside infested berries; P. coffea is an endoparasitoid of adult borers.8 In the Colombian pilot (2021–2022, published 2023), more than 1.5 million wasps of each of two species, P. nasuta and P. coffea, were released on a 61-hectare farm.8 P. coffea releases were timed to females entering fruit (positions A and B).8 Infested fruits per branch fell by 77.5% in 2021 and by 51.1% in 2022 on the release farm, against plots without releases.8 The authors judge the area-wide strategy effective in this pilot.8

Traps and repellents. In trap studies, 3:1 and 1:1 methanol:ethanol lures attracted borers equally well.4 Some chemicals with repellent properties have been identified.13 According to a 2017 textbook chapter, repellent plants have been identified, with field tests under way at the time.16

Chemical control. Endosulfan became the most widely used insecticide against the borer in the 1960s. The borer developed resistance, and by 2013 the compound was banned in at least 70 countries.4 A 2020 review reports chlorpyrifos as the only insecticide in use against the borer in Papua New Guinea.4 A 2023 study states that in Colombia chemical control is not traditionally used in plantations in their first and second harvest, because borer numbers there are usually low.8 A Colombian review gives a threshold of 2% infestation for the periods between harvests.3

Post-harvest and mill hygiene#

A participatory study on Colombian farms found adult borers escaping at every stage of wet processing.12 Most escapes happened while floaters and low-grade beans (pasillas) were drying.12 Citing earlier Cenicafé work, the publication recommends hot water or drying under covered structures for these fractions, and applying B. bassiana to the pulp.12 In a 1998 participatory survey of 115 producers at the start of the study, fewer than 7% took any borer control measure during processing.12

Cenicafé advises drying collected fallen fruit in a mechanical dryer, or solarising it under plastic for 48 h.11 Drying with heat kills the borer stages left in parchment coffee.3 No source opened for this entry gives a drying temperature that kills larvae, so none is given.

Reference values#

Parameter Value reported Source
Egg-to-adult development Between 20 and 30 °C (laboratory) Jaramillo et al.1
Development thresholds Lower 14.9 °C, upper 32 °C Jaramillo et al.1
Thermal requirement 262.47 degree-days above 14.9 °C (egg to adult) Jaramillo et al.1
Optimum for rate of increase About 26.7 °C Jaramillo et al.1
Egg to adult About 27.5 days at 24.5 °C Bustillo3
Sex ratio About 10 females : 1 male; 5:1 to 494:1 across studies Bustillo3; Johnson et al.4
Eggs 2–3 a day for about 20 days; more than 100; 64.3–296.9 (lab, 30–20 °C) Bustillo3; Johnson et al.4; Jaramillo et al.1
Generations per year 2–13 by climate; 1–4.5 in East Africa (2011) Johnson et al.4; Jaramillo et al.2
Fruit for breeding More than 20% dry weight; about 120–150 days after flowering Bustillo3; Johnson et al.4
Exposed positions (A/B) Berries 60–140 days old; protected in endosperm after about 140 days (Hawaii) Hollingsworth et al.9
Fruit left per tree after harvest Fewer than 5 Aristizábal et al.10; Constantino et al.11
Weight loss, dry parchment 18.1% on average (Colombia) Bustillo3
SCA defect equivalents Severe insect damage 5 = 1 (category 1); slight 10 = 1 (category 2) SCA CVA14

Open questions#

  • Origin. Where in Africa the borer and its first host come from is not settled.4
  • Female lifespan. Published values circulate, but no source opened for this entry measures it, so it is left out.
  • Papua New Guinea date. The 2020 review gives early 2017 in its text and 2018 in a figure caption; an earlier incursion in 2009 was eradicated.4
  • Biological control at scale. Parasitoid releases reduced infestation in a pilot on one 61-hectare farm8; no study opened for this entry tests them across whole regions.
  • Current distribution. No country list dated 2026 was opened for this entry (as of October 2026); see Contested.

Key studies#

Jaramillo et al., 2009 – Thermal tolerance of the coffee berry borer. Reared the borer at eight constant temperatures and modelled its development. It developed only between 20 and 30 °C, with thresholds at 14.9 and 32 °C, and warming already allowed one to two generations a year at Jimma, Ethiopia.

PLoS ONE 4(8), e6487 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006487

Jaramillo et al., 2011 – Some like it hot. Combined the borer’s thermal requirements with climate scenarios for East Africa. The model projects more generations a year across arabica zones by 2050, and the authors suggest shade trees as one adaptation.

PLoS ONE 6(9), e24528 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024528

Ceja-Navarro et al., 2015 – Gut bacteria detoxify caffeine. Showed that caffeine is degraded in the borer’s gut and that this stops when the gut bacteria are removed. Pseudomonas strains from the gut can live on caffeine alone, and reinoculating them restored the ability.

Nature Communications 6, 7618 · doi:10.1038/ncomms8618

Alba-Alejandre et al., 2018 – The borer seen by micro-CT. Scanned infested berries in 3D without opening them. One berry held 47 insects in one seed, in branching galleries with pupal cells.

Scientific Reports 8, 17033 · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-35324-4

Benavides et al., 2023 – Area-wide parasitoid releases in Colombia. Released more than 1.5 million wasps of each of two African species on a 61-hectare farm. Infested fruits per branch fell by 77.5% (2021) and 51.1% (2022) against plots without releases.

Insects 14(11), 865 · doi:10.3390/insects14110865

Contested
  • Sex ratio: a 2006 Colombian review gives about ten females per male3; a 2020 global review reports published estimates from 5:1 to 494:1 and notes that they vary widely.4
  • Eggs per female: the 2006 review gives an egg-laying period of about 20 days at two to three eggs a day3; the 2020 review says females can lay more than 100 eggs4; in a 2009 laboratory study, a founder female laid 296.9 eggs at 20 °C and 64.3 at 30 °C before her daughters began to lay.1 The values come from different methods and temperatures.
  • Which coffee countries are free of the borer: a 2011 paper named Nepal and Papua New Guinea7; another 2011 paper named China and Nepal2; a 2020 review named China, Nepal and Australia4; as opened in October 2026, the EPPO Global Database (distribution last updated 6 December 2024) lists China as present with few occurrences, in Hainan.17 An undated Australian government page for a 2019–2024 project states that the borer is not present in Australia.18
Share or cite this entry

Sources

  1. AJaramillo, J.; Chabi-Olaye, A.; Kamonjo, C.; Jaramillo, A.; Vega, F. E.; Poehling, H.-M.; Borgemeister, C. (2009). Thermal tolerance of the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei: predictions of climate change impact on a tropical insect pest. PLoS ONE 4(8), e6487. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006487 · other copies
  2. AJaramillo, J.; Muchugu, E.; Vega, F. E.; Davis, A.; Borgemeister, C.; Chabi-Olaye, A. (2011). Some like it hot: the influence and implications of climate change on coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) and coffee production in East Africa. PLoS ONE 6(9), e24528. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024528 · other copies
  3. ABustillo Pardey, A. E. (2006). Una revisión sobre la broca del café, Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), en Colombia. Revista Colombiana de Entomología 32(2), 101–116.
  4. AJohnson, M. A.; Ruiz-Diaz, C. P.; Manoukis, N. C.; Verle Rodrigues, J. C. (2020). Coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei), a global pest of coffee: perspectives from historical and recent invasions, and future priorities. Insects 11(12), 882. doi:10.3390/insects11120882 · other copies
  5. AAlba-Alejandre, I.; Alba-Tercedor, J.; Vega, F. E. (2018). Observing the devastating coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) inside the coffee berry using micro-computed tomography. Scientific Reports 8, 17033. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-35324-4 · other copies
  6. ACeja-Navarro, J. A.; Vega, F. E.; Karaoz, U.; Hao, Z.; Jenkins, S.; Lim, H. C.; Kosina, P.; Infante, F.; Northen, T. R.; Brodie, E. L. (2015). Gut microbiota mediate caffeine detoxification in the primary insect pest of coffee. Nature Communications 6, 7618. doi:10.1038/ncomms8618 · other copies
  7. ABurbano, E.; Wright, M.; Bright, D. E.; Vega, F. E. (2011). New record for the coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei, in Hawaii. Journal of Insect Science 11, 117. doi:10.1673/031.011.11701 · other copies
  8. ABenavides, P.; Gil, Z. N.; Escobar, L. E.; Navarro-Escalante, L.; Follett, P.; Diaz-Soltero, H. (2023). Pilot testing of an area-wide biological control strategy against the coffee berry borer in Colombia using African parasitoids. Insects 14(11), 865. doi:10.3390/insects14110865 · other copies
  9. AHollingsworth, R. G.; Aristizábal, L. F.; Shriner, S.; Mascarin, G. M.; Moral, R. A.; Arthurs, S. P. (2020). Incorporating Beauveria bassiana into an integrated pest management plan for coffee berry borer in Hawaii. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4, 22. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2020.00022 · other copies
  10. AAristizábal, L. F.; Jiménez, M.; Bustillo, A. E.; Arthurs, S. P. (2011). Monitoring cultural practices for coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) management in a small coffee farm in Colombia. Florida Entomologist 94(3), 685–687. doi:10.1653/024.094.0334 · other copies
  11. AConstantino Chuaire, L. M.; Oliveros Tascón, C. E.; Benavides Machado, P.; Gómez Soto, J. C.; Serna Giraldo, C. A.; Ramírez Gómez, C. A.; Medina, R.; Arcila, A. (2016). Recolección de frutos de café del suelo con canastilla: herramienta para el manejo integrado de la broca (Avance Técnico 468). Cenicafé.
  12. AAristizábal-A., L. F.; Salazar-E., H. M.; Mejía-M., C. G. (2002). Evaluación del manejo de la broca del café en las tolvas de recibo y en las fosas para la pulpa, mediante investigación participativa (Avance Técnico 297). Cenicafé.
  13. AInfante, F. (2018). Pest management strategies against the coffee berry borer (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 66(21), 5275–5280. doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.7b04875 · other copies
  14. A/BSpecialty Coffee Association (writing team Fernández-Alduenda, M.; Ionescu, K. E.; Giuliano, P.; Rugolo, J.; Delrue, R.) (2024). A System to Assess Coffee Value: Understanding the Specialty Coffee Association’s Coffee Value Assessment (June 2024). Specialty Coffee Association.
  15. 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
  16. BNoponen, M. R. A.; Góngora, C.; Benavides, P.; Gaitán, A.; Hayward, J.; Marsh, C.; Stout, R.; Wille, C. (2017). Environmental Sustainability – Farming in the Anthropocene. In: Folmer, B. (ed.), The Craft and Science of Coffee, Academic Press, ch. 4 (pp. 93–94 and 100–102 cited).
  17. AEuropean and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) (2024). Hypothenemus hampei (STEHHA): distribution. EPPO Global Database (last updated 6 December 2024).
  18. AAustralian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) (2019). Protecting the coffee industry from coffee berry borer in Papua New Guinea and Australia (project HORT/2018/194). ACIAR (project July 2019 – June 2024).
  19. AJonsson, M.; Raphael, I. A.; Ekbom, B.; Kyamanywa, S.; Karungi, J. (2015). Contrasting effects of shade level and altitude on two important coffee pests. Journal of Pest Science 88(2), 281–287. doi:10.1007/s10340-014-0615-1 · other copies

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 Coffee berry borer. Tell us what you would change and why. A source that supports it helps most.