International Journal of Tropical Insect Science

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 223–226 | Cite as

Bioassay of Various Formulations of Insecticides on the Egg and Larval Stages of the Coffee Berry Borer Hypothenemus Hampei Ferrari (Scolytidae: Coleoptera)

  • Ajai Mansingh
  • Llewellyn F. Rhodes


Twenty-three insecticide formulations were bioassayed for toxicity against the eggs and larvae of H. hampei in maturing and ripe berries of C. arabica L. Var. typica. The infested berries were dipped in different concentrations of individual formulations, dissected 24 hr later for recording larval mortality and transferring the eggs to wet filter papers where larval hatching was recorded for the next 4 days. The order of toxicity and LC50 (% a.i. x 103) values for the eggs in maturing and ripe (figures in parenthesis) berries were: thiodan EC 35, 5.1 (6.2) > perfekthion, 5.9 (8.1) > decis, 7.2 (9.4) > carbicron, 7.3 (9.8) > actellic, 10.6(12.9) > thiodan EC 3, 14.7 (17.4); > folimat > aldicarb > dursban > tiovel > supona > dimilin > methomyl > kelthane > phosdrin > sevin > methoxychlor > dieldrin > azordrin > fenitrothion > bimarit > chlorpyrifos > gardona, 39.7-1043.7 (44.3-2642.2). The order of toxicity remained almost the same for the larvae, the LC50 values being 2.1-12.7 (2.9-21.8) for the top six and 14.8-1920.4 (47.1 2738.6) for the remaining 17 formulations. Generally, the formulations were 1.1-2.7-fold more toxic to larvae than to eggs infesting the maturing berries but 0.47-3.57 more toxic to eggs than larvae in the ripe berries.

Key Words

Coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei insecticides formulations 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Almeida P. R. and Cavalcante R. D. (1964) Ensaio de campo com novas insecticides organicos no combate a broca de cafe—Hypothenemus hampei (Ferr. 1867). Arg. Inst. Biol. Sao Paulo 31, 85–90.Google Scholar
  2. Almeida P. R., Pigatti A. and Arruda H. V. (1980) Alguns no va productos aplicados em ensaio de campo no con-trole a broca—Hypothenemus hampei (Ferr. 1867)—do cafe. Resume, I.B.C. Congress, Brazil, 23, 67–69.Google Scholar
  3. Bardner R. (1978) Pest control in coffee. Pestic. Sci. 9, 458–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergamin J. (1943) Contribucao para o conhecimento da biologia da broca de cafe. Arg. Inst. Biol. Sao Paulo, 14, 31–72.Google Scholar
  5. Busvine J. R. (1971) Techniques for Testing Insecticides. Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London.Google Scholar
  6. Le Pelley R. H. (1968) Pests of Coffee, pp. 114–138. Longman, London.Google Scholar
  7. McPherson G. I. (1978) Report on the presence of coffee berry borer in Jamaica. Symposium on Coffee Cultivation, Cursos y Reuniones, I.F.C.A. (Brazil), 184, 14–24.Google Scholar
  8. Rhodes L. F. and Mansingh A. (1982) Susceptibility of the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei Ferrari to various insecticidal formulations. Insect Sci. Application 2, 227–231.Google Scholar
  9. Thomson W. T. (1980) Agricultural Chemicals. Book 1. Insecticides. Thomson Publications. Fresno. California, U.S.A.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICIPE 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ajai Mansingh
    • 1
  • Llewellyn F. Rhodes
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of the West IndiesKingston 7Jamaica

Personalised recommendations