IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v13y2023i7p1392-d1192735.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Flower-Visiting Insects Ensure Coffee Yield and Quality

Author

Listed:
  • Jesús Hernando Gómez

    (Entomology Department, Centro Nacional de Investigaciones de Café—Cenicafé, Planalto Headquarters, km. 4 vía Antigua a Manizales, Manizales 170009, Caldas, Colombia)

  • Pablo Benavides

    (Entomology Department, Centro Nacional de Investigaciones de Café—Cenicafé, Planalto Headquarters, km. 4 vía Antigua a Manizales, Manizales 170009, Caldas, Colombia)

  • Juan Diego Maldonado

    (Entomology Department, Centro Nacional de Investigaciones de Café—Cenicafé, Planalto Headquarters, km. 4 vía Antigua a Manizales, Manizales 170009, Caldas, Colombia)

  • Juliana Jaramillo

    (Theme Lead Regenerative Agriculture, Rainforest Alliance, De Ruyterkade 6 BG, 1013 Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Flor Edith Acevedo

    (Department of Entomology, Pennsylvania State University, Penn State Behrend Campus, 651 Cemetery Rd, North East, PA 16428, USA)

  • Zulma Nancy Gil

    (Entomology Department, Centro Nacional de Investigaciones de Café—Cenicafé, Planalto Headquarters, km. 4 vía Antigua a Manizales, Manizales 170009, Caldas, Colombia)

Abstract

(1) Background: The participation of insects in the pollination of self-pollinating plants, such as coffee, is still controversial. This study determined the effect of flower-visiting insects on coffee berry set, yield, and quality. (2) Methods: Over 2 years, five evaluations in different locations, dates, and harvest times were carried out. Each evaluation consisted of eight treatments with 50 replicates each, arranged in a completely randomized experimental design. Treatments were established to identify the contribution of insects, wind, gravity, self-pollination, and cross-pollination to coffee yield and quality. (3) Results: The insects contributed 16.3% of the berry set, 26.9% of the berry coffee yield, and 30.6% of the weight of supremo-type beans. No differences were observed in the sensory quality of coffee produced with or without insects. For stigma receptivity, results indicate that there is a 6.3% probability of self-pollination during pre-anthesis. (4) Conclusions: The species Coffea arabica , despite being a self-pollinating plant, benefits from the presence of flower-visiting insects. During anthesis, arabica coffee flowers are ready for cross-pollination.

Suggested Citation

  • Jesús Hernando Gómez & Pablo Benavides & Juan Diego Maldonado & Juliana Jaramillo & Flor Edith Acevedo & Zulma Nancy Gil, 2023. "Flower-Visiting Insects Ensure Coffee Yield and Quality," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-15, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:7:p:1392-:d:1192735
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/7/1392/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/7/1392/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David W. Roubik, 2002. "The value of bees to the coffee harvest," Nature, Nature, vol. 417(6890), pages 708-708, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kitti, Mitri & Heikkilä, Jaakko & Huhtala, Anni, 2009. "‘Fair’ policies for the coffee trade – protecting people or biodiversity?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(6), pages 739-758, December.
    2. Gallai, Nicola & Salles, Jean-Michel & Settele, Josef & Vaissière, Bernard E., 2009. "Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 810-821, January.
    3. Yen Pham & Kathryn Reardon-Smith & Shahbaz Mushtaq & Geoff Cockfield, 2019. "The impact of climate change and variability on coffee production: a systematic review," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 609-630, October.
    4. Bauer, Dana Marie & Sue Wing, Ian, 2016. "The macroeconomic cost of catastrophic pollinator declines," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 1-13.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:7:p:1392-:d:1192735. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.