The document provides background information on coffee production. It discusses that coffee thrives in tropical environments between 23.5 degrees north and south of the equator, with optimal temperatures between 17-25 degrees Celsius and rainfall of 1,200-1,500 mm per year. Traditionally, coffee has been grown under shade trees, which provide economic and environmental benefits by modifying the microclimate and reducing pest populations. However, many farms have converted to unshaded monocultures. One of the major pests of coffee in Kenya is Antestia bugs, which feed on berries and can cause significant yield and quality losses. The study aims to determine the effects of shade on Antestia bug population dynamics to inform sustainable pest

1. CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Information
Coffee is one of the world’s most popular drinks and the most traded commodity in terms of
monetary value after oil and an important primary export for many developing countries. Coffee
has two main species that are economically exploited worldwide, Coffea arabica Linnaeus and
Coffea canephora Pierre. The coffee plant C. arabica L. is the most widely cultivated species. It
is an evergreen, multiple stemmed shrubs of about 8 to 10 metres tall, that bears small green
berries that mature into deep red cherry. The cherry is harvested by hand picking and is
processed either by wet or dry method. The wet method gives bean parchment where dry method
gives Mbuni beans. The effect of the beverage is largely derived from the alkaloid caffeine after
the beans are cured, roasted and finely ground to bring out the characteristic coffee aroma.
Coffee thrives well within the confines of the tropics, 23.5° latitude north and south of the
equator that provide a forest environment where coffee become a secondary canopy. The
environment have a well distributed rainfall (l,200 to 1,500 mm/year), a 12 hour photoperiod,
and temperature ranges of 17° to 25°C that favour coffee growth. Though native to East Africa,
coffee production has found a solid base in the New World (the Western Hemisphere), where
Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and the Central American countries account for 59 % of global
exports (Arabica and Robusta combined).
Coffee is Kenya’s most important crop, cultivated by two distinct sectors, namely small-scale
producers and the plantations (estates). The crop is grown by about 700,000 farmers who belong
1

2. to about 2,000 co-operative societies and 2,000 medium farmers’ category and about 200
planters. Kenya produces about 1% of the global Arabica coffee that account for 2% of global
exports value (Anon, 2003; Kegole, 2005) and was ranked position 21st
largest producer of
coffee in the world with an annual production of 50,000 metric tones. It is grown in
approximately 158,000 hectares (Anon, 1992) and it is believed that six million Kenyans are
employed directly or indirectly in the coffee industry and is the fourth foreign exchange earner
accounting for approximately 5% of all exports (Karanja and Nyoro, 2002).
Coffee growing has been often affected by the world market demand, diseases, pests and
unreliable climatic regimes. The global coffee market is currently plagued by two paradoxes, a
coffee boom in consuming countries and a coffee crisis in producing countries. The paradoxes
refer to an oversupply of low quality coffee coupled with a shortage of high quality coffee that
actually drives the global coffee market (Daviron and Ponte, 2005).
The downward trend in coffee prices is expected to continue in the near future, this may be due
to the increased production of Brazil, Vietnam and Colombia. The farmers are, therefore, looking
for viable economic alternatives to relying solely on the production of coffee. The incorporation
of shade tree species that offer direct economic benefits into coffee plantations is considered to
be a promising option for farmers. It has been shown that timber and fruit production from shade
trees used in coffee plantations can contribute significant income that may equal or exceed that
of coffee when coffee prices are low (Albertin R.A, 2002).
Antestia bugs (Antestiopsis sp) are shield shaped, dark-brown, white and yellow in colour.
Antestiopsis spp. is among one of the most important pests of Arabica coffee in Kenya. It is
highly sensitive to temperatures and humidity changes within the environment and likely to be
2

3. affected by global warming and climatic changes. The bugs affect the coffee beans by
introducing fungi (Nematospora gossypii) into the beans during feeding, resulting to rotting.
Antestia bugs are known to dwell in dense foliage, are mobile, moving in and out of shade. The
Antestia affect coffee by reducing the quantity and also down grading the quality at the cup
stage, resulting to poor coffee grades that are not competitive in the market.
1.2 Coffee and the shade environment
Traditionally coffee has been grown under shade trees. Shade improves the climate for coffee
plants by buffering temperature extremes in the air and soil and also reduces the wind velocity
within coffee plantations. The shade affects different environmental requirements necessary for
successful colonization and reproduction in insect pests. Shading produces a micro-climate that
enhances or impend pest’s infestations. The incidence of coffee leaf miner (Leucoptera merycki)
was reduced by shade and increased damage from coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei
Ferrari) has been recorded in coffee plantations under shade (Acland, 1971).
The introduction of shade in coffee plantations has become a proven strategy in alleviating the
negative effects of the changing climate and global warming, especially warmer temperatures
and is likely to affect pest populations in coffee.
1.3 The coffee insect pest problem and management approaches
There are about 850 insect species affecting coffee globally, where 36 species affect coffee in
Kenya and are classified as either major or minor pest of coffee (Rene’coste, 1992). The pests
include coffee leaf miner (Leucoptera spp), Antestia bugs (Antestiopsis spp), stem borer (white
and yellow headed borer) and the coffee scales (Coccus spp) among the major insect pests.
3

4. Insect pest are affected by the shade differently; some favour shade and while others are
negatively affected. Agronomical cultural practices that include pruning, mulching, irrigation
and weeding may either promote or negatively affect the pest’s problem.
Farmers have taken a lot of time and attention in the control of the insect pests with huge
expenditures being incurred. Though modern insecticides can give effective control in most
areas, unremitting attention must be given to the coffee, to ensure timely measures if severe loss
is to be avoided. Available methods of control include cultural, chemical, biological and
integrated pest management (IPM).
Cultural practices involve the opening up of the coffee bushes by pruning, chemical (insecticide)
control is by insecticides applications, where biological control is by natural enemies associated
with the specific pests, and integrated pest management (IPM) approach involve the harmonious
co-operation of all the control approaches into one single system.
Although insecticide applications are supposed to be carried-out after the economic threshold
levels are established this has not been followed and the practice has been mixing insecticides
with fungicides, a practice that has greatly affected the natural enemies. An insecticides
application is done in a selective and timely manner in order to kill the target pests and conserve
the natural enemies. The integrated pest management (IPM) approach is the recommended mode
of insect pest management, where insecticides use is reduced and the activity of natural enemies
is encouraged with a close monitoring of the pest populations (Anon, 2009). Biological control is
based on mass rearing and release of parasitoids.
4

5. 1.4 The Antestia problem
Antestia bugs are serious direct pests of coffee that are indigenous to East Africa. They are the
most destructive pests of Arabica coffee, and are found throughout Africa (Greathead, 1966).
Antestia bugs are known to dwell in dense foliage, mobile and important pest affecting coffee
causing the blackening of flower buds, fall of immature berries, rotting and zebra stripping of
coffee parchment (coffee beans in husks). The Antestia bugs affect the coffee beans by
introducing fungi (Nematospora gossypii) into the beans during feeding in immature beans
resulting to rotten beans (posho beans) where mature beans form zebra stripes in parchment. In
the absence of the berries, the bug may feed on the tips of coffee branches stimulating
development of multiple shoots and may also attack flower buds resulting to failure in fruiting.
Damaged beans are of lower a grade which translates to reduced earnings. Two (2) Antestia bugs
per coffee tree can cause 24% loss in bean weight, where 2-8 bugs can cause 7-35% berry drop
(Wanjala, 1980). The pest has a low economic threshold level of 1 and 2 bugs per tree in the east
and west of the rift valley respectively (Anon, 2009).
1.5 Problem Statement
Coffee thrives well within an environment that has a well distributed rainfall, enough light and
warm temperatures. Shade trees have been found to offer direct economic benefits into coffee
plantations and are considered to be a promising option for farmers. Coffee is now being
cultivated under shade cover and although it effects have been extensively researched very little
have been conducted on its effects to Antestias bugs in coffee in Kenya.
It is believed that the microclimate provided by the shade have an effect on both pests and their
predators. Due to the low economic threshold levels of the Antestia bugs in coffee, chemical
5

6. control has become a very sensitive area because of its effects on the environment. The use of
insecticides even on low populations has caused unnecessary worries resulting to the market not
favouring coffee from such farms.
The certification of coffee as a specialty (organic or shade grown) have brought about another
dimension in the coffee market due to the campaign by Ecological conservist’s, through climatic
change and global warming debates, trying to establish the positive and the negative effects of
shade. With the conservation of the forests and reduced use of pesticides the growing coffee in
the shade may boost the biodiversity where pest population will be reduced and their natural
enemies.
1.6 Justification
It is a reality now that the climate that once favoured our delightful coffee cup has turned against
it. The green house gas (GHG) emission as a result of ignorant human activities has contributed
to an unfavorable survival climate for the coffee trees. The smallholders, who produce the
majority of the world’s coffee, will be the most vulnerable group as they have limited resources.
Rising temperatures are expected to make certain coffee producing areas less suitable or
completely unsuitable for coffee growing. This means production may have to shift and
alternative crops will have to be identified for such areas. More coffee will need to be grown
under irrigation, and this will burden the already scarce water resources and increased production
cost. The incidences of insect and diseases are anticipated to increase and coffee quality is likely
to suffer. Pest and diseases may limit the viability of the current high quality coffee producers.
The effects of climatic changes have brought about change, where areas known to be high in
coffee production have lost their position making them loose on their economic viability. Areas
6

7. that have cold temperatures and high rainfall were earlier thought not to be favorable for coffee
farming has become good producers. This means that coffee production will shift from low
altitude areas (drier) to higher altitude area (wetter) due the global warming effects. To mitigate
these negative effects, coffee shading will be the way to go, where coffee is protected from the
negative effects of global warming and climatic change at both low and high temperature
extremes. At low altitude the high day temperatures are brought down and at high altitude the
low night temperatures are moderated by the shade. In total the shade shelters the coffee from the
negative effects of climatic changes (temperature extremes).
With raising temperatures as a result of the global warming, flower setting which is generally
triggered by rainfall after a period of drought is adversely affected reducing on yield while coffee
berries grow and ripen more quickly leading to fall in inherent quality and low income that may
not support the farming. High temperature has also lead to faster rate of proliferation of Antestias
bugs and other pests and diseases even to areas where they were not previously recorded. The
control of these diseases and pests makes coffee farming more complicated and expensive.
Although coffees grown in the sun have a higher production, it has both high cost of inputs and
low quality with high pest and disease incidences. Coffee grown under the shade has a moderate
production with low production costs and high quality beans and less pest and disease incidences
and is sustainable. During the period of low prices farmers either abandon the crop or earn very
little proceeds from the activity and thus a negative attitude towards the crop has been conceived.
Shade trees modify the environment (micro-climate) affect the pests and diseases and provide a
habitat for natural enemies. Interest in shade-grown coffee is now increasing because of the
declining coffee prices in the world market and an increasing trend towards ‘green
consumerism’. A platform for specialty coffee, ‘shade grown or organic coffee’ came in
7

8. promising premium prices for coffee with a ‘specialty label’ (Staver et. al, 2001). The urge to
improve on the coffee quality has been paramount, driven by the market requirements and the
premium prices.
Antestia bugs are major pests of coffee feeding primarily on berries, resulting to a reduction in
both quantity and quality of the beans. Antestia bugs are known to dwell in dense foliage
moving in and out of the shade, to warm up or to cool down. During the night they are found
under the shade to avoid the low temperatures and during the day they bask in the sun although
they later hide in dense foliage (Kirkpatrick, 1935 and 1937).
This study is directed towards giving an insight on the effect of the shade on the pest
(Antestiopsis sp) population’s dynamics. The study intends to provide a useful basis for decision
making in response to the shade practice in coffee which has become an invertible alternative in
organic coffee production. The knowledge acquired will be important to both the farmer and the
researcher by giving an understanding on the effect of shade on the Antestia bugs population
dynamics.
1.7 Research Objective
1.7.1 General objective:
To study the population dynamics of Antestias bugs (Antestiopsis sp) on coffee grown under
the shade and in the un-shaded environment
1.7.2 Specific objectives:
I. To determine the population dynamics of Antestia bugs (Antestiopsis sp) under shaded
and unshaded coffee.
8

9. II. To establish whether shade or unshaded coffee had effect on the mean number of
Antestia bugs.
1.8 Research hypothesis,
Ho Shade is not a deterrent to Antestiopsis sp habitation.
H1 Antestiopsis sp are sun lovers
9

10. CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Taxonomy, Ecology and Biochemistry
Coffee is a small understory tree that originated from East and Central Africa. It belongs to
Kingdom Plantae, sub-kingdom Angiospermae, class Dicotyledoneae, sub-class Sympetalae, or
Metachlamydae, order Rubiales, family Rubiaceae, genus Coffea that consists of about 90
species, all of which are endemic to tropical Africa and Mascerenes (Mabberly, 1997). The
coffee plant is a woody perennial evergreen dicotyledonous plant of relatively large height. It has
a main vertical trunk (orthotropic) and primary, secondary, and tertiary horizontal branches
(plagiotropic).
Plate 1: Typical Arabica coffee (K7 variety) bush with ripe red cherry ready for picking,
(Kasinga Coffee Society, Machakos, Kenya).
10

11. It has two main cultivated species, Coffea arabica, (Arabica), accounting for 75-80 percent and
Coffea canephora, (Robusta) that accounts for about 20 percent of the world's coffee production.
Both plants can grow to heights of about 10 meters if not pruned, but are maintained at a
reasonable height for easy harvesting (Anon, 2012).
Traditionally, coffee has been cultivated under a shade cover but the development of new sun-
tolerant, high yielding coffee varieties during the 1950’s and 1960’s led to the conversion of
many traditional shaded systems to un-shaded ones. Negative effects associated with such
modernized cultivations have come to light over the past two decades. These include increased
soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, and high environmental and economic costs resulting from the
heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides (Muschler, 2000).
Coffee production occurs within the confines of the tropics, 23.5° latitude north and south of the
equator. C. arabica is mountain-loving shrub and does best in the temperate climatic regimes
associated with high tropical altitudes. Most coffee zones have temperature ranges from 17° to
25°C. The minimum rainfall for a profitable crop production is 1,200 to 1,500 millimeters per
year and is grown at all altitudes 1100m to 2200m above the sea level (Le Pelley, 1968).
Shade trees reduce the surface leaf temperatures by 5 - 6°C lower than those under the full sun
(Kirkpatrick, 1935) and also reduce the evapotranspiration of the crop, decreasing plant stress
(Beer, 1987). The shade situation provide an array of what ecologists call ecological services, the
foliage cover intercepts heavy tropical rainfall, lessening its impact upon the soil, the leaf litter
generated by the canopy provides a mulch layer that further helps to protect the soil, and
gradually decomposes into the soil, recycling the nutrients contained in the leaves and other
debris. Shade trees with deep roots draw nutrients from lower soil layers into the system; a
11

12. diverse mix of plant species creates a relatively stable ecological system with little need for
chemical inputs such as synthetic fertilizers or pesticides. Shade reduces photosynthesis,
transpiration, metabolism and growth and therefore, the demand on soil nutrients and so enables
a crop to be obtained on soils of lower fertility. The shade trees provide habitats for natural
enemies of pests and wild life, and prevent soil erosion. It is estimated that a shade intensity of
about 40-50% gives optimum crop yields, discourage weeds growth, reduce pathogens infection,
offer protection from frost and increased population of pollinators resulting to better fruit set
(Craig; et al, 2009). Coffees grown under shade take long to ripen, resulting to highly improved
taste.
The negative effects of shade may include potential increase of some diseases and pests (e.g.
coffee berry borer), progressively lower yields with increasing shade intensity (due to a reduction
in flowering nodes; inflorescences per node and flowers per inflorescence). In addition,
competition for water between shade and coffee trees in seasonally dry regions; damage of the
coffee trees by falling branches from the shade trees and occasional tree felling and additional
labour costs for regularly pruning of over-head trees to avoid excessive shading (Beer, 1987;
Beer et al., 1998; Guyot et al., 1996; Muschler, 2001).
The idea of growing coffee under shade is a concept brought about to reclaim and re-install the
lost ‘hot spots’ of biological diversity, coffee growing was initially under forest cover and with
the knowledge that 95% of present day terrestrial ecosystems are managed ones, shade coffee is
now recognized as a human-manipulated land use type that maintains biodiversity. Shade coffee
can obviously play a role in both agricultural and environmental policy. In many countries where
forest cover has been removed at astounding rates in recent years, the agro-forestry
characteristics of shade coffee land represents some of the little remaining forest cover, for bird
12

13. diversity. Shade coffee is only rivaled by natural forests with other organisms such as
arthropods; with an individual diversity level same as that of undisturbed tropical forest (Rice,
1996).
2.2 Growing Coffee in Shade and Pest Management
In the recent past, growing coffee under shade has gained momentum with coffee certification
being based on the aspects of wildlife friendly farming. It has therefore been realized that
growing coffee under shade trees offer an alternative to deforestation, and is regarded as an
important check against green house gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to global warming
(Miguel, et. al, 1995). Among the transferred land, shade grown coffee supports the highest
diversity of migratory birds (Perfecto et .al, 1996; Greenberg et. al, 1997). Farming coffee under
shade has been found to be more profitable and the effects of both pests and diseases are reduced
by the micro climate created by the shade (Le Pelley, 1968). It’s commonly thought that diverse
agro-ecosystems are less prone to pest out breaks because they support a high diversity of natural
enemies (Perfecto, et al, 2004).
Following the decline in world coffee prices and an increase in “green consumerism,” the role of
shade trees in coffee production have received renewed attention. Becoming certified under a
specialty coffee labels, such as “Shade-Grown” or “Organic” has become a promising option for
the farmers as coffee with this label could be sold at a premium price. In a low-elevation dry
coffee zone, the use of 35 to 65% shade promoted leaf retention in coffee plants during the dry
season (Staver, et.al, 2001) and reduced the incidences of disease-causing fungi such as
Cercospora coffeicola without reducing yields or increasing the incidence of coffee leaf rust
disease, Hemileia vastatrix (Kucel, et. al, 2006).
13

14. Several studies have been conducted on the financial benefits of timber trees, particularly Cordia
alliadora, in shaded systems (Beer et. al, 1998) and in all cases, it was found to be an
economically viable practice, particularly where market prices for coffee were low (Annon,
2004). Other shade trees in coffee include Albizia gumifera, Grevilllea robusta, Ficus
thaunngii, Prunus africana, Cordia sp, Acacia abyssinia (Chege, 2011).
Illustration: 1 a) Shade-grown coffee plantation with multi-level canopy and under-story
b) Non-shade coffee monoculture with single level tree height (Perfecto and Snelling, 2001)
2.3 The Antestia Bug and Its Life History
The adult bug is shield shaped, dark-brown, white and yellow in colour. Antestia is the adapted
common name with Antestiopsis sp as the genus name. Antestia bugs are also referred to as
‘shield bugs’. Antestia belong to order Hemiptera and family Pentatomidae, with a species
complex that includes; A. orbitalis orbitalis, Westw; A. orbitalis bechuana, Kirk; A.orbitalis
intricata, Ghesquire and Carayon; A. Facetoides, Greathead. Of these, A. o. intricata were found
in West and Central Africa, and A.o. orbitalis were found in East and Southern Africa where
they are one of most important pests of coffee (Greathead, 1966).
The female lays eggs that are white, barrel-shaped and in batches of 12 on the leaves’ underside.
They hatch in about 10 days into small nymphs which metamorphosis into adults in 3-4 months.
14

15. The adult, depending on the species, measures between 7 – 9 mm in length. The female is larger
than the male. The Antestia bug favors dense foliage and is found on un-pruned, poorly managed
trees (Le Pelley 1968).
Illustration 2: An Enlarged Antestia bug, adult (Antestiopsis sp)
2.4 Economic Losses Caused by Antestia Bugs
The first signs of attack are damage to the immature berries and young branches or sight of the
both the nymphs and adult bugs. The pest mostly feed on immature green berries from which
they suck the sap, causing the fruits to shrink and fall. The bug may transmit a fungal disease,
which infects developing beans and turns them into a white powdery mass. The damaged
immature beans rot (posho beans) where mature beans form zebra stripes in parchment (Smee,
1931). In the absence of the berries, the bug may feed on the tips of coffee branches, stimulating
development of multiple shoots, which deplete the plant’s resources and bear no fruits causing
increased cost during pruning (Le Pelly, 1942). It may also attack flower buds resulting to
turning black and failure in set fruit. Wanjala (1979) recorded a loss of 15-27% in total beans
weight associated to 2-4 Antestia bugs per tree. Antestia bugs have low economic thresholds of
15

16. 1-2 Antestia bugs per tree that calls for an intervention with an insecticide (Odour and Simons,
2003).
2.5 Control of Antestia Bugs (Antestiopsis sp)
In the control of Antestia bugs a quantitative assessment of the pest density is essential (Melville,
1949). This has lead to the establishment of an economic threshold level of one bug per tree in
the West of Rift Valley (wetter areas) and two bugs per tree in the East of the Rift Valley (drier
areas) in Kenya (Anon, 2009). It is important to have a keen observation when the crop is in the
larger green berry stage as this is the most favoured stage of infestation. During this time
fecundity is high and the breeding season is in synchrony with the coffee berry development
(Anon, 1989).
Before any chemical application is carried-out an economic threshold level is established and
where the Antestia population exceeds 1-2 Antestia bug per tree a chemical control is applied in
a selective and timely manner in order to kill the target pests and conserve the natural enemies
(Rennison, 1962). The integrated pest management (IPM) approach is the recommended mode,
where insecticides use is reduced and the activity of natural enemies is encouraged (Anon, 2009).
Biological control which is a component of IPM and is based on mass rearing and release of
Antestia egg parasitoids has been reared and distributed in all coffee growing areas of Kenya
(Mugo; et al, 2000). About 20 parasitic wasps has been recorded attack the Antestiopsis sp in
East and Central Africa. Telenomus (Asolcus) seychellensis is the important egg-parasitoids
attacking the Antestiopsis sp at egg stage (Anon., 2009).
Chemical application is the main method of control with IPM as the recommended approach.
Culturally small infestations of the Antestia bugs can be controlled by hand-picked and pruning
16

17. of the dense foliage is often recommended. In the long run, both natural and synthetic pyrethrum
insecticides have proven ineffective in many cases. The bugs have typically been controlled with
multiple applications of pesticides, usually Fentrothion, Chlorphrifos, Malathion, Trichlorfon,
and Diflubenzuron. Indiscriminate use of pesticides have had an undesirable effect on the
environment and non target organisms for instance the natural enemies which would have
otherwise kept pest populations in check. Uses of selective insecticides allow natural enemies to
thrive thus reducing the amount of insecticides used. Biological control of Antestia bugs in
coffee has been possible by the effects of Antestia egg parasitoids which are very effective in
searching and parasitizing the eggs. The combined effects of insecticides applications, physical
control, cultural control, and biological control have not effectively been able to manage this
important coffee pest and the search for a more sustainable program has continued.
2.6 Biological control of Antestia bugs (Antestiopsis sp)
Antestia bugs, (Antestiopsis sp) have natural enemies in all its developmental stages. Eggs are
damaged by a number of egg-parasitoids that includes Telenomus (Asolcus) seychellensis Dodd,
T. mopsus Nixon, T. suranus Nixon, Hadronotus antestiae Dodd, (Hymenoptera:Scelioniidae);
Anastatus antestiae Ferrière, (Hymenoptera:Eupelmidae) and Acroclisoides africanus Ferrière,
(Hymenoptera:Pteromalidae) (Le Pelley, 1959 and Abebe, 1987). Among all these Telenomus
seychellensis is the most common species and is considered to be the most important. Also both
the nymphs and adults are attached by Tachnid flies. The biological control concept has been
adapted in the control of Antestia bugs using the Antestias egg-parasitoid, Telenomus
seychellensis in coffee in Kenya (Anon, 2009).
17

18. CHAPTER THREE
3.0 MATERIALS & METHODS
3.1 Study Site
The study was conducted at Namwela Coffee Demonstration Farm owned by Coffee Research
Foundation (CRF). The farm is located at Latitude 00
45.43N and longitude 340
33.426E at
elevation 1641metres above the sea level, 25 Kilometres North-East of Bungoma town on the
slopes of Mt. Elgon in Western Kenya. The farm which was established in 1955 has two coffee
blocks planted with K7 and Ruiru 11 coffee varieties with spacing of 2.75 X 2.75m and 1.5 x
1.5m respectively.. The experimental (study) block with K7 has 1825 coffee trees in the open
sun, and 1265 coffee trees under shade trees (Cordia africana). The shade trees are planted at a
spacing of about 30 X 60 metres apart.
3.2 Experimental Design and Sampling of Antestia bug (Antestiopsis sp) Populations
18
X X X
SHADED COFFEE
UNSHADED COFFEE
X X X
SHADED COFFEE
UNSHADED COFFEE
X X X
SHADED COFFEE
UNSHADED COFFEE
X X X
SHADED COFFEE
UNSHADED COFFEE
X X X
SHADED COFFEE
UNSHADED COFFEE

19. Illustration 3: A diagrammatic representation of the experimental plots, the
shaded and unshaded coffee.
During data collection, the sampling was carried out randomly and only on coffee trees
experiencing full shade or coffee trees fully exposed to the sun (Illustration 3). Five coffee trees
were sampled within the shaded and the unshaded coffee. The coffee trees sampled were not
labeled and had a chance to have repeat sampling during the next data collection.
I.
During the sampling, the Test Spraying Method designed by Wheatly (1962) and later modified
by Rennison (1979) was used where the selected coffee trees were sprayed with natural
Pyrethrum 4% EC (Plate 2) which has knockdown effect on most insect pests. Two 8ft x 5ft
American ground sheets were laid down under each sample tree before spraying with pyrethrum
(4% EC) at a strength of 100ml in 20 litres of water, and given about 15-20 minutes to take
effect. Thereafter the trees were vigorously shaken and the fallen Antestia bugs counted and
recorded accordingly (plate 3). The sampling was repeatedly done on monthly basis and the data
recorded and later analyzed to get the mean Antestia bugs per tree.
19

20. Plate 2: Coffee tree sprayed with Pyrethrum (4% EC) knock down the Antestia bugs
(Antestiopsis sp)
II.
20

21. Plate 3: Sorting out the Antestia bugs collected on the American calico sheets
a)
b)
c)
3.3 Statistical Data Analysis
All data was analyzed using Microsoft Exel.Version 2010. Means were calculated from the data
collected from the experimental plot (coffee under shade and coffee in the open sun) and the
results tabulated and presented in graph and chart.
The raw data from the field were entered into a table and means for each month was calculated
and finally annual means was realized. The graph and chart were plotted using resultant data
from the monthly means. The standard errors calculated for bar chart where the significance
difference realized and bar generated using the Microsoft Excel Version 2010.
21

22. CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS AND RESULTS ANALYSIS
4.1 The population dynamics of Antestia bugs (Antestiopsis sp) under shaded and
unshaded coffee.
Table1: Mean Antestia bugs per tree on Shaded and Unshaded coffee from May 2009 to July 2012
22
MONTH/YEAR MEAN ANTESTIA BUGS/ TREE/ MONTH
SHADED COFFEE UNSHADED COFFEE
May-09 0.2 0.4
Jun-09 1.0 0.8
Sep-09 0.0 0.0
Oct-09 0.2 0.0
Nov-09 0.0 0.0
Dec-09 0.2 0.0
Jan-10 0.0 0.0
Feb-10 0.6 0.2
Mar-10 0.6 0.6
Apr-10 0.0 0.2
May-10 1.0 0.2
Jun-10 0.8 1.0
Jul-10 1.2 0.2
Aug-10 1.6 0.6
Sep-10 1.6 1.6
Oct-10 0.6 0.0
Nov-10 2.4 0.6
Dec-10 0.4 0.0
Jan-11 0.8 0.0
Feb-11 1.0 0.0
Mar-11 0.8 1.8
Apr-11 0.6 0.2
May-11 0.2 0.0
Jun-11 0.4 0.0
Jul-11 0.4 0.6
Sep-11 0.0 0.2
Oct-11 0.0 1.2
Nov-11 0.0 0.2
Dec-11 0.0 0.0
Jan-12 0.0 0.2
Feb-12 0.0 0.0
Mar-12 0.0 0.0
Apr-12 0.0 0.0
May-12 0.0 0.0
Jun-12 0.0 0.0
Jul-12 0.0 0.0
Mean 0.4 0.3

23. The monthly mean Antestia bugs per tree are presented in Table 1. The highest monthly mean
Antestia bugs per tree (2.4) was recorded in November 2010 under shaded coffee trees. The
Grand mean number of bugs per tree during the study period was higher under shaded coffee
(0.4) when compared with unshaded coffee (0.3) (Table 1). Between February and July 2012,
both shade and unshaded coffee had zero (0.0) mean Antestia bugs (Table 1).
Figure 1: Mean Antestia bugs (Antestiopsis sp) per tree in shaded and unshaded coffee
from year May 2009 to July 2012.
The Antestia bugs had the highest population levels of 2.4 mean bugs per tree in November 2010
in the shaded coffee and a mean of 1.8 in the unshaded coffee in March 2011 (Figure 1).
The graph trend for shaded coffee show year 2009 and 2010 having reflected higher Antestia
population levels and in year 2011 and 2012 reflected almost the same population levels (Fig.1).
23

24. The monthly mean number of Antestia bugs per tree oscillated from month to month both under
shaded and unshaded coffee (Fig.1).
4.2 The severity of Antestia bugs (Antestiopsis sp) under shade or unshaded coffee
Table 2: Annual mean Antestia bugs under shaded and unshaded coffee.
YEAR 2009 2010 2011 2012
Shaded 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.0
Unshaded 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.03
The annual mean number of Antestia bugs per tree was highest (0.9) in year 2010 under shaded
coffee, where unshaded coffee recorded a mean of 0.4 (Table 2). In year 2011 the annual mean
number of bugs per tree was 0.4 under both shaded and unshaded coffee respectively (Table 2).
24

25. Figure 2: Means of Antestia bugs (Antestiopsis sp) per tree in shaded and unshaded
coffee from year 2009 to 2012.
Both in year 2009 and 2010, the annual mean number of Antestia bugs per tree under shaded
coffee was at P< 0.05 significantly higher than the unshaded ones (Figure 2). In year 2011 there
was no significant (P<0.05) difference in mean number of bugs per tree both under shaded and
unshaded coffee (Fig. 2).
25

26. CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 DISCUSSION
The study was the first attempt in the determination of the effects of shaded coffee on Antestia
bugs (Antestiopsis sp) in Namwela (Mount Elgon) coffee growing region of Bungoma County in
Kenya. Result from the data showed highly significant mean numbers of Antestia bugs in the
shaded coffee. The documented literatures (reference) support the findings; shade environment
affects the Antestia bugs negatively where recommendations in the cultural control of Antestia
bugs promotes the pruning to open up the coffee tree canopy for sun light penetration. According
to available literatures (reference) the shade environment has a moderated temperatures regime
that could favour higher Antestia bug numbers within the shaded coffee. The likely cause of
higher Antestia populations could be related to effect of the shade that gave reduced light
penetration, moderate temperature levels during the day and at night. In cited literatures, Antestia
bugs are known to dwell in dense foliage; they are mobile, moving in between the coffee under
shade and coffee in the sun, to warm up or to cool down. During the night they are found under
the shade to avoid the low temperatures they bask in the sun although they later hide in dense
foliage. This makes it necessary to carryout further studies to find out the effects of temperature
and precipitation (rainfall) effects on Antestia bugs.
Although low mean Antestia bug numbers were observed in year 2012 the experimental plots
was disturbed where two coffee stems were cut off to change the cropping cycle. The cycle
change reduced the size of the canopy greatly and this could have affected the Antestia bugs
population in the coffee trees. Other factors could also have affected the population level and
considerations for studying the pest on an undisturbed environment can be carried out.
26

27. According the results of this study and the available literatures, more research work is necessary
to investigate the usefulness of Antestia bugs (Antestiopsis sp) in the monitoring of climatic
change and global warming in the coffee growing regions.
27

28. CHAPTER SIX
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusions
The Antestia bug (Antestiopsis sp) population levels were higher under shaded coffee than in
unshaded coffee. The shaded coffee supported more Antestia bug population levels than the
unshaded coffee.
This concludes that Antestia bugs are less affected by the shade and thus shade is not a deterrent
to Antestia bugs habitation and finally Antestia bugs are not sun lovers.
6.2 Recommendations
The results of this study have concluded that Antestia (Antestiopsis sp) bug population levels
increased within the shaded coffee as opposed to those in the unshaded coffee. With these
findings, when considering Antestia bug cultural control interventions, the recommendation is to
do away with shade tree in coffee where Antestia bugs are a problem.
28

29. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
1 Acland, J.D. (1971). East African Crops, 252 pp. Longman, London.
2 Aithal, A. and Pinard, F. (2008). Can Good Coffee Prices Increase Smallholder Revenue?
Les Cahiers D Outre-Mer, Revue De Géographie De Bordeaux 61 243 (2008) pp 381-402.
3 Albertin, R. A; Nair, P.K.R. (2004). Farmers' perspectives on the role of shade trees in
coffee production systems, Journal of Human Ecology, Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica.
4 Albertin R. A (2002). Shade Trees for Coffee Farmers’ Perspectives in the Peninsula of
Nicoya, Costa Rica. A Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science University of
Florida, pp1-90.
5 Anderson, T.J. (1919). ‘The coffee bug, Antestia lineaticollis Stal. British East Africa,
Department of Agriculture. Entomological Bulletin, pp53, Nairobi.
6 Anonymous, (1967). Coffee Research Foundation Annual Report, Ruiru, Kenya
7 Anonymous (1989). An Atlas of coffee pests and diseases; Antestia bug, pp6, Ruiru, Kenya.
8 Anonymous (1994). Coffee Research Foundation Annual Report, Ruiru, Kenya.
9 Anonymous, (2003). Assessment of value adding opportunities in Kenya. European
Union report 2003, Nairobi.
10 Anonymous, (2004). Biological Monitoring of Arabica Coffee Pests in the Mt. Elgon
Area, Uganda. Human Ecology, 32:4, August, 2004.
11 Anonymous, (2007). Integrated Pest Management Collaborative Research Support
Program Annual Report.
12 Anonymous (2009). An Atlas of pests and diseases, Coffee Research Foundation, pp 1,
52-53.Nairobi.
13 Anonymous, (2010). Coffee Production in Africa and the Global Market Situation.
Commodity Market Brief, 1:2, The African Development Bank Group Chief Economist
Complex.
14 Anonymous, (2011). The National Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Framework for
Rwanda Final Draft Report, Kigali, Rwanda.
29

30. 15 Beer, J; Muschler, R; Kass, D; Somarriba, E. (1998). Shade Management in Coffee and
Cacao Plantations. Agroforestry Systems, 38:1-3, pp139-164, Kulwer Academic,
Netherlands.
16 Bote, A. D.; Struik P.C. (2010). Effects of shade on growth, production and quality of coffee
(Coffea arabica) in Ethiopia. Wageningen, Netherlands.
17 Chege, M.K. (2011). Adapting coffee farming to climatic change. Low productivity and
climate change Hampering Farmers, Coffee Quarterly 16, pp9. Kenya Coffee Traders
Association, Nairobi.
18 Craig, E; Idol,T; Friday, J. B; Lepczyk, C. Smith,V. E; Nelson, S.C. (2009). Shade-Grown
Coffee for Hawaii: Results of a twelve farm study in Kona. Permanent Agriculture
Resources, pp1-22. Holualoa, USA.
19 Daviron, B; Ponte, S. (2005). The coffee paradox. Global markets, commodity trade and the
elusive promise of development. Zed Books pp24-295. London and New York.
20 Dry, F.W. (1921). The egg-parasite of the coffee bug in Kenya colony. Journal of Genetics,
14, pp219-224. Cambridge.
21 Dry, F.W. (1921). The egg-parasites of the coffee bug (Antestia lineaticollis, Stal) in Kenya
Colony. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 12, pp191-204. London.
22 Greathead, D.J. (1966), Taxonomic study of the species of Antestiopsis associated with
coffee Arabica in Africa, Bulletin of Entomological Research, 56, pp515-554, London.
23 Hunimel, S. S. (1997). Development of Cordia alliodora (Boraginaceae) a Neotropical
Secondary Forest Tree in Northern Costa Rica (1992-1996). PhD Thesis in Forest
Resources, Casto Rica.
24 Gobbi, J. A. (2000). Is biodiversity-friendly coffee financially viable? An analysis of five
different coffee production systems in western El Salvador Ecological Economics,
33:2 pp 267–281. Center of Latin American Studies, Lawrence, USA.
25 Karamura, E. B. (1989). Comparative efficiency of two methods used for sampling
Antestiopsis species (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in Arabica coffee in Uganda Tropical Pest
Management 35:2 pp207-209, Uganda.
30

31. 26 Karanja, A. M. and Nyoro, J. K. (2002). Coffee Prices and Regulation and Their Impact on
Livelihoods of Rural Community in Kenya. Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and
Development, Egerton University, Nairobi.
27 Kegole, P. (2005). Economic governance of coffee sector. Focus Central Province, Kenya.
April 2005, Nairobi.
28 Kimemia, J.K. and Njoroge, J.M. (1988). Effect of shade on coffee, Kenya coffee bulletin,
53, pp387-391, Narobi.
29 Kimani, M; et al. (2002). Farmers Participatory Research Programme, IPM source Book,
March 2002, pp1-35. CABI Bioscience, Nairobi.
30 Kirkpatrick, T.W. (1935). Studies on ecology of coffee plantations in East Africa. The
climate and the eco-climate of coffee plantations. East Africa Agricultural, Research Station
Amani, pp66. London.
31 Kirkpatrick, T.W. (1937). I ‘Studies on the ecology of the coffee plantations in East
Africa’. II ‘The autecology of Antestia spp. with a particular account of the Strepsipterous
parasite’ Trans. Review of Entomological Society, London. 86, 247-348, London.
32 Kucel, P., Kangire A. and J. P. Egonyu (2011). Share it or spare it? Coffee Conservation,
Internet (Posted in Birds and other biodiversity, Certifications, Research on coffee growing).
33 Le Pelley, R.H. (1942). The food and feeding habit of Antestia in Kenya, Bulletin of
entomological Research, 33, 71-89, London.
34 Le Pelley, R. H. (1968). Pest of Coffee, Chapter 6, (Hemiptera, Pentatomidae) 250- 295 pp.
Longmans, London and Harlow.
35 Mafusire, A; Salami, A; Kamara A. B; Lawson, F.E. (2010). Coffee Production in Africa
and the Global Market Situation Commodity Market Brief, 1:2, pp1-9. The African
Development Bank Group, Chief Economist Complex.
36 Melville, A.R. (1949). Routine testing to determine the population of Antestia and Lygus in
coffee. Kenya Coffee Board Bulletin, July 1949. Nairobi.
31

32. 37 Mugo, H.M. and Ndoiru, S.K. (1997). Telenomous (Asolcus) seychellensis (Hymenoptera:
Scelionidae) in Biological control of Antestia bugs, Antestiopis spp. (Hemiptera:
Pentatomidae) in coffee. Kenya Coffee Bulletin, 62:728, pp2455-2459. Nairobi.
38 Mugo, H.M. and Ndoiru, S.K. (1997). Laboratory studies of the life history of Antestia bugs
Antestiopsis facetoides Greathead, Hemiptera:Pentatomidae). Kenya coffee Bulletin,
64:749, pp2837-2839, Nairobi.
39 Mugo, H. M; Omondi, G. O; Dooso, B.S; Kiguogo, S.K; Mwangi S.M (2000). Biological
Control, Technical Annual Report, pp58-63Coffee Research Foundation Keny.a Ruiru,
Kenya
40 Muschler, R.G, (2000). Shade improves coffee quality in a sub-optimal zone of Costa Rica.
Proceedings of the XIX Latin American Symposium of Coffee Production, pp109-123, San
Jose’ Costa Rica.
41 Nofley, F.B. (1941). Antestia in Northern Province, Tanganyika, East African journal, 6,
pp94-198. Nairobi.
42 Perfecto, I; Robert, A.R; Greenberg, R; Van der Voort, M.E; (1996). Shade Coffee; A
Disappearing Refuge for Biodiversity.
43 Perfecto I.; Vandermeer, J.H.; Bautista, G.L.; Nuñez, G.I.; Greenberg, R.; Bichier, P. and
Suzanne, L. S. (2004). Greater Predation in Shaded Coffee Farms: The Role of Resident
Neo-Tropical Birds. Online Journals.
44 Odour, G.I.; Simons, S.A. (2003). Biological control in IPM of Coffee. CAB International -
Africa regional centre, pp 347-359. Nairobi, Kenya.
45 Orr, D.B. (1968). Scelionid wasps as biological control agents, Louisiana State University
Agricultural Center,The Florida Entomologist, Florida, USA.
46 Rene’coste, (1992). Coffee. The plant and production.
47 Rennison, B.N. (1962). A method of sampling Antestiopsis sp. in Arabica coffee in
chemical control schemes. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal (Kenya) 27:4,
pp97-200.
32

33. 48 Rice, R. (1996). Sun versus shade coffee: trends and consequences. Seminar on Coffee and
the Environment held at the International coffee Organization, London, England.
49 Somarriba, E; Beer, J. (2011). Productivity of Theobroma Cacao Agro-forestry Systems
with Timber or Legume Service Shade Trees. Agro-forest System (2011) 81:109, pp12.
50 Smee, C. (1931). Report of Entomological Research, Department of Agriculture. Nyasaland,
pp 27-31, Zomba.
51 Southwood (1930). Test spraying sample of Antestia comparative efficiency of the 2
sampling methods used for sampling Antestiopsis sp in Arabica coffee in Uganda. Tropical
Pest Management. 35:2, Uganda.
52 Staver, C; Guharay, F.; Monterroso, D. and Muschler, R. G. (2001). Designing Pest-
Suppressive Multistrata Perennial Crop Systems; Shade-Grown Coffee in Central America
Biomedical and Life Sciences, Agroforestry Systems, 53:2 pp151-170, Kluwer Academic,
The Netherlands.
53 Taylor, T.C.H. (1945). Recent investigations of Antestia bug species in Uganda. East
African Agricultural Journal, 10, pp223-233 and 11, pp47-55. Nairobi.
54 Wallace, G.B. (1931). A coffee bean disease. Tropical Agricultural, Trinidad, 8, pp14-17,
London.
55 Wanjala, F.M.E. (1979). Effects of infesting green coffee berries with different population
levels of Antestiopsis lineaticollis Stal (Heteroptera:Pentatomidae) in Kenya, Fuente:
Turrialba (Costa Rica) 30:1, pp109-111.
33

34. APPENDICES
APPEDIX 1
A sample form used for the data collectionAntestia bugs (Antestiopsis sp) per tree for both in
the shaded and in the unshaded coffee.
DATE………………………………….
SHADED COFFEE
UNSHADED COFFEE
34
Tree No. Antestia Eggs Remarks
1
2
3
4
5
Total
Mean

35. DATE ………………………………….
APPEDIX 2
Data summary for mean Antestia bugs (Antestiopsis sp) per tree.
YEARLY BY YEAR DATA ON SHADED AND UNSHADED COFFEE AT NAMWELA DEMONSTRATION FARM
2009 2010 2011 2012
MONTHS
SHADE
D
UNSHADE
D
SHADE
D
UNSHADE
D
SHADE
D
UNSHADE
D
SHADE
D
UNSHADE
D
JANUARY X X 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.20
FEBRUARY X X 0.60 0.20 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MARCH X X 0.60 0.60 0.80 1.80 0.00 0.00
APRIL X X 0.00 0.20 0.60 0.20 0.00 0.00
MAY 0.20 0.40 1.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00
JUNE 1.00 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00
JULY X X 1.20 0.00 0.40 0.60 0.00 0.00
AUGUST X X 1.60 0.60 X X
SEPTEMBER 0.00 0.00 1.60 1.60 0.00 0.20
OCTOBER 0.20 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 1.20
NOVEMBER 0.00 0.00 2.40 0.60 0.00 0.20
DECEMBER 0.20 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00
GRAND
MEANS
0.3 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.00 0.03
35
Tree No Antestia Eggs Remarks
1
2
3
4
5
Total
Mean

36. KEY: ‘X’ = UNRECORDED DATA (The data was not collected).
APPEDIX 3
MAP ON COFFEE GROWING REGIONS OF KENYA
36

37. 37