4.3 Article

Life table of Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) in relation to coffee berry phenology under Colombian field conditions

期刊

SCIENTIA AGRICOLA
卷 67, 期 6, 页码 658-668

出版社

UNIV SAO PAOLO
DOI: 10.1590/S0103-90162010000600007

关键词

coffee berry borer; population parameters; integrated pest management

资金

  1. DFID, UK

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The overlap of generations of coffee berry borer (CBB), Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) under field conditions in countries like Colombia hinders the construction of life tables by the sampling of natural populations. In this paper, a field methodology to carry out regular measurements of CBB cohorts inside coffee berries of different ages until harvest, both in coffee trees and in infested berries placed on the ground, is developed and used to compare the life history parameters of CBB. Populations with berries at six ages in three experimental stations (without CBB control) and in a commercial farm in Colombia (with chemical CBB control regularly carried out) were used. The duration of the pre-oviposition period as well as the mortality and survival rates of founder females and the proportion of founders leaving infested berries were strongly influenced by the consistency of berries, with optimum conditions for CBB reproduction as from 120-150 days after flowering. No differences were found between stations for the number of CBB developmental stages; but they had larger values than the commercial farm. The latter also had more than twice the average rate of founders leaving infested berries recorded in the stations. Survival functions (cumulative probabilities of survival) for the pest differed among treatments and between the plant and ground micro-environments. Age of berries at infestation was positively related to the intrinsic rate of increase of borer population; whilst generation time and doubling time were inversely related. No differences were found between sites for the main demographic parameters of the pest.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据