Coffee leaf miner
The small moth whose larvae eat coffee leaves from the inside. How Leucoptera coffeella and its African relatives live, why dry, hot periods favour them, what leaf loss costs in yield, and how producers manage them.
Across the chain: Science
Contents
In brief
- The coffee leaf miner (Leucoptera coffeella) is a small moth whose larvae feed inside coffee leaves and leave brown mines; heavy attacks make the leaves fall.1,2
- In laboratory rearing at 25 °C, development from egg to adult took about 21 days.3
- In a Brazilian dry-season study, losing 25, 50 and 75% of leaf area cut production by 9.14, 23.53 and 87.24%.1
- A long-running Brazilian trial sprayed only when 30% of leaves in the middle third of the plants were mined without signs of wasp predation.11
- Field populations in Brazil have shown resistance to organophosphates, chlorantraniliprole and thiamethoxam.15,16,17
What the coffee leaf miner is#
The coffee leaf miner is a small moth. Its larvae live inside the coffee leaf and eat the tissue between its two surfaces.1,2 In Brazil it is called bicho-mineiro.11
The species of the Americas is Leucoptera coffeella. It attacks only coffee.1 It is an introduced pest. It was first found in Brazil around 1851, probably brought in on nursery plants.1 A 2021 review calls it a major pest of coffee in Brazil and other countries of tropical America.2
In Africa, other species of the same genus mine coffee leaves. Four species have been recorded on coffee: L. coffeella, L. meyricki, L. coma and L. caffeina.1 L. meyricki and L. caffeina both occur on Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania.13
From egg to moth on one leaf#
The female moth lays her eggs on the upper side of the leaf.2 The larva hatches from the underside of the egg and goes straight into the leaf.2 It feeds on the layer of cells just below the upper surface, the palisade tissue.1
The tunnel it eats is called a mine. Mines are pale yellow at first and later turn brown.1 When it is fully grown, the larva leaves the mine. It spins a silk cocoon shaped like an X on the leaf.2 More pupae are found on the lower part of the bush than higher up.1,2
The adult is tiny: about 2 mm long, with a wingspan of 6.5 mm.2 It is active at night and rests under the leaves by day.2 In a laboratory study at 25 °C, one generation from egg to adult took about 21 days.3 According to a 2021 review, Brazil sees about eight generations a year on average, and up to 12.2
- Egg. Laid on the upper side of the leaf.2 It hatches in 3.4 days at 25 °C in the laboratory, and can take more than 20 days when it is cool.1,3
- Larva. It enters the leaf straight from the egg and feeds on the palisade tissue, through four larval stages.1,2
- Mine. Pale yellow at first, later brown. The dead tissue no longer photosynthesises.1
- Cocoon and pupa. The grown larva leaves the mine and spins an X-shaped silk cocoon on the leaf.2
- Adult moth. About 2 mm long, 6.5 mm wingspan; active at night.2 It lays no eggs below 18 °C.1
- Leaf fall. Heavily mined leaves drop; most of the yield loss comes from this leaf loss.1
What the mines do to the tree#
The dead tissue in a mine no longer photosynthesises.1 Heavily mined leaves fall early. A 2006 review states that the loss of production is mainly due to this leaf loss.1 According to a coffee science textbook chapter, attacks by Lepidoptera such as L. caffeina are associated with strong defoliation.19
Timing matters. In Brazil, heavy leaf loss up to July prevents the flower buds from forming in September and October.1 In a Brazilian study cited by the same review, removing 75% of leaf area in the dry season cut production by 87.24%.1 A 2021 review reports losses of more than 50% in Brazil and Colombia when infestation is high.2
Dry weather, heat and shade#
Warmth speeds up the insect. At about 20 °C the larval stage lasts 16–26 days; at 27–30 °C it lasts 7–11 days.1 Females lay no eggs below 18 °C.1
In Brazil, attacks are generally worse in the dry season.2 In one Brazilian field study the peak came from August to November, after a dry period.9 Irrigated plants there had 2.2 times fewer intact mines.9
Not every region fits this pattern. In Chiapas, Mexico, mined leaves were most common in the rainy season.6 There, shade had no significant effect, and low farms had more mines than high ones.6 See Contested. How shade trees change the farm climate is covered in shade and agroforestry.
How producers manage it#
Monitoring. Monitoring counts mined leaves. In a long-running Brazilian trial, five leaves were taken from the middle third of each sampled plant.11 The trial sprayed only when 30% of these leaves were mined and showed no signs of wasp predation.11
Natural enemies. Small parasitic wasps lay their eggs in the leaf miner larvae.12 Predatory wasps prey on the larvae in their mines.11 Ants take eggs and pupae.7 In Antioquia, Colombia, parasitism of 58–89% was measured, and the authors recommend protecting these enemies.12
Insecticides. In Brazil, insecticides that act on the nervous system are the ones producers use most.2 Chemical control raises production costs and is a significant risk to the environment, according to a 2006 review.1 Some insecticides also kill the predatory wasps.11 Many Brazilian field populations have become resistant to organophosphates or to chlorantraniliprole.15,16 We describe their use; we do not recommend products.
Resistant coffee. As of 2021, Brazil had two cultivars resistant to the leaf miner, Siriema VC4 and Siriema AS1.2 Their resistance comes from a related wild species, C. racemosa.1,2 How control fits into a wider plan is covered in integrated pest management.
Species and distribution#
Classification. Leucoptera coffeella (Guérin-Méneville, 1842) is a moth of the family Lyonetiidae.2,3 Older literature and the EPPO Global Database use the genus name Perileucoptera.4,5,11 A 1994 revision cited in a 2006 review describes 20 Leucoptera species on 65 host species in six plant families.1 Four of them were recorded on coffee: L. coffeella, L. meyricki, L. coma and L. caffeina.1 L. coffeella is considered monophagous: it attacks only coffee.1
Distribution. The EPPO Global Database (distribution last updated 11 February 2010) lists L. coffeella as present across Central and South America and the Caribbean, from Mexico to Bolivia.5 In Brazil it is listed with a restricted distribution, present in states including Bahia, Minas Gerais, Paraná and São Paulo.5 In Africa EPPO lists only Madagascar and Réunion; the United States is listed as absent, intercepted only.5 A 2021 review places the species also in Africa and Asia.2 No CABI distribution datasheet and no distribution list dated after 2010 was consulted for this entry; see Contested.
African species. In Kenya, L. meyricki and its parasites were studied in sprayed and unsprayed coffee (published 1964).14 On Kilimanjaro, Tanzania, suction traps on an unsprayed block caught both L. meyricki and L. caffeina.13 No source consulted for this entry gives development times or yield losses for the African species with measured values.
Development and temperature#
A 2006 review collects the development times measured in Brazilian laboratory work.1 The egg stage can last more than 20 days in the cold and four to six days under optimum conditions.1 There are four larval instars.1 The larval stage lasted 7–11 days at 27–30 °C on Mundo Novo leaves, and 16–26 days at about 20 °C.1 Adults emerged from the pupa after 14 days at 20 °C and 3.6 days at 35 °C.1 At 35 °C only about 25% reached the adult stage, against about 95% at 27–30 °C.1
A 2017 Cenicafé study reared the insect on C. arabica var. IAC Obatã 4739 at 25 °C.3 The egg stage lasted 3.4 days, the larval stage 11.9 days and the pupal stage 5.9 days (table values).3 Egg to adult took 20.88 days in the abstract and 21.88 days in the table, with 90% survival.3 Each female laid 60.3 eggs on average, after a pre-oviposition period of 3.4 days.3
Field data show the same pattern. At Piracicaba, São Paulo, in 1975/76, egg to adult took 25.2–28.7 days in summer and 28.8–34.3 days in winter, depending on the variety.4 The cycle was fastest on Icatu in both seasons.4 A 2021 review states that the cycle can shorten to 16 days in hot periods.2
Data table
| Point | days | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Larva, about 20 °C (lab) | 16–26 | 16–26 | 1 |
| Larva, 25 °C (lab) | 11.9 | 11.9 | 3 |
| Larva, 27–30 °C (lab) | 7–11 | 7–11 | 1 |
| Pupa, 20 °C (lab) | 14 | 14 | 1 |
| Pupa, 25 °C (lab) | 5.9 | 5.9 | 3 |
| Pupa, 35 °C (lab) | 3.6 | 3.6 | 1 |
| Egg to adult, 25 °C (lab) | 20.88–21.88 | 20.88–21.88 | 3 |
| Egg to adult, field, summer | 25.2–28.7 | 25.2–28.7 | 4 |
| Egg to adult, field, winter | 28.8–34.3 | 28.8–34.3 | 4 |
Egg laying also depends on temperature. No eggs are laid below 18 °C.1 In 48-hour laboratory trials in Mexico, females laid about 15 eggs each at 28 °C, about 3 at 25 °C and none at 20 °C.6 More than eight eggs per female were laid per night, against fewer than one by day.6
Damage and yield loss#
The larvae eat the palisade parenchyma.1 Third- and fourth-instar larvae do most of the damage.1 One larva mined 1.15 cm² of leaf on Catuaí, 1.36 cm² on Mundo Novo and 1.03 cm² on Icatu Vermelho.1 The 2006 review attributes leaf fall to ethylene, especially when mines lie near the leaf stalk.1
The review cites a Brazilian study of leaf area reduction in the dry season.1 Removing 25, 50 and 75% of the leaf area cut production by 9.14, 23.53 and 87.24%.1 In another cited study, losing 61% of the leaves reduced trunk dry matter by 70%, root dry matter by 60% and photosynthesis of the remaining leaves by 50%.1
Data table
| % production loss | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| 25% of leaf area lost | 9.14% | 1 |
| 50% of leaf area lost | 23.53% | 1 |
| 75% of leaf area lost | 87.24% | 1 |
In a trial at São Sebastião do Paraíso, Minas Gerais, on Mundo Novo, the leaf miner reduced yield by 34.3–41.5% over 1988–1993.11 A 2021 review reports losses of up to 87% in Neotropical producing countries and above 50% in Brazil and Colombia at high infestation.2 These figures come from different methods and are not directly comparable.
Climate, season and shade#
Brazil. A 2021 review states that attacks are generally more severe in the dry season.2 In an organic coffee plot in Brazil, monitored monthly from June 2005 to March 2007, the most infested months were the months with least rain.10 The authors link this to lower mortality of the insect in the driest months.10 In a 2008 drip irrigation trial, the peak came from August to November, and irrigated plants had 2.2 times fewer intact mines.9 Higher planting density also reduced the pest in that trial.9 Irrigation and planting density are covered in their own entries.
Mexico. A study in Soconusco, Chiapas, compared seasons, shade and elevation.6 Mined leaves were most abundant in the rainy season (more than 200 mm a month, April–November), and more abundant below 600 m than above 900 m.6 Shade lowered maximum daily temperatures and gave shelter from rain, but did not significantly affect incidence.6 Low sites were predicted to have about 4,060 night-time hours above 20 °C a year, against 2,081 at high sites.6 The authors conclude that temperature, especially at night, probably explains the elevation difference.6
Shade in Brazil. At Piracicaba, São Paulo (554 m), Obatã coffee was grown between rows of rubber trees and monitored in 2003–2004.8 Plants in the shadiest positions had fewer damaged leaves, although a higher proportion of their leaves were mined.8 About 40% of leaves were mined well inside the plantation and about 20% just outside it.8 Plants in full sun had their highest damage only at the end of winter.8
Colombia. In Antioquia, the highest infestation and parasitism were found in the driest months of the study, in September 2013.12 The authors note that attacks are common in young coffee at low altitudes, below about 1,300 m.12
Africa. On Kilimanjaro, higher temperature, solar radiation and sunshine were negatively correlated with the increase of L. meyricki in the following generation.13 The authors judged parasites the probable main factor in the annual fluctuations.13
Natural enemies#
Parasitoids. In Antioquia, Colombia, more than 1,100 coffee plots aged two to five years were sampled.12 Average infestation was under 2%, and parasitism ranged from 58 to 89%.12 All 787 parasitoids reared belonged to the family Eulophidae, in seven species; Closterocerus coffeellae was the most abundant.12 In Chiapas, Mexico, 22 larval parasitoid species and 17 predator species were found.7 No weather variable tested there significantly affected parasitism.6
Predators. In Chiapas, predation was the main source of mortality, and ants were the main cause of egg and pupal mortality.7 Predation peaked above 25% in the rainy season.6 In Minas Gerais, Brazil, the most frequent predators were social wasps (Vespidae), mainly Brachygastra lecheguana and Protonectarina sylveirae.11
Insecticides and enemies. In the Minas Gerais trial, wasps had preyed on 15.5% of mined leaves in untreated plots, 11.5% after ethion and 5.4% after deltamethrin.11 In Kenya, parathion sprays appeared to kill all adult leaf miners and parasites present, and possibly 50–75% of the larvae.14 Leaf miner numbers in sprayed blocks were only somewhat lower than in unsprayed blocks.14 Parasitism was significantly higher in sprayed plots from October to January, and the author suggests that well-timed sprays might help the parasites.14 In Antioquia, heavy use of broad-spectrum insecticides was linked to the highest infestations in some plots.12
Monitoring and action thresholds#
Thresholds differ between studies and regions. The 1996 trial in Minas Gerais sampled five leaves from the middle third of the plants in 30 planting holes per plot every two weeks.11 It counted mined leaves and mines opened by wasps.11 It sprayed when 30% of leaves were mined without signs of predation.11 A 2013 study in organic coffee used the same 30% level, citing Reis, Souza and Zacarias (2006).10 A 1984 study in São Paulo used a level of more than 40% of leaves attacked.18 A 2021 review describes monitoring with delta traps at one trap per 4 ha.2
No national threshold from a regulator or an extension service was consulted for this entry. The values above are those used in the cited studies.
Chemical control and resistance#
A 2021 review states that neurotoxic insecticides are the ones most used by coffee producers against the leaf miner.2 The active ingredients below are named only because the cited studies tested them. We give no doses. No regulator page on their current registration was consulted for this entry; status varies by country.
Field trial. In the Minas Gerais trial (1987–1993), treatments were soil-applied aldicarb in February and sprays of ethion or deltamethrin.11 The highest yields came from aldicarb, especially combined with a spray.11 Aldicarb and ethion were the most selective for natural enemies; deltamethrin harmed the predatory wasps.11
Organophosphate resistance. A 2002 study tested ten field populations from Minas Gerais.15 Eight were resistant to disulfoton, five to ethion, four to methyl parathion and one to chlorpyrifos.15 Resistant individuals made up 10–93% of the populations for disulfoton.15 More resistance went with more insecticide use, and the authors suggest that cytochrome P450 enzymes may play a major role.15
Newer insecticides. A 2020 survey found chlorantraniliprole resistance in 34 of 40 populations from Bahia, Brazil (85%).16 Resistance ranged from low (under 10-fold) to moderate (10- to 40-fold), and was most frequent in western Bahia, where 94% of populations were resistant.16 The authors link it to a higher risk of control failure.16 In nine populations from western Bahia and the Bahia highlands, all were resistant to thiamethoxam at low to moderate levels.17 Two showed moderate resistance to chlorantraniliprole.17
Rust fungicides and the leaf miner#
Coffee leaf rust and the leaf miner are often managed in the same fields. In a 1978–1980 study at Jaboticabal, São Paulo, copper fungicide was needed to control rust.18 The same study found that copper oxychloride favoured the leaf miner and reduced the action of predatory wasps.18 A 2013 study lists copper fungicides among the factors that affect leaf miner populations.10 No more recent study of this interaction was consulted for this entry. Rust control itself is covered in coffee leaf rust.
Resistant coffee#
According to a 2006 review, about 400 C. arabica accessions from Ethiopia were all susceptible.1 Several wild Coffea species are resistant.1 C. racemosa is the main source used in C. arabica breeding, through successive backcrosses at the Instituto Agronômico (IAC).1 In C. racemosa, resistance depends on two complementary dominant genes, Lm1 and Lm2.1 In C. stenophylla, F1 hybrids with C. arabica were susceptible, which suggests recessive resistance.1
The two Brazilian cultivars Siriema VC4 and Siriema AS1 descend from a cross between C. arabica and C. racemosa made in the 1950s.2 Some tolerance is also observed in cultivars derived from the Sarchimor group.2 C. canephora cultivars Conilon and Robusta showed higher larval mortality.1 Transgenic C. canephora plants carrying a Bacillus thuringiensis gene, cry1Ac, had reached field trials by 2006.1
Reference values#
| Parameter | Value reported | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Egg stage | 3.4 days at 25 °C (lab); 4–6 days at optimum; more than 20 days when cool | Giraldo Jaramillo and Parra3; Guerreiro Filho1 |
| Larval stage | 16–26 days at ≈20 °C; 11.9 days at 25 °C; 7–11 days at 27–30 °C | Guerreiro Filho1; Giraldo Jaramillo and Parra3 |
| Pupal stage | 14 days at 20 °C; 5.9 days at 25 °C; 3.6 days at 35 °C | Guerreiro Filho1; Giraldo Jaramillo and Parra3 |
| Egg to adult | 20.88–21.88 days at 25 °C (lab); 25.2–34.3 days in the field (Piracicaba) | Giraldo Jaramillo and Parra3; Nantes and Parra4 |
| Egg laying | None below 18 °C; 60.3 eggs per female at 25 °C | Guerreiro Filho1; Giraldo Jaramillo and Parra3 |
| Generations per year | About 8 on average in Brazil, up to 12 | Dantas et al.2 |
| Leaf area mined per larva | 1.03–1.36 cm² (three cultivars) | Guerreiro Filho1 |
| Leaf area lost → production lost | 25% → 9.14%; 50% → 23.53%; 75% → 87.24% | Guerreiro Filho1 |
| Action threshold used in trials | 30% mined leaves, middle third, no predation (Minas Gerais); more than 40% (São Paulo) | Reis and Souza11; Gravena18 |
| Parasitism, Antioquia | 58–89% | David-Rueda et al.12 |
| Chlorantraniliprole resistance | 34 of 40 populations; under 10- to 40-fold | Leite et al.16 |
Open questions#
- African species. No source consulted for this entry gives measured development times, yield losses or thresholds for L. meyricki or L. caffeina.
- Current distribution. The EPPO list dates from 2010; no CABI datasheet or newer list was consulted for this entry (as of October 2026).
- Season and shade. Brazilian and Mexican studies point in different directions; see Contested. Night-time temperature is one proposed explanation.6
- Copper and natural enemies. Only one older study consulted for this entry measured how rust fungicides change leaf miner numbers and wasp predation.18
- Resistance management. Resistance has been measured for several insecticide groups in Brazil15,16,17; no study consulted here tests a resistance management programme in the field.
Key studies#
Guerreiro Filho, 2006 – Coffee leaf miner resistance. Reviews the biology, damage and breeding for resistance of L. coffeella in Brazil. It collects measured stage durations and yield losses, and describes resistance from C. racemosa based on two dominant genes.
Reis and Souza, 1996 – Integrated management and yield. A six-year trial on Mundo Novo in Minas Gerais compared soil and spray treatments, applied when 30% of leaves were mined without predation. The leaf miner cut yield by 34.3–41.5%, and one spray treatment sharply reduced predation by wasps.
Lomeli-Flores et al., 2010 – Weather, shade and elevation in Chiapas. Followed leaf miner populations and their enemies across seasons, shade levels and elevations in Mexico. Mines were most common in the rainy season and at low elevation; shade had no significant effect, and night-time temperature was the likely driver.
David-Rueda et al., 2016 – Parasitoids in Antioquia. Sampled more than 1,100 young coffee plots in Colombia. Infestation averaged under 2%, parasitism by seven eulophid wasp species reached 58–89%, and the authors recommend conservation biological control.
Leite et al., 2020 – Chlorantraniliprole resistance in Brazil. Tested 40 field populations of the leaf miner in Bahia. 85% were resistant, at low to moderate levels (up to 40-fold); resistant populations were most frequent in western Bahia, with a higher risk of control failure.
- Season of attack: in Brazil, a 2021 review and two field studies found the worst attacks in the dry months2,9,10; in a 2010 study in Chiapas, Mexico, mined leaves were most abundant in the rainy season.6 The Mexican authors point to night-time temperature rather than rainfall as the main driver.6
- Shade: in the Chiapas study, shade cover did not significantly affect leaf miner incidence6; in a Brazilian rubber-tree agroforestry system, shaded coffee plants had fewer damaged leaves but a higher proportion of mined leaves than plants in full sun.8
- Egg to adult at 25 °C: the 2017 Cenicafé study gives 20.88 days in its abstract and 21.88 days in its table3; a 2021 review gives about 22 days.2
- Distribution: a 2021 review places the leaf miner in Africa, Asia and the Neotropics2; the EPPO Global Database (distribution last updated 11 February 2010) lists it in the Americas and, in Africa, only Madagascar and Réunion.5
- Action threshold: a 1996 Brazilian trial used 30% mined leaves11; a 1984 São Paulo study used more than 40%.18
Coffearium (2026). Coffee leaf miner. Coffearium – The open coffee compendium. Retrieved 4 November 2026, from https://coffearium.org/entries/coffee-leaf-miner/
@misc{coffearium2026-coffee-leaf-miner,
author = {{Coffearium}},
title = {{Coffee leaf miner}},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {Coffearium -- The open coffee compendium},
url = {https://coffearium.org/entries/coffee-leaf-miner/},
urldate = {2026-11-04},
note = {Retrieved 4 November 2026}
}Entries are updated when the evidence changes; the retrieval date tells your readers which version you used. Changes are listed in the Change log.
Change log
- – Removed a textbook sentence on parasitoids and predators; it is in Folmer ch. 4, not the cited ch. 2. Textbook defoliation statement no longer placed in Africa. Reason: Wrong chapter cited; the chapter does not say Africa.
- – Chlorantraniliprole survey and thiamethoxam study now located in Bahia (western Bahia 94% resistant); P450 role given as the authors' suggestion ("may"). Reason: Both studies sampled Bahia only; the abstract hedges the mechanism.
- – Lavras peak described as following a dry period; Reis and Souza sampling given as 30 planting holes per plot and predation as % of mined leaves; Bess result stated as reported. Reason: Wording matched more closely to the sources.
Sources
- AGuerreiro Filho, O. (2006). Coffee leaf miner resistance. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology 18(1), 109–117. doi:10.1590/S1677-04202006000100009 · other copies
- ADantas, J.; Motta, I. O.; Vidal, L. A.; Nascimento, E. F. M. B.; Bilio, J.; Pupe, J. M.; Veiga, A.; Carvalho, C.; Lopes, R. B.; et al.; last author Albuquerque, É. V. S. (2021). A comprehensive review of the coffee leaf miner Leucoptera coffeella (Lepidoptera: Lyonetiidae) – a major pest for the coffee crop in Brazil and others Neotropical countries. Insects 12(12), 1130. doi:10.3390/insects12121130 · other copies
- AGiraldo Jaramillo, M.; Parra, J. R. P. (2017). Aspectos biológicos de Leucoptera coffeella (Guérin-Mèneville, 1842) (Lepidoptera: Lyonetiidae) en Coffea arabica en condiciones de laboratorio. Revista Cenicafé 68(2), 20–27.
- ANantes, J. F. D.; Parra, J. R. P. (1977). Biologia de Perileucoptera coffeella (Guérin-Méneville, 1842) (Lepidoptera, Lyonetiidae), em três variedades de café (Coffea spp). Anais da Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil 6(2), 156–163.
- AEuropean and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) (2010). Perileucoptera coffeella (LEUCCO): distribution. EPPO Global Database (distribution last updated 11 February 2010).
- ALomeli-Flores, J. R.; Barrera, J. F.; Bernal, J. S. (2010). Impacts of weather, shade cover and elevation on coffee leafminer Leucoptera coffeella (Lepidoptera: Lyonetiidae) population dynamics and natural enemies. Crop Protection 29(9), 1039–1048.
- ALomeli-Flores, J. R.; Barrera, J. F.; Bernal, J. S. (2009). Impact of natural enemies on coffee leafminer Leucoptera coffeella (Lepidoptera: Lyonetiidae) population dynamics in Chiapas, Mexico. Biological Control 51(1), 51–60.
- ARighi, C. A.; Campoe, O. C.; Bernardes, M. S.; Lunz, A. M. P.; Piedade, S. M. S.; Pereira, C. R. (2013). Influence of rubber trees on leaf-miner damage to coffee plants in an agroforestry system. Agroforestry Systems 87, 1351–1362. doi:10.1007/s10457-013-9642-9 · other copies
- AAssis, G. A.; Assis, F. A.; Scalco, M. S.; Parolin, F. J. T.; Fidelis, I.; Moraes, J. C.; Guimarães, R. J. (2012). Leaf miner incidence in coffee plants under different drip irrigation regimes and planting densities. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 47(2), 157–162.
- AScalon, J. D.; Mateus, A. L. S. S.; Zacarias, M. S. (2013). Análise espaço-temporal do nível de infestação do bicho-mineiro Leucoptera coffeella (Lepidoptera: Lyonetiidae) em cafeeiro orgânico (Coffea arabica L.). Coffee Science 8(3), 347–353.
- AReis, P. R.; Souza, J. C. (1996). Manejo integrado do bicho-mineiro Perileucoptera coffeella (Guérin-Mèneville) (Lepidoptera: Lyonetiidae), e seu reflexo na produção de café. Anais da Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil 25(1), 77–82.
- ADavid-Rueda, G.; Constantino, L. M.; Montoya, E. C.; Ortega M., O. E.; Gil, Z. N.; Benavides-Machado, P. (2016). Diagnóstico de Leucoptera coffeella (Lepidoptera: Lyonetiidae) y sus parasitoides en el departamento de Antioquia, Colombia. Revista Colombiana de Entomología 42(1), 4–11.
- ABigger, M.; Tapley, R. G. (1969). Prediction of outbreaks of coffee leaf-miners on Kilimanjaro. Bulletin of Entomological Research.
- ABess, H. A. (1964). Populations of the leaf-miner Leucoptera meyricki Ghesq. and its parasites in sprayed and unsprayed coffee in Kenya. Bulletin of Entomological Research 55(1), 59–82. doi:10.1017/S0007485300049294 · other copies
- AFragoso, D. B.; Guedes, R. N. C.; Picanço, M. C.; Zambolim, L. (2002). Insecticide use and organophosphate resistance in the coffee leaf miner Leucoptera coffeella (Lepidoptera: Lyonetiidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 92(3), 203–212.
- ALeite, S. A.; Dos Santos, M. P.; Resende-Silva, G. A.; da Costa, D. R.; Moreira, A. A.; Lemos, O. L.; Guedes, R. N. C.; Castellani, M. A. (2020). Area-wide survey of chlorantraniliprole resistance and control failure likelihood of the neotropical coffee leaf miner Leucoptera coffeella (Lepidoptera: Lyonetiidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 113(3), 1399–1410. doi:10.1093/jee/toaa017 · other copies
- ALeite, S. A.; dos Santos, M. P.; da Costa, D. R.; Moreira, A. A.; Guedes, R. N. C.; Castellani, M. A. (2021). Time-concentration interplay in insecticide resistance among populations of the Neotropical coffee leaf miner, Leucoptera coffeella. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 23(2), 232–241.
- AGravena, S. (1984). Estratégias de manejo integrado do bicho-mineiro-do-cafeeiro Perileucoptera coffeella (Guérin-Méneville, 1842). Anais da Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil 13(1), 117–129.
- BLambot, C.; Herrera, J. C.; Bertrand, B.; Sadeghian, S.; Benavides, P.; Gaitán, A. (2017). Cultivating Coffee Quality – Terroir and Agro-Ecosystem. In: Folmer, B. (ed.), The Craft and Science of Coffee, Academic Press, ch. 2, pp. 17–49. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-803520-7.00002-5 · other copies
Tier A · authoritative · B · trade and expert · C · general. Supporting quotes for every source are in the data version of this entry. If a publisher’s site refuses access, try the doi link or “other copies”.
The literature for this entry was last searched on 23 Oct 2026. A statement that no source consulted for this entry shows something refers to the sources above; newer or missing work may exist.
Discussion
A space for readers to share experience from the farm, the roastery or the bar, ask each other and offer other views. The Coffearium team does not reply here. Please keep to the community rules; to change the entry itself, use Suggest a change.