Yield Losses Caused by the Stem-/Pod-Borer Complex Within Maize-Cowpea-Sorghum Intercropping Systems in Kenya

  • B. Amoako-Atta
  • E. O. Omolo


The present article considers quantitative assessment of crop losses in relation to attack by three trophic levels of insect pests on maize, cowpea and sorghum intercropping systems. The trophic levels considered are (i) specialist feeders subsisting only on one crop within the intercropping systems, e.g. Maruca testulalis (Geyer) on cowpea, and Atherigona soccata (Rondani) on sorghum; (ii) the relative specialist feeders subsisting on two out of the three crops e.g. Busseola fusca (Fuller), Chilo partellus (Swinh.) Sesamia calamistis (Hmps.) and Eldana saccharina (Wlk.) feeding on maize and sorghum cereal plants; and (iii) the generalist feeders e.g. Heliothis armigera (Hbn.) which feeds on all three plant species. Tests for loss assessment were done under natural field conditions within maize, cowpea, sorghum monocropping patterns; maize-cowpea, maize-sorghum, sorghum-cowpea dicropping patterns; and the maize-cowpea-sorghum tricrop intercropping patterns. The authors discuss in detail their modified analytical methods based on the comparison of yield of sets of plants growing under identical conditions except that one set is unattacked by the stem-/pod-borers and the other set attacked, to generate economic losses. The comparative advantages of the planting systems on crop turnover is further discussed. The biomass and plant population fluctuations caused by pest attacks and ‘dead hearts’ at differential time scales in indices of yield have also been discussed. Yield per unit area of monocrop and intercropping patterns have been contrasted using the yield turnover of monocrop plant equivalence as the baseline for comparisons. Maize-cowpea-sorghum mixed intercrop of 1.45 land equivalent ratio (LER), and that for the sorghum-cowpea dicrop with 1.3 LER are considered the most advantageous cropping patterns. Yield losses significantly higher (P < 0.05) within maize-sorghum intercropping combinations with 0.89 LER further suggests that stem-borer colonisation which occurs at an earlier stage of crop establishment resulting in ‘dead hearts’ and significant reduction on plant population per unit area within the two cereal combinations contribute significantly to the overall reduction in crop turnover within such mixtures.

Key Words

Yield losses stem-borers pod-borers maize cowpea sorghum intercropping Kenya economic losses 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Altieri M. A., Francis C. A., Van Schoonhoven A. and Doll J. D. (1978) A review of insect prevalence in maize (Zea Mays C.) and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L) polycultural systems. Field Crop Res 33–49.Google Scholar
  2. Amoako-Atta B., Omolo E. K. and Kidega E. K. (1983) Influence of maize, cowpea and sorghum intercropping systems on stem-/pod-borer infestations. Insect Sci. Application 4, 47–57.Google Scholar
  3. Atkins C. A. (1982) Nitrogen fixation potentials for improvement in legumes. In Induced Mutations for Improvement of Legume Production. II Vol. 60, pp. 147–168. IAEA-TECDOC.Google Scholar
  4. Bantilan R. T. and Harwood R. R. (1973) The influence of intercropping field corn with mungbean or cowpea in the control of weeds. 4th Ann. Sci. Meeting, Crop Sci. Soc. Philippines, Cebn City, 21 pp.Google Scholar
  5. IRRI (International Rice Research Institute) (1974) Annual Report of the International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Philippines, 266 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Janzen D. H. (1973) Tropical agroecosystems. Science 182, 1212–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Judenko E. (1973) Analytical Method for Assessing Yield Losses Caused by Pests on Cereal Crops With and Without Pesticides. Tropical Pest Bulletin 2, 31 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Kalaidzhieva S. (1969) Results of intercropping maize and sorghum. Int. Z. landwiztsch. 2, 196–201.Google Scholar
  9. Kang C. C. (1975) Improvements for increasing the cropping intensity of paddy field in Taiwan in the past 5 years. Paper presented at Workshop for the South and South-East Asia cropping systems network, IRRI, 18–20 March. Mimeographed.Google Scholar
  10. Krautz B. A., Kampen J. and Sharms S. K. (1973) 1st Annual Report of the ICRISAT Research Programme May 1972-March 1973. Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar
  11. Nye I. W. B. (1960) The Insect Pests of Graminaceous Crops in East Africa. Colon. Res. Stud. No. 31, H.M.S.O., Lond., 48 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Perrin R. M. (1977) Pest management in multiple cropping systems. Agroecosystems 3, 93–118.Google Scholar
  13. Pimentel D., Dritschillo W., Krummel J. and Kutzman J. (1975) Energy and land constraints in food protein production. Science 190, 754–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wiley R. W. and Osiru D. S. O. (1972) Studies on mixtures of maize and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) with particular reference to plant population. J. agric. Sci. 79, 517–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wit C. T. de (1960) On competition. Verse. Landbouwk. Onderz. Wageningen N.R. 668.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICIPE 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Amoako-Atta
    • 1
    • 2
  • E. O. Omolo
    • 1
  1. 1.International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE)NairobiKenya
  2. 2.Ghana Atomic Energy CommissionLegonGhana

Personalised recommendations