Skip to main content Skip to journal navigation menu Skip to site footer
contact@ukscip.com
Article

Effects of Agroecological-Based Techniques on Pest, Weed, and Disease Management in Orange-Fleshed Sweet Potato (OFSP)

Alusaine Edward Samura ORCID ,  Charles Buster Johnson ,  Vandi Amara ORCID ,  David Dan Quee ORCID ,  Joseph Musa ORCID

    Received: 15 April 2025; Revised: 4 June 2025; Accepted: 13 June 2025; Published: 1 July 2025

    Abstract

    Orange-fleshed sweet potato (OFSP) is a key biofortified crop for improving food and nutritional security in Sub-Saharan Africa, including Sierra Leone, however, its production is hindered by insect pests, diseases, and weeds. A field experiment was conducted in 2024 at Njala University, Sierra Leone, using a 3 × 4 factorial arrangement in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications to evaluate agroecological management techniques. Data were collected on vegetative growth, pest population and damage, diseases incidence and severity, weed density and yield, and analyzed using RStudio software. The results showed significant (p < 0.05) varietal and treatment effects on all measured parameters. Organic 1 significantly reduced aphid, tortoise beetle, and whitefly population (3.33–6.0 insect plant−1 at 12 weeks after planting) compared to control (13.67–13.78 insects’ plant−1), and a lowered disease severity score was observed which ranged from 1.0–1.2 at 12 weeks after planting compared to control (4.6–4.8). Organic 1 also produces the highest tuber yield (6.2 t ha−1), outperforming the inorganic treatment (3.1 t ha−1) and control (1.5 t ha−1). In contrast, the inorganic treatment achieved the greatest weed suppression (4.5–4.9 plants m−2) compared with the control (28.6–30.1 plants m−2). Among varieties, Kaphulira recorded superior vegetative growth and yield, while Chipika exhibited relatively lower pest infestation. Integrating organic-based agroecological pest management, especially the combination of poultry manure and neem extract, provides an ecologically sustainable, productive alternative to sole reliance on synthetic inputs and enhanced OFSP productivity.

    Keywords

    References

    1. 1. Lividini, K.; Campos, H.; Heck, S.; et al. Biofortified orange-fleshed sweetpotato can meaningfully reduce the burden of vitamin A deficiency. Curr. Dev. Nutr. 2024, 8, 102300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cdnut.2024.102300
    2. 2. Ahoudou, I.; Sogbohossou, D.E.O.; Fassinou Hotegni, V.N.; et al. A systematic review on the factors influencing adoption and consumption of orange-fleshed sweetpotato in sub-Saharan Africa. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2025, 9, 1545827. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1545827
    3. 3. Low, J.W.; Ortiz, R.; Vandamme, E.; et al. Nutrient-dense orange-fleshed sweetpotato: Advances in drought tolerance breeding and understanding of management practices for sustainable next-generation cropping systems in sub-Saharan Africa. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00050
    4. 4. Tenaye, A.; Gizachew, A.; Asa, A. Effect of integrated organic and inorganic fertilizer management on sweetpotato yield and soil fertility in West Africa. Sci. Hortic. 2025, 330, 112345.
    5. 5. Echodu, R.; Edema, H.; Wokorach, G.; et al. Farmers’ practices and their knowledge of biotic constraints to sweetpotato production in East Africa. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2019, 105, 3–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmpp.2018.07.004
    6. 6. Chabi, N.K.A.; Name, P.E.; Tibiri, E.B.; et al. Identification of viruses infecting sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas Lam.) in Benin. Open Agric. 2024, 9, e0208214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2022-0403
    7. 7. Xu, K.; Hou, Y.; Sun, W.; et al. A detection method for sweet potato leaf spot disease and leaf-eating pests. Agriculture 2025, 15, 503. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15050503
    8. 8. Isman, M.B. Botanical insecticides, deterrents, and repellents in modern agriculture and an increasingly regulated world. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2006, 51, 45–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.51.110104.151146
    9. 9. Campos, E.V.R.; Oliveira, J.L.; Fraceto, L.F.; et al. Applications of neem-based pesticides in agriculture: A review. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1494. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01494
    10. 10. Pavela, R.; Benelli, G. Essential oils as ecofriendly biopesticides? Challenges and constraints. Trends Plant Sci. 2016, 21, 1000–1007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2016.10.005
    11. 11. Diacono, M.; Montemurro, F. Long-term effects of organic amendments on soil fertility. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 30, 401–422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009040
    12. 12. Gattinger, A.; Muller, A.; Haeni, M.; et al. Enhanced topsoil carbon stocks under organic farming. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2012, 109, 18226–18231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1209429109
    13. 13. Zheng, H.; Ying, H.; Yin, Y.; et al. Irrigation leads to greater maize yield at higher water productivity and lower environmental costs: A global meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 273, 62–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.12.009
    14. 14. War, A.R.; Paulraj, M.G.; War, M.Y.; et al. Mechanisms of plant defense against insect herbivores. Plant Signal. Behav. 2012, 7, 1306–1320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4161/psb.21663
    15. 15. Lori, M.; Symnaczik, S.; Mäder, P.; et al. Organic farming enhances soil microbial abundance and activity—A meta-analysis and meta-regression. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0180442. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180442
    16. 16. Hartmann, M.; Frey, B.; Mayer, J.; et al. Cropping practices manipulate soil microbial communities. ISME J. 2015, 9, 1177–1194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2014.210
    17. 17. Raaijmakers, J.M.; Mazzola, M. Soil immune responses. Science 2016, 352, 1392–1393. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf3252
    18. 18. Pieterse, C.M.J.; Zamioudis, C.; Berendsen, R.L.; et al. Induced systemic resistance by beneficial microbes. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2014, 52, 347–375. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-082712-102340
    19. 19. Trivedi, P.; Leach, J.E.; Tringe, S.G.; et al. Plant–microbiome interactions: From community assembly to plant health. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2020, 18, 607–621. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-020-0412-1
    20. 20. Morella, N.M.; Weng, F.C.-H.; Joubert, P.M.; et al. Successive passaging of a plant-associated microbiome reveals robust habitat and host genotype-dependent selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2020, 117, 1148–1159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908600116
    21. 21. Duke, S.O. The history and current status of glyphosate. Pest Manag. Sci. 2018, 74, 1027–1034. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.4652
    22. 22. Oerke, E.C. Crop losses to pests. J. Agric. Sci. 2006, 144, 31–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859605005708
    23. 23. Zhang, S.; Li, H.; Chen, X.; et al. Long-term fertilization altered microbial community structure in an aeolian sandy soil in northeast China. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 979759. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.979759
    24. 24. Seufert, V.; Ramankutty, N.; Foley, J.A. Comparing yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 2012, 485, 229–232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11069
    25. 25. Ponisio, L.C.; M’Gonigle, L.K.; Mace, K.C.; et al. Diversification practices reduce organic yield gap. Proc. R. Soc. B 2015, 282, 20141396. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1396
    26. 26. Pretty, J.; Benton, T.G.; Bharucha, Z.P.; et al. Global assessment of sustainable intensification. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 441–446. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0114-0
    27. 27. Dass, A.; San, A.A.; Jinger, D.; et al. Sustainable intensification strategies: Balancing productivity, quality, and profitability in agri-food systems with resource optimization. Front. Agron. 2025, 7, 1611739. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2025.1611739
    ×