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

Nematodes

Microscopic worms that feed inside coffee roots. Which root-knot and lesion nematodes matter where, how they weaken and kill trees, how seedlings spread them, and how rootstocks and clean nurseries hold them back.

Across the chain: Science

Source-checkedby Coffearium verification pass· Last source-checked 23 Oct 2026· Prepared with AI assistance· 20 sources (15 tier A)· 2 contested· Updated 24 Oct 2026· Literature last searched 23 Oct 2026
Reading depth
Contents
  • Root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne) and root-lesion nematodes (Pratylenchus) are the main nematode pests of coffee; they live in the soil and feed inside the roots.1,2,3
  • Infested trees grow poorly, yellow and decline; in a Guatemalan field trial, half of the ungrafted, untreated arabica plants had died after five years.3,5
  • Infested nursery seedlings are an efficient way to carry nematodes to new fields; Brazil condemns a whole seedling lot if Meloidogyne is found.3,10
  • Grafting arabica onto resistant rootstocks of C. canephora or C. liberica keeps trees productive on infested land.5,12,15
  • In the field trials consulted for this entry, nematicides gave no significant yield gain.5,6

What coffee nematodes are#

Nematodes are microscopic roundworms. Some live in the soil and feed on plant roots. On coffee, two groups do most of the damage: root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne) and root-lesion nematodes (Pratylenchus).1,2,3

They live in the soil and enter the roots to feed.9 Root-knot nematodes form feeding sites inside the root.9 Lesion nematodes keep moving through the root and leave dead tissue behind.1

Because the damage is underground, it is easy to miss. A 2008 book chapter states that lesion nematodes were long underestimated, because their symptoms are not specific.1 In Hawaii, early infection is hard to diagnose.11

Which species, and where#

Different regions face different species. In Brazil the main root-knot species are M. exigua, M. incognita and M. paranaensis.2,16 According to a 2002 conference paper, M. arabicida causes severe dieback in Costa Rica.2 In Hawaii the pest is the Kona coffee root-knot nematode, M. konaensis.11,13 In 2023 a Kenyan study reported M. hapla on coffee in Kenya for the first time.4

Lesion nematodes damage arabica and robusta in Guatemala, El Salvador, Indonesia and Vietnam, among other countries, according to the 2008 chapter.1 Pratylenchus coffeae has been characterised from coffee in Vietnam.19 Often several species share one field.3

Surveys show how common they can be. In Espírito Santo, Brazil, about 47% of sampled coffee plantations carried root-knot nematodes.3 In that survey M. exigua was found only on arabica, and M. incognita mostly on robusta (conilon).3

What they do to the tree#

The roots show the damage first. M. exigua forms small, rounded galls on the fine roots.3,17 M. incognita and M. paranaensis thicken the roots unevenly, often without typical galls, and the root bark peels.3 M. paranaensis also cracks and destroys roots.17 Lesion nematodes cause lesions: patches of dead tissue (necrosis).1,19

Damaged roots take up less water and fewer nutrients.8 Above ground the trees are stunted and yellow, and they look short of nutrients.3,19 In Hawaii, badly infested trees wilt, drop flowers and fruit, and die back.11 In the end, trees can die.11,16

52341867
  1. Yellowing, stunted crown. Infested trees grow poorly and their leaves yellow.3,19
  2. Rounded galls. Small galls on the fine roots, typical of M. exigua.3,17
  3. Thickened, cracked roots. Uneven swelling, cracks and peeling bark, as with M. incognita and M. paranaensis.3,17
  4. Lesions. Patches of dead tissue left by root-lesion nematodes (Pratylenchus).1,19
  5. Few feeder roots. In Hawaii, severely infested trees have fewer healthy feeder roots.11
  6. Arabica scion. The productive top of a grafted plant.12
  7. Graft union. Seedlings are joined by a cleft or splice graft.12
  8. Resistant rootstock. A root system of C. canephora or C. liberica that limits nematode damage.5,12,16
Left, an ungrafted arabica plant with nematode damage; right, an arabica scion grafted onto a resistant rootstock. Point at a number or its name to highlight it. Schematic, not to scale.

How much crop is lost#

Losses differ by species and site.4,8 A 2023 study summarises documented losses at 10–35%, mostly from Latin American data.4 A 2013 study and a 2020 Brazilian technical circular, both citing a 2004 field study, report losses of up to 45% from M. exigua: the study in a plantation in Rio de Janeiro state, the circular where no control is applied.8,17

Some trials measured the damage directly. In a Guatemalan trial with lesion nematodes, ungrafted plots yielded about one-third of grafted plots in 1995.5 Half of the ungrafted, untreated plants had died by then.5 In Hawaii, M. konaensis cut Kona coffee yields by an estimated 20–25%, according to a 2012 paper citing a 2002 estimate.13

Data from Africa and Asia are thin. A 2023 Kenyan study notes that damage levels in its region are largely undocumented.4

How they spread#

Nematodes can move through the soil to new roots.11 People carry them much further. Once a nursery is infested, its seedlings spread root-knot nematodes efficiently.3,10 Soil on machinery and running water also carry them.3,16

For this reason, Brazil regulates seedlings. Under a 2012 federal rule, finding Meloidogyne in one plant condemns the whole seedling lot, which must be destroyed.10 In a 2021 survey of nurseries in Espírito Santo, Meloidogyne was still found.10

How producers manage them#

Management starts before planting.16,18 Brazilian guidance advises testing soil and roots to identify the species first.16

Clean seedlings. Producers plant nematode-free seedlings and avoid planting below infested blocks.3 Nurseries can heat their substrate. In a 2023 Brazilian test, solar heating to 60 °C for 45 minutes eliminated M. incognita from inoculated soil.9

Resistant rootstocks. An arabica scion is grafted onto the roots of a resistant species. In Brazil the robusta rootstock Apoatã IAC 2258 is used; in Central America, Nemaya.13,16 In Hawaii, rootstocks of C. liberica are used.12 Robusta rootstocks are not adapted to high altitudes.2,14

Resistant arabica varieties. Some arabica varieties resist certain species. Some lines from the Timor Hybrid carry a robusta gene against M. exigua.7,20 Semi-wild arabica from Ethiopia is a further source of resistance.13,14

Nematicides. In the field trials consulted for this entry, nematicides gave no significant yield gain.5,6 We describe their use; we do not recommend products. Integrated pest management covers how these tools combine across pests.

Parasitism in the root#

Root-knot nematodes. Meloidogyne species parasitise the roots and form feeding sites there.9 Researchers count their eggs and second-stage juveniles (J2) in roots and soil.9 Galls are the clearest response of the host plant, and they hamper the uptake of water and nutrients.8

The species differ in the damage they cause. In a greenhouse study reported in a 2020 technical circular of a Brazilian state research company, M. exigua formed rounded galls on new roots.17 M. paranaensis thickened new roots with lengthwise cracks and destroyed roots of seedlings.17 The authors judge M. exigua the less aggressive of the two, because it causes no structural damage.17 In the Espírito Santo survey, roots with M. incognita or M. paranaensis showed irregular thickening without typical galls.3 Some conilon areas showed root damage without any symptoms above ground.3

Root-lesion nematodes. Pratylenchus species are migratory and cause non-specific root necrosis, according to a 2008 chapter.1 In Vietnam, P. coffeae was associated with chlorotic leaves, stunted growth and root lesions.19 In the Espírito Santo survey, P. brachyurus occurred together with a root-knot species in 71.4% of infested samples.3

Distribution in detail#

Species Where reported (sources consulted) Notes
M. exigua Brazil2,3,16; Latin America widely7 Only on arabica in Espírito Santo; 23.8% of properties3
M. incognita Brazil2,3; Guatemala14 21% of properties in Espírito Santo, 92% of them robusta3
M. paranaensis Brazil2,3 4.7% of properties, northern Espírito Santo only3
M. arabicida Costa Rica2 Severe dieback (conference paper)2
M. konaensis Hawaii, United States11,12 Most Kona farms; also Ka‘ū12
M. hapla Kenya4 First report on coffee in Kenya (2023)4
Pratylenchus spp. Guatemala, El Salvador, Indonesia, Vietnam1 P. coffeae characterised from Vietnam19
P. brachyurus Brazil3 Mixed with root-knot species3

In Brazil, a 2020 technical circular reports root-knot nematodes in arabica areas of Minas Gerais, São Paulo and Paraná, and in robusta areas of Espírito Santo and Rondônia.16 In Rondônia, M. incognita was the most frequent species in recent nursery and field detections.9 In Hawaii, M. konaensis had not been found in Hilo, Hāmākua or on the other islands as of 2024.12 No global distribution list dated 2026 was consulted for this entry.

Measured damage and yield loss#

Guatemala, lesion nematodes. A five-year trial on the southern slope of the Atitlán volcano, at 900 m, compared Caturra on its own roots with Caturra grafted onto seedling C. canephora.5 In 1995 the grafted plots yielded 16,000 kg of coffee berries per hectare against 5,300 kg for ungrafted plots.5 That is about one-third (our calculation). In plots without nematicide, ungrafted roots held 132 nematodes per gram of root that year, grafted roots 23.5 The most heavily infested ungrafted plots yielded 12 times less than the least infested.5

Hawaii, root-knot nematodes. In a trial with M. konaensis, the arabica cultivar Guatemala on its own roots yielded an estimated 0.05 kg of green coffee per tree in 1995 without nematicide (green coffee estimated as 20% of cherry weight).6 Grafted onto C. dewevrei (the name used in the paper), it yielded an estimated 1.93 kg.6 Yields of Guatemala on its own roots fell by about 45% in the second year.6 In a 13-year trial at the Kona Research Station, 81% of non-grafted Kona Typica trees died; all trees grafted onto the Meisner rootstock survived.12

Brazil, M. exigua. A 2010 field study in Rio de Janeiro state found that a high nematode population drastically reduced growth and yield.18 Its authors recommend that resistant cultivars be planted only after the population has been reduced, to avoid large losses.18

020406080100%Guatemala · ungrafted, nonematicide(1995)50%5 Guatemala · ungrafted,terbufos(1995)23%5 Guatemala · grafted onrobusta(end of trial)6%5 Kona, Hawaii · non-grafted(13 years)81%12 Kona, Hawaii · grafted onMeisner(13 years)0%12
Data table
%Source
Guatemala · ungrafted, no nematicide (1995)50%5
Guatemala · ungrafted, terbufos (1995)23%5
Guatemala · grafted on robusta (end of trial)6%5
Kona, Hawaii · non-grafted (13 years)81%12
Kona, Hawaii · grafted on Meisner (13 years)0%12
Share of plants that died in two field trials on nematode-infested land: Guatemala (lesion nematodes, after five years) and Kona, Hawaii (M. konaensis, after 13 years). Data: Villain et al. 2000; Kawabata et al. 2024.5,12

Nurseries and seedling rules#

A 2023 Brazilian study notes that infected seeds and seedlings can bring nematodes into new areas.9 Until 1980, methyl bromide was the main way to disinfest substrate for coffee seedlings; the study reports that its use was later prohibited because of risks to the environment and health.9

The same study tested a solar heater that warms the soil from above and below. Soil inoculated with M. incognita (150 litres, in an exchanger box 8 cm deep) was held at a minimum of 60 °C.9 After 45 minutes, a bioassay with susceptible robusta seedlings over 180 days found the nematode eradicated.9 The authors recommend 60 minutes as a safety margin.9

Regulation targets the seedlings themselves. Brazil’s Normative Instruction No. 35 of 2012 condemns a whole seedling lot if Meloidogyne is found in a single plant, as reported in a 2021 study.10 Under a 2016 ordinance, the plant health agency of Rondônia state (IDARON) requires laboratory analysis of nursery seedlings for nematodes.9 Raising and handling seedlings is covered in germination and seedlings.

Rootstocks and grafting#

Grafting onto resistant rootstocks is described as the best short-term option in a 2002 conference paper.2 A 2019 study from Brazil states that in infested areas, arabica cultivation has only been possible on resistant C. canephora rootstocks.15

Rootstock Species Where used Reported resistance
Apoatã IAC 2258 C. canephora Brazil M. exigua, M. incognita, M. paranaensis16
Nemaya C. canephora (hybrid within the species) Central America Several root-knot species13
Fukunaga C. liberica var. dewevrei Hawaii (released 2001) Tolerant to M. konaensis12
Meisner C. liberica Hawaii Tolerant to M. konaensis12

According to a 2020 Brazilian technical circular, Apoatã IAC 2258 was the only nematode-resistant rootstock cultivar available in Brazil.16 New C. canephora clones resistant to both M. incognita and M. paranaensis were selected in a 2019 study.15 In Hawaii, the extension service considers grafting the only practical long-term solution once the nematode is established.12 Grafting on Meisner did not lower cup quality in its trial.12

Rootstocks have limits. Robusta is not adapted to high altitudes, so resistant arabica would avoid grafting above about 800–1,000 m, according to a 2001 study.14 Liberica as a rootstock is discussed in liberica and excelsa, where study results differ.

Resistant arabica#

Mex-1. A single major gene, Mex-1, from C. canephora gives resistance to M. exigua in arabica.7,8 It was mapped in a cross between the introgression line T5296 and a susceptible accession.7 T5296 is a Sarchimor, catalogued as Timor Hybrid CIFC 832/2 × Villa Sarchi.20 Its expression appeared incompletely dominant, and 14 linked molecular markers were found.7 A 2013 study of the resistant C. canephora cultivar Apoatã concludes that its resistance involves a set of constitutive and induced defence responses, not only a hypersensitive reaction.8

Ethiopian accessions. Tested against a Guatemalan isolate of M. incognita, 40% of the semi-wild Ethiopian arabica accessions tested were fully resistant.14 The reaction to a Brazilian isolate was similar.14 Resistance was dominant, controlled by one gene or two complementary genes depending on the cross.14 In Hawaii, all but one of the Ethiopian accessions tested were resistant to M. konaensis.13 The material is described in Ethiopian landraces.

Cultivars. According to a 2020 Brazilian technical circular, Catiguá MG 3, IAPAR 59 and IAC 125 RN resist M. exigua, and IPR 100 and IPR 106 resist M. paranaensis and M. incognita.16 The circular advises against cultivars described only as tolerant, because nematodes still multiply on them.16

Biological and chemical control#

Biological control. In a 2020–2022 field trial in Kiambu County, Kenya, two fungi were drenched around arabica trees: Trichoderma asperellum and Purpureocillium lilacinum.4 After 12 months, M. hapla numbers in the roots had fallen significantly; numbers in the soil had not.4 Yield was not measured.4 The authors estimate the product cost at USD 23.43 per tree over the two years.4 No study consulted for this entry measured a yield gain from biological control.

Chemical control. In the Guatemalan trial, terbufos reduced nematode numbers only in the first year.5 It lowered the death rate of ungrafted plants but did not raise yield significantly on any rootstock.5 In Hawaii, fenamiphos gave no significant yield benefit, and its cost exceeded the return.6 As of 2024, the nematicides available to Hawaiian producers give limited suppression.12 A 2002 conference paper describes nematicides as costly and environmentally risky, and their use as declining.2 No regulator’s list of approved or banned coffee nematicides was consulted for this entry; the status differs by country.

Reference values#

Parameter Value reported Source
Yield loss, documented range 10–35% by species, mostly Latin American data Saikai et al.4
Yield loss, M. exigua, no control Up to 45% (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; cited from a 2004 study) Silva et al.8; EPAMIG17
Yield loss, Kona, Hawaii An estimated 20–25% (2002 estimate, cited in 2012) Aoki et al.13
Yield, grafted vs ungrafted (Guatemala, 1995) 16,000 vs 5,300 kg coffee berries/ha Villain et al.5
Plant deaths, ungrafted, untreated (Guatemala) 24% (1993) to 50% (1995) Villain et al.5
Plant deaths, ungrafted, terbufos (Guatemala) 4.5% (1993) to 23% (1995) Villain et al.5
Plant deaths, grafted (Guatemala) 6% at the end of the trial Villain et al.5
Plant deaths after 13 years (Kona) 81% non-grafted; 0% on Meisner Kawabata et al.12
Yield, Guatemala cultivar (Hawaii, 1995) Estimated 0.05 kg green coffee/tree own-rooted; 1.93 kg grafted (20% of cherry weight) Schmitt et al.6
Substrate heat treatment (nursery) Minimum 60 °C for 45 min eradicated M. incognita; 60 min advised Uchôa et al.9
Plantations infested (Espírito Santo) About 47% Barros et al.3

Open questions#

  • Losses outside Latin America. Damage data for Africa are largely lacking, according to a 2023 Kenyan study4; no measured loss for Asian robusta was consulted for this entry.
  • Species identity. In the Guatemalan trial the lesion nematode species was still being identified5; a 2002 paper reports unidentified root-knot populations in El Salvador and Guatemala.2
  • Biological control in yield terms. The Kenyan fungus trial reduced nematodes in roots but did not measure yield.4
  • Durability of resistance. No study consulted for this entry tested whether Mex-1 or rootstock resistance breaks down over time.
  • Damage thresholds. No study consulted for this entry gives a nematode density at which control pays.

Key studies#

Villain et al., 2000 – Grafting against lesion nematodes in Guatemala. Followed Caturra on its own roots and on robusta rootstock for five years at 900 m, with and without a nematicide. Grafted plots carried far fewer nematodes, yielded about three times more in 1995 and lost few plants, while half of the ungrafted, untreated plants died.

Nematropica 30(1), 87–100 · journals.flvc.org

Noir et al., 2003 – The Mex-1 gene. Crossed the resistant introgression line T5296 with a susceptible arabica and followed resistance to M. exigua in the offspring. A single major gene from robusta controlled it, and linked markers allow early selection of resistant seedlings.

Plant Pathology 52, 97–103 · agritrop.cirad.fr

Barros et al., 2014 – Root-knot nematodes in Espírito Santo. Surveyed 172 properties in a Brazilian state where both arabica and conilon are grown. About half of the plantations were infested, the species differed by coffee type, and the authors identify infested nurseries as an efficient route of spread.

Crop Protection 55, 74–79 · doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2013.10.004

Saikai et al., 2023 – Fungi against root-knot nematodes in Kenya. Applied two soil fungi to mature arabica fields for two years. Root-knot nematodes in the roots fell significantly, but soil numbers did not, and yield was not measured.

Frontiers in Plant Science 14, 1196171 · doi:10.3389/fpls.2023.1196171

Kawabata et al., 2024 – The Meisner rootstock in Kona. Compared arabica grafted onto several rootstocks with non-grafted trees for 13 years on land infested with M. konaensis. Every tree on Meisner survived, while 81% of the non-grafted trees died.

University of Hawai‘i CTAHR, FN-67 · ctahr.hawaii.edu

Contested
  • Size of the losses: a 2023 study summarises documented losses, mostly from Latin America, as 10–35% depending on species4; a 2013 study, citing a Brazilian field, gives up to 45% for M. exigua8; a 2023 Brazilian study cites 20–40% in infested areas.9 In the Guatemalan grafting trial, ungrafted plots yielded about one-third of grafted plots in 1995.5 The figures come from different species, sites and bases and are not comparable.
  • How damaging M. exigua is: Brazilian sources treat it as a cause of large losses8,18; a 2020 Brazilian technical circular calls it less aggressive than M. paranaensis because it causes no structural damage to the roots.17
Share or cite this entry

Change log

  • – The 2013 resistance study is now described as a study of the C. canephora cultivar Apoatã. Reason: The sentence sat under resistant arabica and read as a finding about Mex-1 arabica; the study tested a canephora cultivar. Found in the context audit of 24 Oct 2026.
  • – The 45% loss from M. exigua is now attributed to a 2013 study and a 2020 EPAMIG circular, both citing a 2004 field study (Rio de Janeiro state; "when no control is applied"), instead of being stated as one measured field. Reason: Silva et al. 2013 and EPAMIG CT-317 both cite Barbosa et al. 2004; neither measured the loss themselves.
  • – The 20–25% yield loss in Kona is no longer dated "by 2001"; it is given as a 2002 estimate cited in the 2012 paper. Reason: Aoki et al. 2012 date the 85% infection share to 2001 and cite the 20–25% estimate to Nelson et al. 2002.
  • – Hawaiian yields (0.05 and 1.93 kg per tree) are marked as estimated green coffee (20% of cherry weight); Guatemalan root counts (132 and 23 per gram) placed in plots without nematicide; solariser test described as 150 litres in an 8 cm deep box instead of an "8 cm soil layer"; Sudanese accessions removed from the 2001 resistance result. Reason: Wording of Schmitt et al. 2001 (Table 1), Villain et al. 2000 (Table 1), Uchôa et al. 2023 (Methods) and the Anzueto et al. 2001 abstract.
  • – T5296 is now identified as a Sarchimor (Timor Hybrid CIFC 832/2 × Villa Sarchi) with the World Coffee Research catalogue as source (new source 20). Reason: The Noir et al. 2003 abstract names T5296 only as an introgression line.

Sources

  1. BVillain, L. (2008). Economic importance, epidemiology and management of Pratylenchus sp. in coffee plantations. In: Souza, R. M. (ed.), Plant-Parasitic Nematodes of Coffee, Springer, pp. 65–84. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8720-2_5 · other copies
  2. BLashermes, P. (2002). Breeding tools for durable resistance to nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.) of coffee varieties. Plant Protection Science 38 (Special Issue 2), 717–720 (Proceedings of the 6th Conference of the EFPP, Prague).
  3. ABarros, A. F.; Oliveira, R. D. L.; Lima, I. M.; Coutinho, R. R.; Ferreira, A. O.; Costa, A. (2014). Root-knot nematodes, a growing problem for Conilon coffee in Espírito Santo state, Brazil. Crop Protection 55, 74–79. doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2013.10.004 · other copies
  4. ASaikai, K. K.; Oduori, C.; Situma, E.; Njoroge, S.; Murunde, R.; Kimenju, J. W.; Miano, D. W.; Haukeland, S.; Coyne, D. (2023). Biocontrol-based strategies for improving soil health and managing plant-parasitic nematodes in coffee production. Frontiers in Plant Science 14, 1196171. doi:10.3389/fpls.2023.1196171 · other copies
  5. AVillain, L.; Molina, A.; Sierra, S.; Decazy, B.; Sarah, J. L. (2000). Effect of grafting and nematicide treatments on damage by root-lesion nematodes (Pratylenchus spp.) to Coffea arabica L. in Guatemala. Nematropica 30(1), 87–100.
  6. ASchmitt, D. P.; Zhang, F.; Meisner, M. (2001). Potential for managing Meloidogyne konaensis on coffee in Hawaii with resistance and a nematicide. Nematropica 31(1), 67–73.
  7. ANoir, S.; Anthony, F.; Bertrand, B.; Combes, M.-C.; Lashermes, P. (2003). Identification of a major gene (Mex-1) from Coffea canephora conferring resistance to Meloidogyne exigua in Coffea arabica. Plant Pathology 52, 97–103.
  8. ASilva, R. V.; Oliveira, R. D. L.; Ferreira, P. S.; Ferreira, A. O.; Rodrigues, F. A. (2013). Defense responses to Meloidogyne exigua in resistant coffee cultivar and non-host plant. Tropical Plant Pathology 38(2).
  9. AUchôa, F. P.; Vieira Junior, J. R.; Fernandes, C. F.; Rocha, R. B.; Espíndula, M. C.; Rudnick, V. A. S.; Silva, D. M.; Freire, T. C.; Sangi, S. C.; Mariobo, S. A. R. (2023). Evaluation of a prototype of soil thermal solarizer for control of gall nematode in the production of coffee seedlings. Coffee Science 18, e182014.
  10. AScarpi, M. C. F.; Gonçalves, Â. O.; Souza, A. F.; Camara, G. R.; Moraes, W. B.; Alves, F. R. (2021). Nematological survey in coffee nursery in Espirito Santo state, Brazil. Revista Ceres 68(2), 120–125. doi:10.1590/0034-737x202168020005 · other copies
  11. AKawabata, A. M.; Myers, R.; Cho, A.; Nakamoto, S. T. (2018). Kona coffee root-knot nematode sampling procedures (PD-114). University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources.
  12. AKawabata, A.; Miyahira, M.; Yamauchi, N.; Myers, R.; Nakamoto, S. T. (2024). Meisner, a coffee rootstock selection with increased tolerance to the Kona coffee root-knot nematode (FN-67). University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources.
  13. AAoki, S.; Sipes, B.; Astorga, C.; Nagai, C. (2012). Resistance of semi-wild Coffea arabica L. from Ethiopia to a root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne konaensis. Nematropica 42(1), 131–136.
  14. AAnzueto, F.; Bertrand, B.; Sarah, J. L.; Eskes, A. B.; Decazy, B. (2001). Resistance to Meloidogyne incognita in Ethiopian Coffea arabica accessions. Euphytica 118, 1–8. doi:10.1023/A:1003712232325 · other copies
  15. AFatobene, B. J. R.; Andrade, V. T.; Gonçalves, W.; Guerreiro Filho, O. (2019). Coffea canephora clones with multiple resistance to Meloidogyne incognita and M. paranaensis. Experimental Agriculture 55(3), 443–451. doi:10.1017/S0014479718000108 · other copies
  16. BFatobene, B. J. R.; Salgado, S. M. L.; Ferreira, F. R. C.; Terra, W. C. (2020). Cultivares de café resistentes aos nematoides-das-galhas no Brasil (Circular Técnica 312). EPAMIG (Empresa de Pesquisa Agropecuária de Minas Gerais).
  17. BGuimarães, N. M. R. B.; Salgado, S. M. L.; Bijsterveld, T. T.; Fatobene, B. J. R.; Alves, E. (2020). Danos provocados por nematoides-de-galhas às raízes do cafeeiro (Circular Técnica 317). EPAMIG (Empresa de Pesquisa Agropecuária de Minas Gerais).
  18. ABarbosa, D. H. S. G.; Souza, R. M.; Vieira, H. D. (2010). Field assessment of coffee (Coffea arabica L.) cultivars in Meloidogyne exigua-infested or -free fields in Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil. Crop Protection 29(2), 175–177. doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2009.10.011 · other copies
  19. ANguyen, H. D.; Nguyen, H. T.; Le, T. M. L.; Hoang, D. D.; Nguyen, T. D.; Trinh, Q. P. (2024). Morphological and molecular characterizations of Pratylenchus coffeae infecting Ming aralia and coffee in Vietnam. Helminthologia 61(1), 76–84. doi:10.2478/helm-2024-0004 · other copies
  20. A/BWorld Coffee Research T5296. World Coffee Research, Arabica Coffee Varieties catalogue.

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”.

The literature for this entry was last searched on 23 Oct 2026. A statement that no source consulted for this entry shows something refers to the sources above; newer or missing work may exist.

Suggest a change

On Nematodes. Tell us what you would change and why. A source that supports it helps most.