Demography and perturbation analyses of the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): Implications for management.

The coffee berry borer (CBB) Hypothenemus hampei Ferrari is the most serious pest of coffee worldwide. Management of the CBB is extremely difficult because its entire life cycle occurs inside the fruit, where it is well protected. Knowing which life stages contribute most to population growth, would shed light on the population dynamics of this pest and help to improve CBB management programs. Two staged-classified matrices were constructed for CBB populations reared in the lab on artificial diets and CBB populations from artificial infestations in the field. Matrices were used to determine demographic parameters, to conduct elasticity analyses, and to perform prospective perturbation analysis. Higher values of the intrinsic rate of natural increase (rm) and population growth rate (λ): were observed for CBB populations growing in the lab than in the field (rm: 0.058, λ: 1.74 lab; rm: 0.053, λ: 1.32 field). Sensitivity values for both CBB populations were highest for the transitions from larva to pupa (G2: 0.316 lab, 0.352 field), transition from pupa to juvenile (G3: 0.345 lab, 0.515 field) and survival of adult females (P5: 0.324 lab, 0.389 field); these three vital rates can be important targets for CBB management. Prospective perturbation analyses indicated that an effective management for the CBB should consider multiple developmental stages; perturbations of >90% for each transition are necessary to reduce λ to <1. However, when the three vital rates with highest sensitivity are impacted at the same time, the percentage of perturbation is reduced to 25% for each transition; with these reductions in survival of larvae, pupae and adult females the value of λ was reduced from 1.32 to 0.96. Management programs for CBB should be focused on the use of biological and cultural measures that are known to affect these three important targets.

Introduction

Coffee, Coffea arabica L. (Gentianales: Rubiceae) is one of the most valuable commodities in the global market, and its exportation is a key source of income for many developing countries [1, 2]. Coffee is grown in more than 70 countries in the humid tropics [3]. In Latin America, coffee is produced from Mexico and the Caribbean to Brazil [4, 5].

The coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei (CBB) (Ferrari) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) is the most serious pest of coffee worldwide [3, 6, 7]. The coffee berry borer is endemic to central Africa but has been disseminated to most coffee-producing countries around the world [8, 9]. Adult females bore into the coffee fruit; when they reach the seed’s endosperm, they make galleries and lay eggs. The entire life cycle is completed inside the fruit; only fertilized females abandon the fruit in search of new fruits to infest [7]. Damage caused by the CBB is due to feeding activity of females and their progeny in the coffee seeds, which reduce the quality and yield of the marketable product and induce the premature fall of green fruits. Additionally, holes made by the CBB can facilitate the entry of pathogens which cause internal fruit rot [3, 6, 10].

Management of the CBB is extremely difficult; chemical and biological control measures are only effective during the short time when the adult females are out searching for new fruits to infest. One of the most important biological insecticides used for management of the CBB is the fungus Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vulleimen [11, 12]. In many countries, B. bassiana is commonly applied using the commercial products Mycotrol® and Botanigard®.

The CBB life cycle

The life cycle of the CBB consists of egg, larva, pupa, juvenile and adult. Females have two larval instars, while males have only one [13, 14]. The body of the larvae is white and the head is brown, they are apodous, eucephalous and curved [15]. The number of instars is defined according to the width of the head capsule: the head capsule of instar I or larva I is 0.20–0.22 mm versus 0.28–0.32 mm for larva II [13]. Other differences between these two instars are body size and activity. Larva I is smaller (0.63–1.3 mm long) and moves less. Larva II is bigger (1.7–2.0 mm long), and is more active and voracious [13, 14].

Before becoming prepupae, larvae stop feeding and moving [13, 16]. Prepupae are bigger (2.2 mm long), less curved, and the thorax region is whiter and wider than larvae II [13]. But the prepupa is not always acknowledged as a stage of development of the CBB; some authors consider it as a stage distinct from a larva [14] and others consider it as a second larval instar [16]. Gómez et al. [13] observed that larvae molted only once before developing into pupae, and also that the width of the head capsule of prepupae overlapped with that of larvae II (0.28–0.30 mm), they considered it as part of the second larval instar. For our analysis we considered the prepupae as part of the larval instar II as stated by Gómez et al. [13].

Pupae are type exarate: they are white but their color changes as they develop [14-16], turning light brown as wings, legs and antennae begin to form. Size differs between the sexes: female pupae are bigger, 1.89 mm long, compared with 1.22 mm long for males [15, 16]. Young adults or juveniles are light brown, turning dark after two to five days, which indicates that they are sexually mature; the difference in size is maintained, as females are bigger than males (1.64–1.85 mm vs. 1.08–1.12 mm) [15, 16].

Demography as a tool to study pests

Demographic perturbation models are an important tool to understand and manage populations, specifically those models that focus on sensitivity and elasticity analyses [17, 18]. These types of analyses can be used in two ways: to protect endangered species or to reduce populations of invasive pests and weeds [18]. However, most of these analyses have been focused on conservation of endangered populations and less on control of pests.

Sensitivity analysis estimates the effect of changes in vital rates (e.g., survival, growth, fecundity) on the population growth rate (λ). Elasticity is the proportional sensitivity and determines the proportional change in λ caused by a proportional change in a vital rate [17, 19, 20]. This type of analysis is called prospective analysis because it predicts the results of vital rate perturbations before they happen. Prospective analysis can be used to identify potential management targets (vital rates with higher scores of sensitivities or elasticities), that can be modified to produce large changes in the value of λ [17].

Demographic studies or life table studies of the CBB have been done under both laboratory and field conditions [21-25]. These studies estimated important demographic parameters including: population growth rate (λ), net reproductive rate (R), intrinsic rate of natural increase (r) and mean generation time (T). Some of these studies show that demographic parameters are affected by temperature, type of diet, coffee variety and fruit age [22–24, 26]. However, none of these prior studies used demographic data to conduct perturbation analysis, specifically prospective analysis. Knowledge about population dynamics and sensitivity of vital rates with potential to be perturbed is essential for informed management decisions.

The goal of the present study was to perform artificial infestations of the CBB under field conditions and to rear the CBB under lab conditions, in order to estimate demographic transitions in its life cycle and to conduct perturbation analysis. The specific objectives were: (i) To compare demographic parameters of populations raised in the lab on an artificial diet (Cenibroca) [27] with those from artificial infestations in the field. (ii) To identify the contribution of vital rates to differences in performance between populations raised in the lab vs. artificial infestation in the field. (iii) To compare the behavior in the field of females raised in the lab (artificial infestation) vs. those of naturally infested coffee fruits (natural infestation). (iv) To identify the vital rates most sensitive to perturbations, and (vi) to conduct prospective analysis with those vital rates than can be modified and used as important targets for the management of the CBB.

Materials and Methods

Insect rearing

Coffee berry borers (CBB) were reared on the artificial diet Cenibroca [27] as previously described [25]. CBBs were maintained in a growth chamber (Model 818, Thermo Scientific, Dubuque, IA) set at 25°C (±1°C), 80–96% relative humidity (RH) and complete darkness. The colony was established years before the experiments. Founder females were obtained from infested fruits of Coffea arabica L. cv. Catuai from a farm in Adjuntas, Puerto Rico (18°10᾿42” N, 66°44᾿36” W). The colony is maintained in the Biology Department of the University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras.

Populations of CBB evaluated:

CBB raised in the lab: individuals reared in the lab on the artificial diet Cenibroca.

Artificial infestation: coffee fruits in field were infested by CBB females reared in the lab on the artificial diet Cenibroca.

Natural infestation: Coffee fruits infested by CBB females growing under natural conditions.

Laboratory evaluations

For laboratory evaluations, 100 eggs from F6 (6th generation) of the lab colony were transferred to tubes with fresh Cenibroca diet, one per tube. Eggs were evaluated daily for 50 days to determine the transition to the next developmental stages, survival in each stage and developmental time from egg to adult. To determine survival and fecundity of adult females, 100 females approximately ten days old were transferred individually to new tubes with diet and were evaluated for 90 days. Monthly each female was removed from the diet and survival, oviposition and total population were determined. CBB individuals per tube (eggs, larvae, pupae, juveniles) were counted, and original alive adult females were transferred again to new tubes with diet.

Artificial infestation in the field

Three infestations were made between August to September 2018; at this time of year most fruits are full-sized and are approximately 80 days old [28]. Infestations were carried out at the UPR Agricultural Experimental Station in Adjuntas, Puerto Rico (18° 10’ 12" N, 66°47’43" W, altitude 434 m.a.s.l.) on Coffea arabica L. cv. Limaní growing under shade of Gliricidia sepium (mother-of-cocoa, Fabaceae: Faboideae).

For each infestation ten coffee trees were selected; in each tree five to ten branches with >30 green, full-sized fruits were tagged; fruits that showed perforations made by the CBB were removed. Approximately 90 branches were artificially infested. CBBs for artificial infestation were obtained from the colony maintained on the artificial diet Cenibroca described above.

On the day of infestation, CBB females were surface-disinfected with 1% sodium hypochlorite and 0.002% Tween 80, and rinsed twice with sterile distilled water (dH2O) (1 min each). Then groups of fifty females were transferred to petri dishes (6 cm diameter) lined with a sterile moist filter paper and sealed with paraffin. Once in the field the CBBs were put into clear plastic bags (35 cm x 11 cm), used as entomological sleeves to cover the experimental branches. Bags were tied to the branches and removed two days later. Perforated fruits were marked with nail polish; a different color was used for each infestation.

Fifty infested berries were collected weekly from 7 to 56 days after infestation. Fruits were transported to the laboratory for dissection; all CBB stages inside the fruits were counted (eggs, larvae I, larvae II, pupae, juveniles, and adults) and oviposition, survival, presence and position of adult females was determined. Position of colonizing females was classified as follows: A) fruit is perforated but the colonizing female is not present; B) fruit is perforated but the female has not reached the endosperm; C) the female has reached the endosperm but there is no reproduction, and D) the female has made her gallery in the endosperm, and immature stages are found [29].

No chemical or biological control for the pest was applied in this plot during the experiment to ensure that mortality or fruit abandonment were due to natural causes, such as natural infection by fungi or bacteria or coffee fruit rot [10]. CBB females were noted as killed by the entomopathogenic fungus B. bassiana when a white mycelium typical of B. bassiana was observed growing on dead colonizing females. Percent of internal fruit rot was evaluated following the scale described by Serrato-Diaz [10].

Natural infestation

Fifty naturally field-infested fruits were collected weekly from August to December from the same plot where artificial infestations were performed. In the laboratory the same variables mentioned above were evaluated: total number of CBB individuals per fruit, survival, presence and position of colonizing females, number of adult females killed by the fungus B. bassiana and percentages of rotted fruits. Data from natural infestation was used to compare with the behavior of CBB females from artificial infestation. However, data from natural infestations were not used to determine demographic parameters and sensitivity analysis, since the time of infestation was unknown.

Temperature and light intensity were recorded continuously using Onset Hobo data loggers (HOBO Pendant ® Temperature and light, 64K, Onset Computer®, Bourne, MA, USA). Three data loggers were located in the middle of the plot, hung on coffee plants 1 m above the ground. Daily precipitation and humidity were obtained from a HOBO RX 3000 weather station (Onset Computer®, Bourne, MA, USA), located in a plot nearby. Data for environmental variables are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Environmental variables at the UPR Agricultural Experimental Station in Adjuntas, Puerto Rico.

Temperature (°C)				Humidity (%)			Rain (mm)
Min	Max	Mean	Daily rangea	Min	Mean	Max	Min	Mean	Max
12.0	34.1	21.8 ± 3.02	14.1	42.5	89.5 ± 0.07	100	0	0.02± 0.001	7.60

a Daily temperature range was calculated as maximum—minimum daily temperatures.

Mean ± S.E. and daily temperature range. These environmental variables were recorded using HOBO Pendant ® dataloggers and HOBO RX300 weather station.

Data analysis

The life cycle was divided into five developmental stages: egg, larva, pupa, juvenile and adult. Probability of surviving and remaining at the same life stage (Pi), probability of transition between stages, in which an individual survives and moves on to the next life stage (Gi), and fecundity of adult females (Fi) were calculated at the end of each evaluation, 50 days for lab and 56 days for field evaluations. Evaluation time differed between lab and field, because in the field the first juveniles and adults were observed at 56 days after infestation. While in the lab the first juveniles appeared at 28 days of evaluation; time was extended to 50 days to allow slower individuals to catch up, but no relevant changes were observed from day 45.

Fecundity (Fi) was calculated as the proportion of females that oviposited multiplied by the mean number of eggs produced by each female. Pi probabilities were calculated only for CBB reared in the lab; for field evaluations these probabilities could not be determined since the same individuals were not followed through time.

Sampling protocol and frequency of field evaluations did not allow determination of the exact duration of each developmental stage. Data on developmental times from laboratory evaluations (Table 2) were used to calculate Gi or transitions between stages. Time of growth from egg to larva was estimated at 7 days; from larva to pupa 17 days; pupa to juvenile 7 days and juvenile to adult 4 days. To calculate G1 (transition from egg to larva), the number of larvae counted at day 21 were divided by the number of eggs counted at day 14. Similarly, G2 (transition from larva to pupa) was the proportion of pupae at day 42 divided by larvae in instar I counted at day 28. G3 (transition from pupa to juvenile) was the proportion of juveniles counted at day 56 divided by the number of pupae at day 49. Finally, G4 (transition from juveniles to adults) was determined as the proportion of adults at day 56 divided by the number of juveniles at day 56; the first juveniles were observed at day 56.

Table 2

Development time in days for different stages of the coffee berry borer (CBB, Hypothenemus hampei) reared on artificial diet Cenibroca.

Stage	Mean ± se	Minimum	Maximum	Confidence interval (95%)
Egg	6.0 ± 0.2	2.0	10.0	5.6–6.5
Larva	17.2 ± 0.7	8.0	20.0	13.7–16.7
Pupa	6.3 ± 0.1	3.0	9.0	6.1–6.7
Juvenile	4.0 ± 0.1	6.0	3.0	3.8–4.3
Egg to adult	34.4 ± 0.7	21.0	40.0	32.9–35.9

Temperature 25°C (±1°C), 80–96% relative humidity (RH).

Staged-classified matrices were constructed for both lab and field evaluations [30]. The equation that projects the population forward in time is equals: where Nt is a column vector representing the number of individuals in each developmental stage at time t: beginning of the evaluation. Nt+1 is the number of individuals at the different stages at time t+1: end of the evaluation period, 50 days for lab evaluations and 56 days for field. A represents the n x n population projection matrix, given as follows:

Entries in the first row of the matrix represent egg survival (P1) and fecundity (F1) rates. In the case of the CBB only the adult female can oviposit and contribute to population growth (F1). The main diagonal entries include the probabilities of surviving and staying in the same stage (Pi). The sub diagonal entries include the probability of surviving and advancing to the next stage (Gi). The zeros are transitions that do not occur in the life cycle of the CBB.

Matrices were used to calculate the following demographic parameters: population growth rate (λ), intrinsic rate of natural increase (r), mean generation time (T), doubling time (TD), and sensitivity values. Sensitivity analysis estimates the effect of changes in vital rates (e.g., survival, growth, fecundity) on population growth rate (λ). Sensitivity matrix contains the sensitivities of λmax to each element of the projection matrix a [31], and is given by the equation: Where w and v are the right and left eigen vectors of the projection matrix A (the stable stage distribution and reproductive value, respectively) and ‹w,v› denotes the scalar product of w and v [32].

Perturbation analysis

Retroprospective analyses (LTRE or life table response experiment) were performed to determine which transitions or vital rates contributed to differences in values of λ between populations of the CBB raised in the lab vs. CBB from artificial infestation in the field.

Prospective analyses were done to estimate the change necessary in vital rates to decrease the value of λ to <1.0. To conduct prospective analysis, data from artificial infestation in the field were used for two reasons. First, the three vital rates with high sensitivities identified for both type of evaluations (field and lab) were the same (Table 4). Second, probabilities estimated for field evaluations reflect the true effects of biotic and abiotic variables on CBB populations.

Two types of analyses were conducted. First, all vital rates were modified including those with high sensitivity; in this case one vital rate was perturbed at a time holding the others constant. Second, two or three vital rates with higher sensitivities were lowered simultaneously to find the point at which the population growth rate fell below one.

Statistical analysis

The package popbio (version 2.4.3) was used to calculate all population parameters, generate elasticity matrices and perform perturbation analysis [33]. Generalized linear models (GLM) were used to compare female survival, presence, positions inside the fruit and population per fruit between CBB from artificial infestation vs. CBB from natural infestation in the field. Models for proportion of alive, dead, missing and positions of colonizing females were fitted using a quasibinomial error distribution. A Poisson error distribution was used for CBB total population per fruit models. GLM models with a quasibinomial distribution of errors were used to compare proportion of internal fruit rot according to survival, abandon rate and positions of colonizing females; data from fruit rot was transformed to proportion. Function (predict) was used to calculate the posterior model probabilities. All analyses were done in R 3.5.3. [34].

Results

Comparisons between artificial infestations vs. natural infestations in the field

A total of 468 coffee fruits were successfully infested by CBB females (H. hampei) raised under lab conditions. After infestation, these females behaved similarly to those in natural infestations. The proportion of missing, alive, and dead females for both types of infestations is shown in Fig 1. Neither the proportion of missing (χ21 = 1.31, p = 0.149) nor dead CBB females (χ21 = 2.76, p = 0.069) differed significantly between natural and artificial infestations. The only difference was in the proportion of live females, which was slightly higher for those from artificial infestation (χ21 = 3.43, p = 0.009); the most notable difference was observed in August, when the proportion of live females from natural infestation was 0.13 compared with 0.73 from artificial infestation (Fig 1A). In August, a higher proportion of missing females from natural (0.83) vs. artificial (0.21) infestations was also observed (Fig 1C).

Fig 1

Behavior of the coffee berry borer (CBB, Hypothenemus hampei) in artificial vs natural infestations in the field after penetration of coffee fruits: (A) proportion of alive females; (B) proportion of dead females; and (C) proportion of missing females.

Artificial infestation: coffee fruits in field were infested by CBB females reared in lab on artificial diet Cenibroca. Natural infestation: coffee fruits infested by CBB females in natural conditions. Sampling was done from August to December 2018 on a shade coffee plot of Coffea arabica cv. Limaní.

Mortality from the fungus B. bassiana was not common. In only three fruits (<0.5%) the fungus was observed growing on a CBB adult female cadaver. No significant difference was observed in internal rot between natural vs. artificial infestation (χ21 = 0.51, p = 0.340). Percentages of internal rots were significantly higher in fruits in which the colonizing CBB was dead or missing than in fruits where the CBB was alive (χ22 = 21.9, p < 0.0001); differences in percentages of fruit rot between dead vs. missing CBBs were not significant (p = 0.126). Estimated fruit rot was 3.7% for fruits with live CBBs, 7.9% for dead CBBs and 12.5% for fruits with missing CBBs.

Penetration of the fruit by colonizing females progressed over the time for both types of infestation (Fig 2). Significant differences were found in positions C (χ21 = 14.7, p < 0.0001) and D (χ21 = 20.3, p < 0.0001) between artificial vs. natural infestations. Proportions of females in position C were higher for natural infestations (Fig 2C). Conversely, proportions of females in position D were higher for artificial infestations (Fig 2D). This means that more females reached the endosperm in naturally infested coffee, but they remained longer in this position (C) before starting to reproduce.

Fig 2

Progress of the coffee berry borer (CBB, Hypothenemus hampei) in penetrating coffee fruits during the season.

Artificial infestations: coffee fruits in field were infested by CBB females raised in lab on artificial diet Cenibroca. Natural infestation: coffee fruits infested by CBB females in natural conditions. Sampling was done from August to December 2018 on a shade coffee plot of Coffea arabica cv. Limaní.

Coffee berry borer females from artificial infestation produced significantly more offspring per colonizing female than CBB females from natural infestation (Fig 3). The estimated abundance of offspring in all developmental stages was 20.6 per fruit for artificial infestation vs. 4.5 for natural (χ21 = 5473, p < 0.0001).

Fig 3

Monthly changes in total number of individuals per fruit of the coffee berry borer (CBB, Hypothenemus hampei) in artificial vs. natural infestations.

Means ± S.E. are shown. Artificial infestations: coffee fruits in the field were infested by CBB females raised in the lab on artificial diet Cenibroca. Natural infestation: coffee fruits infested by CBB females in natural conditions. Sampling was done from August to December 2018 on a shade coffee plot of Coffea arabica cv. Limaní.

Estimated percentages of internal rots were significantly higher in fruits in which the colonizing female was in position C (χ23 = 62.15, p < 0.0001). Estimated values were 7.2% for females in position A, 1.0% for position B, 20.1% for position C and 2.9% for position D.

The abundance of individuals in each developmental stage for artificial infestation is shown in Fig 4. Eggs were found starting at day 7, and there were two peaks for eggs production at 14 and 35 days after infestation. Larvae had a similar pattern to eggs; they were always present and peaked at day 49. Pupae appeared at 42 days after infestation and peaked at day 49. Juvenile females and males appeared at same time, day 56. The first adult female offspring were observed on day 56 (the last sampling day). No adult males were observed. Developmental time from egg to adult under field conditions for a shade coffee plot with a mean temperature of 21.8 °C was approximately 49 days (Fig 4).

Fig 4

Number of coffee berry borer (CBB, Hypothenemus hampei) per fruit in different developmental stages following artificial infestation:(A) eggs and larvae; (B) pupae; (C) juveniles; and (D) adults.

Coffee fruits were infested by CBB females raised in the lab on artificial diet Cenibroca. Means ± S.E. are shown. Sampling was done from August to December 2018 on a shade coffee plot of Coffea arabica cv. Limaní.

Life cycle developmental times and life table parameters

Developmental time for CBB reared in the lab on the artificial diet Cenibroca at 25 °C ranged from 32.9 to 35.9 days. Mean developmental times per stage were: 6 days from eggs to larvae, 17.2 days from larvae to pupae including both instars (larva I and larva II), 6 days from pupae to juveniles and 4 days from juveniles to adults (Table 2).

The estimated population growth rate (λ) was over 1.0 for both populations (Table 3). Mean generation time (T) and intrinsic rate of natural increase (r) were higher for populations reared in the lab on the artificial diet. The time of duplication (DT) was almost halved for populations raised in the lab. This reflects the lab conditions: an artificial diet with high nutritional content, constant temperature and relative humidity, unlike conditions in the field (Table 3).

Table 3

Life table parameters for populations of the coffee berry borer (CBB, Hypothenemus hampei) reared in the lab on artificial diet (Cenibroca) vs. artificial infestations in the field made on Coffee arabica cv. Limaní.

Cohort	Life Table Parameters
	λ	T	r m	DT
Lab a	1.74	41.5	0.058	11.8
Artificial infestations b	1.31	40.1	0.053	13.1

λ = population growth rate; T = mean generation time; r = intrinsic rate of natural increase: DT = doubling time (days)

a = individuals reared in the lab on the artificial diet Cenibroca (Temperature: 25 ± 1°C, RH 80–96%).

b = Individuals in the field on Coffea arabica cv. Limaní following artificial infestations (Mean temperature 21.8 ± 3°C, RH 42.5–100%).

Retroprospective analysis

According to LTRE analyses, the reduction in values for G2 (transition from larva to pupa) and G3 (transition from pupa to juvenile) for CBB in the field made the largest contribution to the reduction in λ observed for these populations (Fig 5 and Table 3). Estimated transition or vital rates probabilities for populations raised in the lab and those in the field can be found in S1 and S2 Tables.

Fig 5

Life table response experiment (LTRE) analysis of the coffee berry borer (CBB, Hypothenemus hampei) reared in the lab vs. CBB in the field (artificial infestations).

The bars show the contribution of each life transition to the reduction in population growth rate (λ) when comparing between populations. Gi: probability of transition between stages, Pi: probability to survive and remain in the same stage, Fi: fertility of adult females. (1) Eggs, (2) Larvae, (3) Pupae, (4) Juveniles and (5) Adults.

Sensitivity analysis

Probabilities of transitions between stages (Gi) were higher than probabilities to survive and remain at the same stage (Pi). The three transitions with largest potential impact on population growth rate (λ) were: survival rates of adults (P5: 0.324 for lab and 0.389 for field populations), transition from larva to pupa (G2: 0.316 for lab and 0.352 for field) and transition from pupa to juvenile (G3: 0.345 for lab and 0.515 for field) (Table 4).

Table 4

Sensitivities and elasticities for the coffee berry borer (CBB, Hypothenemus hampei) reared in the lab on the artificial diet (Cenibroca) and in the field, artificial infestations made on Coffeea arabica cv. Limaní.

Vital rate	Lab		Field
	Sensitivities	Elasticities	Sensitivities	Elasticities
G1	0.299	0.154	0.225	0.049
G2	0.316	0.154	0.352	0.049
G3	0.345	0.154	0.515	0.049
G4	0.240	0.154	0.267	0.049
P1	0.163	0.008	-	-
P2	0.164	0.009	-	-
P3	0.172	0.017	-	-
P4	0.175	0.021	-	-
P5	0.324	0.169	0.389	0.703
F1	0.023	0.154	0.019	0.049

G1: probability of transition between stages, Pi: probability to survive and remain in the same stage, Fi: fertility of adult females. (1) Eggs, (2) Larvae, (3) Pupae, (4) Juveniles, (5) Adults. The sampling protocol for field evaluations did not allow us to determine the probability to survive and remain at the same stage (Pi) for some developmental stages (eggs, larvae, pupae and juveniles). Transitions with largest potential impact on population growth rate (λ) are shown in bold.

Prospective perturbation analyses

The effects of proportional changes in vital transitions on the population growth rate (λ) for CBB populations in the field are shown in Figs 6 and 7 and Table 5. When only one parameter is perturbed at a time, including vital rates with the highest sensitivities (G2, G3 and P5), no important changes in population growth rate were observed. When (Gi) (transition from egg to larva) was reduced by ≥70%, λ was < 1.0 (0.98), but for the remaining transitions the population growth rate was > 1.0 even when probabilities were reduced by ≥ 90% (Fig 7).

Fig 6

Coffee berry borer (CBB, Hypothenemus hampei) population growth rate (λ) as a function of: (A) Probability of transition between stages, (G1) eggs, (G2) larvae, (G3) pupae and (G4) juveniles; (B) survival of adult females (P5) and (C) fecundity of adult females (F1), perturbing only one vital rate at a time.

Data from field evaluations. λ value before the perturbations was 1.32.

Fig 7

Coffee berry borer (CBB, Hypothenemus hampei) population growth rate (λ) perturbing two transitions with higher sensitivities at the same time: (A) Perturbing G2 and G3; (B) Perturbing G2 and P5; (C) Perturbing G3 and P5.

Data from field evaluations of artificial infestations on shade coffee plot C. arabica cv. Limaní. λ value before the perturbations was 1.32.

Table 5

Coffee berry borer (CBB, Hypothenemus hampei) population growth rate (λ) perturbing three transitions with higher sensitivities at the same time.

G2	G3	P5	λ
0.60	0.40	0.80	1.33
0.55	0.35	0.75	1.27
0.50	0.30	0.70	1.20
0.45	0.25	0.65	1.13
0.40	0.20	0.60	1.05
0.35	0.15	0.55	0.96
0.30	0.10	0.50	0.86
0.25	0.05	0.45	0.74

G2: Transition from larva to pupa; G3: Transition from pupa to juvenile, and P5: Survival of adult females. Data from field evaluations of artificial infestations on C. arabica cv. Limaní. λ value before the perturbations was 1.32.

Significant effects on population growth rate (λ) are possible when varying two or three transitions with higher sensitivities: that is, when G2, G3 and P5 are perturbed at the same time (Fig 7 and Table 5). When two transitions are perturbed at the same time reduction of 30%–35% in both parameters is necessary to reduce the value of λ to < 1.0. For instance, a change of -35% for G2 (0.60 to 0.25) and G3 (0.40 to 0.05) produced a decrease of 30.3% in λ (1.32 to 0.92) (Fig 7A). Perturbing P5 and G3 at the same time, a 30% of reduction for each vital rate is necessary to decrease λ from 1.32 to 0.96; G3 was the transition with highest sensitivity (Fig 7C).

When the three transitions are perturbed at the same time, the disturbance necessary to produce the same decrease in λ (1.32 to 0.96) is reduced to 25%. P5 (adult survival) should be lowered from 0.80 to 0.55; G2 (transition from larva to pupa) from 0.60 to 0.35, and G3 (transition from pupa to juvenile) from 0.40 to 0.15 (Table 5).

Discussion

The principal aims of this study were to collect demographic data to perform retrospective and prospective perturbation analyses of coffee berry borer (CBB) populations. Prospective analyses are based on the determination of vital rates with highest sensitivities, which can be perturbed in order to decrease the value of population growth rate (λ) to < 1.0. Identification of vital rates with highest contributions to λ can be powerful tools to improve Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs [18, 35].

Field and laboratory evaluations were conducted to determine demographic parameters for CBB populations, the reproductive potential of the CBB on the Cenibroca artificial diet is well known [26, 36–38]; however, few studies have conducted field experiments to obtain demographic data [21, 24]. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to conduct field evaluations of the CBB to perform prospective perturbation analysis. Three vital rates were identified as important targets for CBB management: G2 (transition from larva to pupa), G3 (transition from pupa to juvenile) and P5 (survival of adult females); these vital rates had the highest sensitivities, and their perturbation is biologically feasible (Table 4).

Perturbation analysis indicated that an efficient management for the CBB should not be focused on only one developmental stage. When one vital rate was perturbed at a time and the others remained constant, high values of change in each vital rate were necessary to reduce the value of λ to < 1.0. G2 and G3 had to be reduced more than 90% (Fig 6A); for P5, not even a reduction of 100% reduced the value of λ to < 1.0 (Fig 6B). However, a significant reduction of λ to < 1.0 is possible when two or three of these vital rates (G2, G3 and P5) are perturbed at a same time (Table 5).

Several methods, including biological, cultural and chemical control, have been tested and recommended to reduce CBB populations [3, 7, 39]. Biological control organisms include parasitoid wasps [40-42], entomopathogenic fungi (B. bassiana and Metharizium anisopliae (Metchnikoff) Sorokin) [43-46], nematodes [47, 48], and ants [49-51].

Ants and parasitoid wasps could help to reduce probabilities G2, G3 and P5 which deal with larvae, pupae and adult females, respectively. Some lab studies have demonstrated that several species of ants have great capacity to remove immature stages of the CBB from different containers [52, 53]. But in the field their predatory capacity is significantly reduced, due to the difficulty of entering coffee fruits through the hole made by the CBB; some ants are too large to enter the infested fruits [53]. Only small species like Pheidole radoszkowskii (Mayr), Crematogaster crinosa (Mayr), Wasmannia auropunctata (Roger) and Solenopsis picea (Emery) have the capacity to penetrate and remove immature stages of the CBB from coffee fruits.

W. auropunctata, S. picea and other species of ants like Solenopsis invicta (Buren) and Tetramollium simillum (Roger) also have great capacity to predate adult females and prevent their colonization of coffee fruits [50, 51, 54, 55]. Another important predator of the CBB is the flat bark beetle Cathartus quadricollis (Guérin-Méneville) [56]; laboratory assays demonstrated the capacity of adults and larvae of this species to feed on all stages of CBB [56, 57].

Four species of parasitoid wasps have been identified as natural enemies of the CBB, Cephalonomia stephanoderis (Betrem), Prorops nasuta (Waterson), Phymastichus coffea (La Salle) and Heterospilus coffeicola (Schmiedknechtcan parasitize CBB adult females. Additionally, C. stephanoderis, P. nasuta and H. coffeicola can predate immature stages of the CBB, including big larvae and pupae [40, 41, 58].

Fungi also are important natural enemies of the CBB and can affect the survival of adult females. One of the most common fungi used to manage the CBB is B. bassiana. In Puerto Rico and other countries B. bassiana is commonly applied as Mycotrol® or Botanigard®. However, natural infections with local strains of B. bassiana have been observed. Reported rates of infection range from <1 to 70% of CBB females that were infesting the coffee fruits [44, 59–62]; Gallardo et al. [60] and Vega et al. [59] observed < 1% of natural infections as reported here. Both commercial products and local isolates of B. bassiana are efficient reducing the damage caused by the CBB.

Like ants, the efficiency of B. bassiana is higher under laboratory conditions. Reports of mortality of CBB females ranged from 52 to 100%, and 25 to 98% [63, 64]. In the field this efficiency is affected by environmental conditions, mainly temperature, relative humidity and solar radiation. For example, Wraight et al. [65] reported percentages of CBB mortality from local B. bassiana isolates from 0.7 to 28%, and similar mortality was reported with the strain GHA from the commercial products Mycotrol® and Botanigard® [12]. However, in the field local strains survived and persisted better than the GHA strain derived from Mycotrol® [64].

Other pathogenic fungi that cause internal rots could be an additional factor for CBB mortality, or stimulate its migration to other fruits [6, 21]. Likewise, we observed more internal rot in fruits in which CBB females were found dead or missing compared with those fruits in which females were alive. It is likely that some of the rot pathogens killed the CBB or induced them to abandon the fruits. Four species of Colletotrichum (C. fructicola, C. siamense, C. theobromicola and C. tropicale) were recently reported as pathogens of coffee fruits, with the ability to cause internal and external rots; Fusarium was also isolated from internal rots [10]. But it is unknown if these fungi that cause coffee fruit rot are also pathogens for the CBB.

Survival of CBB adult females can also be reduced using cultural methods, mainly sanitation, that is, the periodic collection of ripe and raisin fruits during and after the harvest [39]. Fruits remaining on the plants and on the ground are important reservoirs for the CBB [3, 6, 66, 67]. In places where there is a single coffee crop per year, like Puerto Rico and Hawaii, sanitation should be mainly focused on fruits remaining on the plants, which can harbor higher populations of the CBB than fruits on the ground [67, 68]. For example, in Puerto Rico a single raisin fruit remaining on a tree can harbor up to 94 CBBs, of which 45 were adult females, whereas fruits remaining on the ground decomposed quickly [68]. Implementation of sanitation measures can contribute up to 80% of successful management the CBB [69].

Chemical control using insecticides is limited in many coffee producing countries due to health and environmental concerns. Additionally, the frequent use of an insecticide leads to development of resistance; for instance, resistance of the CBB to endosulfan has been reported, and endosulfan is one of the most used insecticides against the CBB [70].

Higher values for the demographic parameters intrinsic rate of natural increase (r) and population growth rate (λ) were observed in populations reared in the lab than in populations in the field from artificial infestations. Overall, populations growing in the lab with constant abiotic variables (temperature and RH), few disturbances and an artificial diet with high nutritional content performed better (Table 3) than field populations. Retrospective (LTREs) analyses showed that reduction in G2 (transition from larva to pupa) and G3 (transition from pupa to juvenile) probabilities made the largest contribution to the reduction in λ observed for populations in the field (Fig 5 and Table 3). Prospective analysis also identified these two transitions as important targets for CBB management; these vital rates had higher values of elasticity.

CBB females expulse immature stages from the fruit under some circumstances, and they also conduct a rigorous hygiene of dead immature stages, which are removed rapidly from the fruit [21]. This report agrees with our results: we observed a marked decrease in the number of pupae compared with number of larvae counted. For instance, 297 larvae in instar I resulted in 147 pupae, suggesting that 51% of larvae died, were predated by ants and/or were expulsed from the fruit by adult CBBs before they became pupae. A more drastic loss was observed for G3: 177 pupae resulted in only 24 juveniles; this means that 84% of pupae disappeared from the fruits. However, these decreases in G2 and G3 probabilities under natural conditions were not sufficient to reduce the value of λ to <1.0.

Several studies have determined demographic parameters of CBB populations under lab and field conditions. Most of the lab studies have used the artificial diet Cenibroca to grow the CBB. These studies have evaluated the effect of temperature ranging from 23 to 29 °C, modifications of diet composition and continuous rearing for several generations [26, 37, 38, 71].

These studies reported the following ranges for the four life table parameters that we determined in this study: r: 0.057–0.078, λ: 1.059–1.081, DT: 8.96–12.16 and T: 37.97–47.66. These parameters were affected by temperature and number of generations. In the case of temperature, the values of r and λ increased with temperature, while values of DT and T decreased with temperature; at higher temperatures the CBB performed better and required less time to reproduce. These studies concluded that the optimum temperature for mass rearing of the CBB is 27 °C [26, 71]. However, in our case we raised the CBBs at 25 °C to avoid the diets in the tubes from drying out or losing humidity too fast; salt solutions were not used to control humidity inside the growth chamber as recommended by Portilla [72].

In the case of continuous rearing Portilla et al. [37] found that performance of the CBB declined with increasing number of generations; all life table parameters decreased. The effect of temperature and continous rearing, could be two possible explanations for the differences in the values of life table parameters reported in these studies vs. the parameters reported here. We reared the CBB on Cenibroca diet at 25 ± 1°C and 80–96% relative humidity with a CBB population from the 6th generation in culture, and our life table parameters were: r: 0.058, λ: 1.74, DT: 11.8 and T: 41.5 days. These values for r and DT were similar to those reported by Portilla et al. [37] for their 5th generation (r: 0.057, DT: 12.16). However, our value for λ is higher than those of all these studies; this means that our CBB populations increased more during our period of evaluation (50 days), despite the r or increased rate of natural increase is declining over generations.

Relatively few studies have determined demographic parameters of CBB populations in the field. Baker et al. [21] and Ruiz and Baker [24] conducted experiments on coffee farms in Mexico and Colombia, respectively. Values reported in Mexico, with a mean temperature of 26°C, were: λ = 1.067, r = 0.065, T = 44.7 days and DT = 10.7 days. In Colombia with a mean temperature of 20.7–21.6°C, values estimated were: λ = 1.060 to 1.070, r = 0.053–0.066, T = 48.5 to 54.3 days and DT = 10.5 to 10.7 days. Values of r, T and DT were similar to those estimated in this study in Puerto Rico with a mean temperature 21.8°C (r = 0.053, T = 40.1 and DT = 13.1 days, Table 3). However, we observed a difference in the value of λ, which was higher for our populations (1.32); this value corresponds to artificial infestations in the field. To perform these infestations, we used adult female CBBs reared in the lab on the artificial diet, which had the best performance, as mentioned above. One possible explanation could be related to the fecundity of CBB females, which was significantly higher for females reared in the lab vs. those that infested naturally (Fig 3). Explanations for this difference in fecundity are discussed in more detail in the next section.

The first adult offspring in the field were observed 56 days after infestation, which suggests that developmental time from egg to adult was approximately 49 days. These results contrast with previous field observations made at similar mean temperatures. In a shade plot in Mexico with a mean temperature of 20.8°C and planted with C. canephora cv. Robusta, the first adults appeared between 42 to 49 days after infestation [21]. In Hawaii, in a plot planted with C. arabica cv. Typica exposed to full sun, with mean temperature of 20.6 °C (like that reported by Baker et al., [21]) the first adults appeared 47 days after infestation; while at 22.0°C (similar to that reported in this study), first adults appeared 43 days after infestation [73].

Hamilton et al. [73] suggested that fluctuations in daily temperatures can also influence developmental time: sites with higher daily ranges in temperatures had slower CBB development. For instance, in a site with a daily range of temperature of 14.9°C the first adults appeared at 51 days after infestation. Our results support these observations: the daily range in temperature was 14.1°C in this study, approximately 0.8 °C less than that reported by Hamilton et al. [73], and developmental time was longer (the first adults appeared 56 days after infestation). These results suggest that mean temperature is not the only factor that influences developmental time; there are other factors such as daily range in temperature.

Artificial infestations by CBB adult females reared in the lab were successful: 468 females infested and reproduced inside coffee fruits. After infesting the fruits, behavior of these females was like that of females that infested coffee naturally. Females reared in the lab and those from the field were affected equally by abiotic (temperature and relative humidity) and biotic variables (ants, parasitoids, entomopathogenic fungi); no differences were observed in death and abandonment rate (Fig 1). The only difference was in the proportion of missing females in August at the beginning of the experiment, which was higher from natural (0.83) vs. artificial (0.21) infestations (Fig 1C). This low rate of abandon from artificial infestations may be a consequence of the short time that females were exposed to environmental or biological factors that kill them or stimulate their migration to other fruits; only a week had passed since the artificial infestation were done. While, in natural infestations some females abandoned the fruits before the experiment began.

Other difference in behavior was observed in the proportion of females in position C and D, more females from artificial infestation were in position D. In other words, females reared in the lab were more likely to reach the endosperm and start to reproduce there (Fig 2). This high proportion of colonizing females in position D could be related to the frequency of males. When CBB individuals were reared in the artificial diet Cenibroca male offspring were found in all vials evaluated, and the number of males per vial increased through generations from 2.4 ± 0.3 (F1) to 11.3 ± 0.3 (F10) [25]. Higher frequency of males in the artificial diet could increase the possibility that more females are fertilized, reach the endosperm, and oviposit. In the field, Mariño et al. [74] evaluated CBB reproduction and found that 61% of fruits did not contain males (this percentage only include fruits with juveniles and adults, which are the stages that can be sexed).

CBB females reared in the lab and used to perform artificial infestations were more fertile, producing almost 4x more offspring per fruit that CBB females from natural infestations (Fig 3). This high fecundity could be associated with the food source and quality, and the temperature during the pre-oviposition period to which these females were exposed.

Food source, availability and quality have a direct impact on the growth, development, and reproduction of insects. In the case of herbivorous insects like the CBB, successful development and reproduction depends on the nutrients offered by its host plant. One of the most important elements that determines host quality is nitrogen [75, 76]. Several studies have demonstrated that the amount of nitrogen available during the development of larvae, pupae and adults has important effects on the future fecundity and fertility [75]. For example, females of the tortoise beetle Paropsis atomaria (Oliver) that feed on foliage of Eucalyptus blakelyi (Maiden) with high levels of nitrogen (4.12%) produced 5x more eggs than females that feed of foliage with low levels of nitrogen (1.15%) [77].

The artificial diets used to grow insects are usually a mixture of nutrients (carbohydrates, lipids and proteins), vitamins, salts and preservatives [78]. The artificial diet Cenibroca that we used to grow CBB populations contains casein and yeasts [36]. Casein and yeasts are important sources of nitrogen. The N content of casein is 14.2% [79], almost 10x higher than N content of endosperm from coffee fruits, which is 1.89% [80].

Finally, these higher proportions of females in position D from females reared on the artificial diets could also be related to temperature during the pre-oviposition period to which these females were exposed. CBB adult females reared on artificial diet and used to perform artificial infestations were maintained at a constant temperature of 25°C, while females from natural infestation were exposed to variables temperatures from 12°C to 34.1°C, with a daily range 14.1°C (Table 1). Jaramillo et al. [23] evaluated the effect of temperature on fecundity of CBB females reared in the lab on fruits of C. arabica cv. Ruiri at eight temperatures ranging from 15°C to 35°C. Females exposed to cold temperatures (15°C) were able to reach the endosperm but did not oviposit, while females exposed to warm temperatures (35°C) did not reach the endosperm. Bergamin [81] also suggested that exposure to low temperatures had a negative effect on the oviposition activity of CBB females.

Conclusions and recommendations

This study is the first to use artificial infestations of the CBB in the field to perform elasticity and prospective perturbation analyses. These analyses identified which vital rates or CBB developmental stages are the best targets to improve CBB management programs. Results from elasticity analyses determined that transition from larvae to pupae, transition from pupae to juvenile and survival of adult females are the three vital rates that most influenced population growth rate (λ). Perturbation analyses showed that a successful Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program for the CBB should not be focused only in one stage or vital rate. When one vital rate including the three with highest sensitivity were perturbed at a time and the others remained constant, very high percentages of perturbation were necessary to reduce the value of λ to <1.0.

IPM programs should be directed to enhance the diversity of natural enemies, mainly ants, parasitoids and predators, which have the capacity to affect or impact the survival of these three important targets. To increase the diversity of natural enemies of the CBB, the first steps could be the re-introduction of shade trees and the reduction or elimination of chemical pesticides used to manage the CBB and other coffee pests like the coffee leaf miner (Leucoptera coffeela Guérin-Méneville), which also reduce populations of natural enemies of the CBB.

Future investigation and experimentation are needed to determine the effects of natural enemies on the CBB populations. It is important to focus on the role of these organisms as predators of larvae, pupae and CBB adult females, and to determine the impact of natural enemies on the demographic parameters of the CBB, one possible experiment to determine this effect could be the exclusion of natural enemies using caged and uncaged coffee trees.

Projection matrix for populations of the coffee berry borer (CBB, Hypothenemus hampei) reared in lab on the artificial diet CENIBROCA at temperature of 25 ± 1°C, relative humidity 80–96%.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Projection matrix for populations of the coffee berry borer (CBB, Hypothenemus hampei) artificial infestations in a shade coffee plot planted with Coffeea arabica cv. Limaní, mean temperature 21.8 ± 3°C, relative humidity ranged from 42.5 to 100%.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

9 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-18910

Demography and perturbation analyses of the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): implications for management

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Marino,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please carefully follow the rewievers' requests, that you can find in this decision lettere and in the attached files, in which specific comments and corrections were provided by the reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by the 22nd of September. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Patrizia Falabella

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"We thank Rocío Rivera for help in the lab. This project was supported by USDA ARS Specific Cooperative Agreements 58-1245-4-082 and 58-1245-4-083 and by an Advanced Research Grant from the Puerto Rico Science and Technology Research Trust."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"PB, USDA ARS Specific Cooperative Agreements 58-1245-4-082 and 58-1245-4-083.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper reported a comprehensive study on demographic parameters values on CBB rearing on artificial diet under laboratory conditions and artificial infestation under field conditions. The study was well designed and conducted. The results were properly analyzed. However, the presentation of the results and the discussion needs to be improved.

This study demonstrated that biological control agents and physical conditions could affect the CBB's demographic values. This information is crucial for the CBB control. Also is demonstrating that the rm values of the CBB under field conditions could be much higher that the ones that have been reported in previous studies.

Reviewer #2: The study by Marino et al. describes CBB development times under natural and laboratory conditions and conducts perturbation and elasticity analyses to determine which stages in the life cycle contribute most to population growth rate. The study is well-thought out, nicely written, the analyses seem appropriate, and the discussion is comprehensive. Overall, this represents an important contribution to the literature on this worldwide pest of coffee. I have some minor comments which should easily be addressed. I enjoyed reading this manuscript and look forward to seeing it published.

L87-88: How did you decide on the environmental conditions to maintain the lab colony (why 25 C and 80-96% RH)?

L124-125: Were entomological sleeves placed around the entire branch? If not, how do you know that artificial infestations were the result of lab-reared CBB and not naturally occurring CBB from neighboring trees/branches?

L128: You might define larvae I vs. larvae II and pre-pupae vs. pupae.

L135-138: Please explain why mortality by Bb and internal fruit rot was evaluated and how these variables relate to the overall goals of the study.

L141: “Fully feral” is the same as natural, correct? I think best to stick to “natural field-infestation” so as not to confuse the reader (it could be inferred that these were infestations in wild coffee).

L1579-159: Are these daily temp and RH ranges, or ranges across the entire sampling period?

Table 1: Why is SE only shown for mean temp?

L172: Why were lab populations followed for 50 days and artificially infested populations followed for 56 days? Was this to account for the two days over which infestation could have occurred for artificial infestations?

L189: Here you say lab populations were evaluated at 56 days not 50 days?

L270-275: This should be moved to discussion.

L327: How could both juveniles and adults show up on same day (day 56)? Wouldn’t the presence of adults on day 56 mean that juveniles had to be present before that? Does this mean you might have missed the first appearance of juveniles?

Table 2: Change “media” to “mean”. Please include SE for min and max.

L523, L528: Change “parasite” to “parasitize”.

L526: Add “other” before predators.

L559-560: Yes, but this is because B. bassiana was not sprayed during your study, correct? Please include commonly reported rates of mortality due to B. bassiana from other studies.

L587: change to “more often recommended”.

L588: This is also true for other regions, such as Hawaii (see Johnson & Fortna et al. 2019).

L602: add “adult”

L648: Please explain why coffee species and variety would affect CBB development times.

L691: I am confused by the statement “endosperm or almond from coffee fruits”. Please revise.

L704: Exposition? Do you mean exposure?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Marino_PLOSreview_ok.docx

Click here for additional data file.

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-18910_reviewer_ok.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

27 Sep 2021

Reviewer #1.

The study by Marino et al. describes CBB development times under natural and laboratory conditions and conducts perturbation and elasticity analyses to determine which stages in the life cycle contribute most to population growth rate. The study is well-thought out, nicely written, the analyses seem appropriate, and the discussion is comprehensive. Overall, this represents an important contribution to the literature on this worldwide pest of coffee. I have some minor comments which should easily be addressed. I enjoyed reading this manuscript and look forward to seeing it published.

L87-88: How did you decide on the environmental conditions to maintain the lab colony (why 25 C and 80-96% RH)?

We reared the CBB at 25�C because when we were tried to establish the colony, we set the chamber at 27�C (as is used in most papers on growth the CBB on artificial diets), but the diets were drying and losing humidity too fast, so we set the chamber at 25�C. We put inside the chamber containers with distilled water to maintain the humidity of the diets. We didn’t use any salt solutions to control de humidity as is described in Portilla 2000. These conditions are working well to maintain our colonies.

Portilla, M. 2000. Development and evaluation of new artificial diet for mass rearing Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Revista Colombiana de Entomología 26 (1-2): 31- 37.

L124-125: Were entomological sleeves placed around the entire branch? If not, how do you know that artificial infestations were the result of lab-reared CBB and not naturally occurring CBB from neighboring trees/branches?

Yes, the plastic bags covered the entire branch. When we removed the bag from the branch, we observed some remaining dead and alive females in these bags. The maximum number of fruits perforated per branch was 15 to 17. We are sure that no CBBs entered the bags, and the artificial infestations in field were made by the CBB females reared in the lab and placed in the bags.

L128: You might define larvae I vs. larvae II and pre-pupae vs. pupae.

We added three paragraphs in the introduction describing the different stages of the life cycle of the coffee berry borer. In these paragraphs we highlighted the differences between larva I vs. larva II, and prepupa vs pupa. See L 57 - 82.

L135-138: Please explain why mortality by Bb and internal fruit rot was evaluated and how these variables relate to the overall goals of the study.

We added a sentence in Materials and methods, explaining that natural infection with the fungus B. bassiana and fungi that cause internal fruit rot can kill CBB females. See L 195– 196.

L141: “Fully feral” is the same as natural, correct? I think best to stick to “natural field-infestation” so as not to confuse the reader (it could be inferred that these were infestations in wild coffee).

We agree with the reviewer. To avoid confusion, we changed ‘fully feral’ to ‘naturally.’ See L 184.

L1579-159: Are these daily temp and RH ranges, or ranges across the entire sampling period?

Yes, the values correspond to the period from August 11 to December 10 covering all our sampling period. These are the high and low values for the entire period.

Table 1: Why is SE only shown for mean temp?

We added the SE for the other variables (relative humidity and rain), see Table 1.

L172: Why were lab populations followed for 50 days and artificially infested populations followed for 56 days? Was this to account for the two days over which infestation could have occurred for artificial infestations?

The time for evaluations in the lab and field were different, because at 49 days in the field we didn’t observed the presence of juveniles or adults, while in the lab the first juveniles appeared at 28 days. we extended this time to 50 days to allow slower individuals (if any) to catch up, but we did not observe significant changes from day 45.

L189: Here you say lab populations were evaluated at 56 days not 50 days?

In this line we report the time when the first juveniles and adults appeared in the field, not in the lab. Time of evaluations in the lab was 50 days and in field was 56 days. We revised and clarified this information throughout the manuscript. See L 214 and L 230 -231.

L270-275: This should be moved to discussion.

We moved this information to discussion. See L 659 – 666.

L327: How could both juveniles and adults show up on same day (day 56)? Wouldn’t the presence of adults on day 56 mean that juveniles had to be present before that? Does this mean you might have missed the first appearance of juveniles?

Yes, we agree with the reviewer. Probably our time between evaluations of 7 days was too long, some juveniles may have appeared during this period and were not counted immediately, but according to our results from lab evaluations the mean time from pupa to juvenile was 6.3 days. See Table 2

Table 2: Change “media” to “mean”. Please include SE for min and max.

We changed ‘media’ to ‘mean’. But we can’t include the SE for the values min and max, because in most of the cases we only have one data for each one.

L523, L528: Change “parasite” to “parasitize”.

We made this change, See L 519.

L526: Add “other” before predators.

We re-wrote this part of the Discussion, so this sentence was modified.

L559-560: Yes, but this is because B. bassiana was not sprayed during your study, correct? Please include commonly reported rates of mortality due to B. bassiana from other studies.

We added two paragraphs about the range of natural infection observed with B. bassiana, and mortality observed for lab and field experiments done with local isolates and the strain GHA from the commercial products Mycotrol® and Botanigard®. See L526 – 538.

L587: change to “more often recommended”.

We removed this part from the discussion, as reviewer #2 suggested we reduced this part. So this sentence was eliminated.

L588: This is also true for other regions, such as Hawaii (see Johnson & Fortna et al. 2019).

We added information about the results of this study. See L 553 – 556.

L602: add “adult”

We added the word ‘adult’ before ‘females’. See L 578.

L648: Please explain why coffee species and variety would affect CBB development times.

After reviewing the literature, we decided to eliminate this phrase. We only left the effect of daily temperature on CBB developmental times that was our conclusion according with the literature reviewed and cited. See L 650 – 651.

L691: I am confused by the statement “endosperm or almond from coffee fruits”. Please revise.

We deleted the word ‘almond’ to avoid confusion. See L 701.

L704: Exposition? Do you mean exposure?

We change exposition to exposure, see L 714.

Reviewer #2

Abstract needs to be rewritten. Please provide some results. An abstract can not be based only on definitions and literature review.

We added two sentences to the Abstract incorporating values for demographic parameters and sensitivities observed for lab and field evaluations, see L 15 – 20 and L 25 -26.

L 29 Add Coffea arabica L. (Gentianales: Rubiaceae)

We added this information, see L 33.

L34 Add (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae)

We added this information, see L 39 -40.

L35 Add Coffee berry borer

We added this see L 41

L37-38 Add Citation to “only fertilized females abandon the fruit in search of new fruits to infest”

We cited the review from Vega et al. 2009, to support the statement that only fertilized females abandon the fruit in search of new fruits to infest, see L 45.

Vega FE, Infante F, Castillo A, Jaramillo J (2009) The coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari)(Coleoptera: Curculionidae): a short review, with recent findings and future research directions. Terrestrial Arthopod Reviews 2: 129-147.

L39 change the word adults by females

We change the word ‘adults’ to ‘females’, see L 46.

L49 – Change Bb to B. bassiana (Do not use acronyms for scientific names)

We change Bb to ‘B. bassiana’ in the entire document.

L64 Include references from 18 and 21

We added other references to support this paragraph, now the references are from 21 – 25, the format for references required by the Journal put the references in that way. See L 101

L76 Need citation (Portilla, 1999). "Portilla, M. 1999. Desarrollo y evaluation de una dieta artificial para la cria de Hypothenemus hampei. Rev. Cenicafe. 50:24-38"

We cited this reference, see L 114

L85 Change Coffee berry borers (CBBs) were with coffee berry borer was

We made this change, see L 124

L 128 Delete the plural in CBBs and add the word stages

We made this change, see L 169.

L 145 Here are you referring to the females?

Yes, here we are referring to the females that is the most stage affected by the fungus B. bassiana. We changed ‘CBBs’ to ‘adult females’, see L 177.

L146, L175, L223, L261, L265, L266, L269, L283, L284, L287, L332, L339 Delete the plural from CBBs

We deleted the plural from CBB all times that we are using this abbreviation to refer to the coffee berry borer, in some occasions we change the word CBB with females when we were refered to the females. We made these changes through the entire manuscript.

L228 – 221 Focus on M&M. Leave definitions and literature review to introduction and discussion. Citation in M&M are used when procedures from somebody else's are used.

We deleted all definitions from Materials and Methods.

L221 Delete the abbreviation LTRE

We deleted the abbreviation from the start of the sentence, see L 261.

L225-230 Same. Focus in M&M

We deleted all definitions from Materials and Methods.

L271-275 Use these statements for discussion

We moved this information to discussion. See L 659 – 666.

L286 What means Fate?

We changed ‘fate’ to ‘behavior’ to avoid confusion. See L 318

L300 Add ,CBB to the title of figure

To be consistent, for all titles of figures and tables we added coffee berry borer (CBB, Hypothenemus hampei)’ see L 318, 333, 348, 365, 378, 389, 405, 419, 438, 451, 461

L306 Change CBBs for coffee berry borer females

We made the change, see L338

L307 Add females after CBB

We made the change, see L339

L316 Add ,CBB to the title of figure and L332 Delete the plural from CBBs and add coffee berry borer before CBB

To be consistent, for all titles of figures and tables, we added ‘coffee berry borer (CBB, Hypothenemus hampei)’ see L 318, 333, 348, 365, 378, 389, 405, 419, 438, 451, 461

L339 Do not use plural. Check throughout the text

We deleted the plural from CBB all times that we are using this abbreviation to refer to the coffee berry borer, in some occasions we change the word CBB with females when we were refered to the females. We made these changes through the entire manuscript.

L346 Add lab conditions: Temperature and Relative Humidity to the title of the table 2

We added this information, see L 379 - 380.

L 360 -366 There is anyway to know if there is any significant differences between these cohorts? The rm values seem very low compared with other studies using Cenibroca artificial diet and parchment coffee under lab conditions:

1) Portilla et al.2000, (Reproductive potential response to continuous rearing of Hypotnenemus hampei developed using Cenibroca artificial diet. Rev. Colom. Entomol. 26:99-105.

2) Portilla and Street 2006 (Nuevas Tecnicas de production masiva automatizada de Hypothenemus hampei sobre la dieta artificial Cenibroca modificada. Rev. Cenicafe. 57:37-50) and 2008 (Profduccion masiva automatizada de la broca del cafe y de sus parasotoides sobre dietas artificiales. Sist. Agroeco. Mod. Biomatematic. 1:9-16)

3) Portilla et al. 2014 (Life tables as tools of evaluation and quality control for arthropod mass production, pp. 241-275. In: J. Morales-Ramos [Ed.], Mass Production of Beneficial Organisms. Academic Press, New York. 742 pp) (Book Chapter) look the case study "Abridged Life tables for the CBB, Hypothenemus hampei, at different temperatures using an artificial diet".

All these articles can be cited as a reference and improved the current discussion.

We reviewed the references that the reviewer recommended. We added three paragraphs in the Discussion comparing the results from these studies with our results. We focused on the studies that reported demographic parameters for the CBB populations that were grown on the artificial diet Cenibroca. See L 590 – 616.

L376 – 377 Keep the terminology uniform for all figures and tables if needed:

We made the titles more uniform using the phrase the “Coffee berry borer (CBB, Hypothenemus hampei)”

L450 Delete the sentence: Despite the importance of the CBB as pest of coffee and add It is well known the reproductive potential of the CBB on the Cenibroca artificial diet (Portilla, 1999, Portilla et al. 2000, Portilla and Streett 2008, and Portilla et al. 2014); however, only few studies have been conducted field experiments .....

We made this change, see L 478 – 480.

L466 Delete the heading: “Biological control as control for CBB management”

We made this change.

L476 – 589 Go to the point. Your study is not related to natural enemies. This information can be reduced to one paragraph or two.

We agree with the reviewer, we reduced the information on natural enemies, for example, the section from ants as important predators of larvae and pupae of the CBB was reduced from five to two paragraphs. However, we consider that information about use of natural enemies to reduce the survival of larvae, pupae and adult females is important, and the information in the paper is novel in this context. We did not reduce this to one or two paragraphs as the reviewer suggested, but from sixteen to eight paragraphs.

L 591 Delete the heading: “Life table parameters”

We deleted this heading.

L592 I could not see in the table: the significant differences in life table parameters between populations reared in the lab vs. those from artificial infestations in the field. Please add that information.

The reviewer was right: we did not perform a statistical analysis for the life table parameters calculated for CBB populations reared in the lab vs. those from artificial infestations in field. We rewrote this sentence and changed ‘significant differences’ to ‘higher values in demographic parameters. See L 568 – 570.

L614 This is one of the most complete study in demographic parameters using naturally infestation. So far, only two rearing systems have been able to get over that value Portilla 1999 in parchment coffee (0.073) and in Cenibroca diet (0.074) Portilla 2000.

This information could be included in your discussion to support your conclusion

We added four paragraphs (see Lines 590 – 616) where we discussed only the studies which used the artificial diet Cenibroca, since they are the most directly comparable. We think that the studies where CBB was grown on parchment coffee are less relevant, and would increase the length of the Discussion.

L 620 did you mean differed?

No, we are using ‘similar’ to say that these values are almost equal, not different.

L623 Delete the plural from CBBs

We made this change in the entire manuscript.

L624 include demographic data obtained in Cenbroca diet by other authors.

We added this information, see Lines 590 - 616

L642 Definitely, temperature affect demographic values. Please see "Abridged Life tables for the CBB, Hypothenemus hampei, at different temperatures using an artificial diet"

We added this information, see Lines 598 – 603

L 650 Delete the heading: “Comparissons between CBBs rearing in the lab vs. CBBs growing on the field”

We deleted this heading.

L 726 – 729 Based in this study, it is important to know the real effect of the natural enemies on the demographic values of the CBB.

Caged and uncaged coffee trees should be the answer.

We added this sentence: “to determine the impact of natural enemies on the demographic parameters of the CBB” at the end of the Conclusion. See L 740 – 743.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

25 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-18910R1Demography and perturbation analyses of the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): implications for managementPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mariño,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 09 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Patrizia Falabella

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Methods, results, objectives were correctly analyzed and interpreted. Authors addressed all comments and suggestions.

Reviewer #2: Review 2: Marino et al.

L9: change to “entire life cycle occurs inside the fruit where it is well-protected.”

L10: change to “would shed light on the population dynamics of this pest…”

L20: change comma to semi-colon

L21-22: change to “indicated that effective CBB management should consider multiple developmental stages;…”

L48: change to “which cause internal fruit rot”

L50: change to “because chemical and biological control measures are only effective during the short period of time when adult females are out searching for new fruits to infest.”

L164-166: You need to include here that entomological sleeves were used to cover the experimental branches.

L177: note in parentheses at first mention that Bb refers to B. bassiana

L194-196: Move this up to start the paragraph at L177.

L214: You need to include the information in the text here on why you used different evaluation periods for lab and field (50 vs. 56 days). Please include the information you put in your response to reviewers into the manuscript here.

L530: indicating that?? farmers should use commercial formulations to manage CBB instead of relying on naturally occurring B. bassiana strains? This thought seems incomplete as written.

L536: Why do you think the mortality by natural Bb was higher in the study reported by Wraight et al? Are the farms in PR considerably drier and hotter than farms in Hawaii where feral strains of Bb thrive?

L552, 555, 559: change sanitization to sanitation

L590-603: Here you should include the information from your response on why you used 25 C instead of 27 C.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

8 Nov 2021

Dear Dr. Chenette:

We have revised the manuscript PONE-D-21-18910R1following the suggestions of the one anonymous reviewer, also we carefully revised the references to adjust our manuscript for publication in PLOS ONE. We found the comments to be very useful and constructive, and we have incorporated most of them. The list of comments and our responses (in bold) follow below.

In this revised version, we followed the suggestions made by the reviewer #2. We added two new paragraphs, one in the methods section and other in the discussion. The first was added to explain the difference in the time for evaluations between field and lab. The second was added to explain the reasons to growth the insects or CBB at 25 �C instead to 27 �C, that is the optimal temperature recommended to growth the CBB in artificial diets.

The new paragraphs and/or modifications in the manuscript that we made in this revision are shown in red text.

We appreciate the opportunity to resubmit this revised version of our manuscript and look forward to hearing from you. If we can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Yobana Andrea Mariño Cardenas

Department of Biology

University of Puerto Rico - Rio Piedras San Juan, PR 00931-3360

Reviewer #2.

L9: change to “entire life cycle occurs inside the fruit where it is well-protected.”

We made the change, see L9.

L10: change to “would shed light on the population dynamics of this pest…”

We made the change, see L10 -11.

L20: change comma to semi-colon

We made the change, see L20.

L21-22: change to “indicated that effective CBB management should consider multiple developmental stages;…”

We made the change, see L22.

L48: change to “which cause internal fruit rot”

We made the change, see L48.

L50: change to “because chemical and biological control measures are only effective

during the short period of time when adult females are out searching for new fruits to infest.”

We made the change, see L50-51.

L164-166: You need to include here that entomological sleeves were used to cover the experimental branches.

We used plastic bags to cover the entire branch. We added a phrase to specify that plastic bags were used as entomological sleeves, see L 163-164.

L177: note in parentheses at first mention that Bb refers to B. bassiana

To be consistent we changed Bb to B. bassiana, as you recommended in the first revision, see L 181.

L194-196: Move this up to start the paragraph at L177.

We made the change, see L 177-179.

L214: You need to include the information in the text here on why you used different evaluation periods for lab and field (50 vs. 56 days). Please include the information you put in your response to reviewers into the manuscript here.

We added the information, see L 212 -216.

L530: indicating that?? farmers should use commercial formulations to manage CBB instead of relying on naturally occurring B. bassiana strains? This thought seems incomplete as written.

We added a sentence recommending the application of both commercial and local strains of B. bassiana to reduce the damage caused by the coffee berry borer, see L 532 – 533.

L536: Why do you think the mortality by natural Bb was higher in the study reported by Wraight et al? Are the farms in PR considerably drier and hotter than farms in Hawaii where feral strains of Bb thrive?

There are two possible explanations for the difference in the natural presence or mortality of the CBB caused by B. bassiana between Hawaii and Puerto Rico. The first, we agree with you, the differences in temperature and relative humidity could be affecting the presence and development of natural infections with Bb.

Farms from Puerto Rico experienced hotter and dryer days; for example, in our sampling site at 434 m.a.s.l. the temperatures ranged from 13 to 34�C and the minimum relative humidity was 47.6%; these measures are from September to November. While in Hawaii, for this same interval of time in a site located at a similar altitude 427 m.a.s.l, the temperatures ranged from 18.9 to 29.8�C and the minimum relative humidity was 66.7%.

Another reason could be that our sampling site was located at an experimental farm with similar management to a commercial Farm. Wraight et al, 2018 found that the natural presence of Bb was significantly less common in commercial farms than feral sites.

Environmental data from Hawaii were taken from Hamilton et al. 2019. Coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) development across an elevational gradient on Hawai‘I Island: Applying laboratory degree-day predictions to natural field populations. PLOs ONE 14(7): e0218321. https://

doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218321.

Wraight et al. 2018. Prevalence of naturally-occurring strains of Beauveria bassiana in populations of coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei on Hawai'i Island, with observations on coffee plant-H. hampei-B. bassiana interactions. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 156, 54–72. doi: 10.1016/j.jip.2018.07.008.

L552, 555, 559: change sanitization to sanitation

We made the change, see L 555, 558, 562.

L590-603: Here you should include the information from your response on why you used 25 �C instead of 27 �C.

We added the information, see L 606-608.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

11 Nov 2021

Demography and perturbation analyses of the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): implications for management

PONE-D-21-18910R2

Dear Dr. Marino,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Patrizia Falabella

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

2 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-18910R2

Demography and perturbation analyses of the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): implications for management

Dear Dr. Mariño:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Patrizia Falabella

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE