Paper · 2024 · Plants

Economic Injury Levels and Economic Thresholds for Leucoptera coffeella as a Function of Insecticide Application Technology in Organic and Conventional Coffee (Coffea arabica), Farms

Marcelo Coutinho Picanço Filho; Eraldo Lima; Daiane das Graças do Carmo; et al.

10
claims
27
verbatim quotes
13
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Leucoptera coffeella (Lepidoptera: Lyonetiidae) is one of the main pests in coffee crops. The economic injury level (EIL) is the lowest density of the pest at which economic damages match the costs of control measures. The economic threshold (ET) is the density of the pest at which control measures must be taken so that this population does not reach the EIL. These are the main indices used for pest control decision-making. Control of L. coffeella is carried out by manual, tractor, airplane or drone applications. This work aimed to determine EILs and ETs for L. coffeella as a function of insecticide application technology in conventional and organic Coffea arabica crops. Data were collected over five years in commercial C. arabica crops on seven 100 ha central pivots. The cost of control in organic crops was 16.98% higher than conventional. The decreasing order of control cost was manual > drone > airplane > tractor application. Coffee plants were tolerant to low densities (up to 15% mined leaves) of the pest that caused losses of up to 6.56%. At high pest densities (54.20% mined leaves), losses were high (85.62%). In organic and conventional crops and with the use of different insecticide application technologies, EIL and ET were similar. The EIL and ET were 14% and 11% of mined leaves, respectively. Therefore, these indices can be incorporated in integrated pest management programs in C. arabica crops. The indices determined as a function of insecticide application technology in organic and conventional coffee are important as they serve producers with different technological levels. Additionally, EILs and ETs can contribute to more sustainable production, as control methods will only be employed when the pest density reaches these indices.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 10

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Control cost in organic crops was 16.98% higher than conventional crops.

Taxon
Coffea arabicaCoffea arabicat0
Outcome
cost of controle0
Direction
highere0
Value
16.98%e0
Comparator
conventionale0
Setting
organic cropse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Coffea arabica
Coffea arabica · TaxonMarcelo Corrêa · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The cost of control in organic crops was 16.98% higher than conventional.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 779–852 · show in text ↑
t0

“Coffea arabica”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 160–174 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Manual application had the highest control cost, followed by drone, airplane and tractor.

Taxon
Coffea arabicaCoffea arabicat0
Treatment
manual > drone > airplane > tractor applicatione0
Outcome
control coste0
Direction
decreasinge0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Coffea arabica
Coffea arabica · TaxonMarcelo Corrêa · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The decreasing order of control cost was manual > drone > airplane > tractor application.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 853–942 · show in text ↑
t0

“Coffea arabica”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 160–174 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Coffee plants tolerated pest densities up to 15% mined leaves.

Taxon
Coffea arabicaCoffea arabicat0
Interactor
Leucoptera coffeellaLeucoptera coffeellae1pest
Outcome
tolerant to low densitiese0
Value
up to 15% mined leavese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Coffea arabica
Coffea arabica · TaxonMarcelo Corrêa · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Leucoptera coffeella
Leucoptera coffeella · InteractorB. Phalan · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Coffee plants were tolerant to low densities (up to 15% mined leaves) of the pest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 943–1024 · show in text ↑
e1

“Leucoptera coffeella”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–20 · show in text ↑
t0

“Coffea arabica”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 160–174 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At low pest density, losses reached 6.56%.

Taxon
Coffea arabicaCoffea arabicat0
Interactor
Leucoptera coffeellaLeucoptera coffeellae1pest
Outcome
lossese0
Value
up to 6.56%e0
Qualifier
up to 15% mined leavese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Coffea arabica
Coffea arabica · TaxonMarcelo Corrêa · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Leucoptera coffeella
Leucoptera coffeella · InteractorB. Phalan · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“low densities (up to 15% mined leaves) of the pest that caused losses of up to 6.56%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 974–1058 · show in text ↑
e1

“Leucoptera coffeella”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–20 · show in text ↑
t0

“Coffea arabica”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 160–174 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At 54.20% mined leaves, losses reached 85.62%.

Taxon
Coffea arabicaCoffea arabicat0
Interactor
Leucoptera coffeellaLeucoptera coffeellae1pest
Outcome
lossese0
Value
85.62%e0
Qualifier
54.20% mined leavese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Coffea arabica
Coffea arabica · TaxonMarcelo Corrêa · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Leucoptera coffeella
Leucoptera coffeella · InteractorB. Phalan · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“At high pest densities (54.20% mined leaves), losses were high (85.62%).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1060–1132 · show in text ↑
e1

“Leucoptera coffeella”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–20 · show in text ↑
t0

“Coffea arabica”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 160–174 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

EIL was similar across organic and conventional crops and application technologies.

Taxon
Coffea arabicaCoffea arabicat0
Interactor
Leucoptera coffeellaLeucoptera coffeellae1pest
Outcome
EILe0
Direction
similare0
Setting
organic and conventional cropse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Coffea arabica
Coffea arabica · TaxonMarcelo Corrêa · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Leucoptera coffeella
Leucoptera coffeella · InteractorB. Phalan · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In organic and conventional crops and with the use of different insecticide application technologies, EIL and ET were similar.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1133–1259 · show in text ↑
e1

“Leucoptera coffeella”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–20 · show in text ↑
t0

“Coffea arabica”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 160–174 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

ET was similar across organic and conventional crops and application technologies.

Taxon
Coffea arabicaCoffea arabicat0
Interactor
Leucoptera coffeellaLeucoptera coffeellae1pest
Outcome
ETe0
Direction
similare0
Setting
organic and conventional cropse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Coffea arabica
Coffea arabica · TaxonMarcelo Corrêa · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Leucoptera coffeella
Leucoptera coffeella · InteractorB. Phalan · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In organic and conventional crops and with the use of different insecticide application technologies, EIL and ET were similar.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1133–1259 · show in text ↑
e1

“Leucoptera coffeella”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–20 · show in text ↑
t0

“Coffea arabica”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 160–174 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Economic injury level was 14% mined leaves.

Taxon
Coffea arabicaCoffea arabicat0
Interactor
Leucoptera coffeellaLeucoptera coffeellae1pest
Outcome
EILe0
Value
14%e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Coffea arabica
Coffea arabica · TaxonMarcelo Corrêa · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Leucoptera coffeella
Leucoptera coffeella · InteractorB. Phalan · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The EIL and ET were 14% and 11% of mined leaves, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1260–1322 · show in text ↑
e1

“Leucoptera coffeella”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–20 · show in text ↑
t0

“Coffea arabica”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 160–174 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Economic threshold was 11% mined leaves.

Taxon
Coffea arabicaCoffea arabicat0
Interactor
Leucoptera coffeellaLeucoptera coffeellae1pest
Outcome
ETe0
Value
11% of mined leavese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Coffea arabica
Coffea arabica · TaxonMarcelo Corrêa · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Leucoptera coffeella
Leucoptera coffeella · InteractorB. Phalan · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The EIL and ET were 14% and 11% of mined leaves, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1260–1322 · show in text ↑
e1

“Leucoptera coffeella”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–20 · show in text ↑
t0

“Coffea arabica”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 160–174 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend incorporating the indices into integrated pest management for C. arabica.

Taxon
C. arabicaCoffea arabicae0
Interactor
Leucoptera coffeellaLeucoptera coffeellae1pest
Outcome
integrated pest management programse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Coffea arabica
Coffea arabica · TaxonMarcelo Corrêa · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Leucoptera coffeella
Leucoptera coffeella · InteractorB. Phalan · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“these indices can be incorporated in integrated pest management programs in C. arabica crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1334–1426 · show in text ↑
e1

“Leucoptera coffeella”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–20 · show in text ↑