







































 

 

 
23 

© 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Assessment of enset root mealybug (Cataenococcus ensete) Williams and Matile-Ferrero 
(Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) in enset-growing areas of Ari Zone, South Ethiopia   

 

 

 Feyisa Bekele1+ 

 Wondimu Adila2 
Kedir Bamud3 

 Yosef Berihun4 

1,2,4Southern Ethiopia Agricultural Research Institute, Jinka Agricultural 
Research Center, Crop Research Directorate, Jinka, Ethiopia. 
1Email: feyisabekele2009@gmail.com  
2Email: wondaadila@gmail.com  
4Email: yosef.berihun38@gmail.com  
3Central Ethiopia, Agricultural Research Institute, Worabe Agricultural 
Research Center, Crop Research Directorate, Worabe, Ethiopia. 
3Email: kedirbamud@gmail.com  

 

 
(+Corresponding author) 

 ABSTRACT 
 
Article History 
Received: 13 December 2024 
Revised: 17 January 2025 
Accepted: 27 January 2025 
Published: 7 February 2025 
 

Keywords 
Ari zone 
Enset cultivation 
Enset root mealybug 
Farmer awareness 
Incidence 
Infestation 
Integrated pest management 
Prevalence 
Survey. 

 
This survey assessed the prevalence, incidence, distribution, and existing farmers' 
practices of root mealybug on enset (Ensete ventricosum), an important crop widely 
cultivated in Southern Ethiopia, such as the Ari zone. The study aimed to provide 
information to develop sustainable pest management. A survey was conducted in two 
woredas during the 2023/2024 cropping seasons. Fourteen (14) kebeles were purposively 
selected based on enset production potential. Data were collected through stratified 
random sampling across 95 farms, covering 485 enset plants complemented by farmer 
interviews. Findings of this study revealed a significant variation in prevalence and 
incidence; South Ari has a slightly lower mean prevalence and incidence than North Ari. 
Across both districts, the grand mean prevalence is 53.44%, and the grand mean 
incidence is 39.91%. Altitude influenced infestation levels, with higher rates observed at 
mid-altitudes (1681 and 2200 m.a.s.l.), with the corm being the most affected plant part. 
Farmer awareness was low, with 93.68% unaware of the pest, and most prioritized 
bacterial wilt. Pest management practices were limited, with 92.63% neglecting debris 
burning and only 36.84% applying cultural controls. The exchange of infested planting 
materials and poor field sanitation practices were identified as significant contributors to 
pest spread. The study recommends educating farmers on enset root mealybugs to 
increase awareness, promoting Integrated Pest Management (IPM), and enforcing 
stricter planting regulations to control pest spread and ensure sustainable enset 
production. These findings provide practical recommendations to local farmers for 
improving early detection, reducing pest damage, and enhancing yields by adopting 
sustainable practices. 

 

Contribution/Originality: There is a scarcity of information on the pest status of root mealybugs in Enset-

producing areas of the Ari zone. Therefore, this study aims to assess the prevalence, incidence, and distribution, along 

with farmers' practices, to develop sustainable solutions that mitigate the pest's impact and ensure the sustainable 

production of the crop. 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Enset (Ensete ventricosum) is a perennial herbaceous crop belonging to the Musaceae family, originating in 

Ethiopia and widely cultivated in the south and southwestern parts of the country and propagated in vegetative [1-

Current Research in Agricultural Sciences 
2025 Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 23-34 
ISSN(e): 2312-6418 
ISSN(p): 2313-3716 
DOI: 10.18488/cras.v12i1.4081 
© 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7134-6445
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2192-8671
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0595-5757
mailto:feyisabekele2009@gmail.com
mailto:wondaadila@gmail.com
mailto:yosef.berihun38@gmail.com
mailto:kedirbamud@gmail.com
https://www.doi.org/10.18488/cras.v12i1.4081


Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 12(1): 23-34 

 

 
24 

© 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

5] Enset is grown and distributed at altitudes between 1600 and 3000 m.a.s.l with an average annual rainfall of 1100-

1500mm [6]. 

The crop plays a significance role in day-to-day life of our farmers and cultivating as a key staple food. The crop 

serves multiple purposes: as a staple and co-staple food source for over 20 million people, as well as providing fiber, 

animal forage, construction materials, and traditional medicines [7, 8]. Enset helps prevent soil erosion and maintain 

a positive nutrient balance, making it suitable for sustainable agriculture [9, 10]. 

Despite its immense importance for food security, income, and environmental sustainability, enset production in 

Ethiopia faces significant threats from pests and diseases [11]. Bacterial wilt was reported as the most important 

disease of enset by many scholars [12-17]. 

Most insects particularly the enset root mealybug (Cataenococcus ensete) was among the insect pests of enset plant 

[18]. The enset root mealybug (Cataenococcus ensete) is a major pest in southern Ethiopia, feeding on corms and roots. 

Infestations reduce yields, hinder growth, and threaten food security for smallholder farmers [19, 20]. This pest 

poses severe challenges to enset cultivation due to its cryptic habits, overlapping generations, and the lack of effective, 

widely adopted management practices [20]. Integrated pest management strategies include using clean planting 

materials, hot water treatments, and the application of natural products like wood ash and Militia ferruginea extracts 

were recommended in other locations [20-22]. 

In the Ari Zone, where enset is a cornerstone of livelihood and sustenance, limited awareness and traditional 

farming practices exacerbate these issues. Therefore, this study aims to assess the prevalence, incidence, and impact 

of enset root mealybug infestations and evaluate existing management practices among enset-growing communities 

in the Ari Zone to inform future strategies for sustainable enset production and pest management in the area. 

 

2. MATERIAL AND METHODS 

2.1. Description of the Survey Areas 

The study was conducted in south and North districts of Ari Zone, South Ethiopia during 2023 and 2024 

cropping seasons. The areas were selected purposefully based on enset production potentials and the distribution of 

pests. Initially kebele selection was done with collaboration with woreda agricultural office. About six kebeles, namely 

Zitna Dawa, Gasina Zama, Ayika Salmi, Shama Bulketi, Kellet and Ambi from North ari woreda and 8 kebeles namely, 

Wosat, Aynalalem, Mendir, Muti, Ayida, Gedir, Dordora and Del were selected from South Ari. These kebeles were 

the potential enset producing areas of Ari zone.  

The zone is situated under major enset growing areas of Southern Region characterized by Dega and woyna 

dega agro ecologies. The annual rainfall of the area ranges from 950 to 1180mm. The mean annual minimum and 

maximum temperatures are 8.05°C and 18.9°C, respectively. The soil type is dominated by clay soil which is slightly 

acidic. North Ari is the other potential enset producing woreda in Ari zone. The agro ecology of the woreda is 

characterized by Dega and Woina Dega. The annual rainfall ranges from 620-1290 mm. The mean annual minimum 

and maximum temperatures are 7.6°C and 27.6°C, respectively. The soil type is dominated by clay soil. Both locations 

are characterized by bimodal rainfall, the main rainy season from March to May, and the short rainy season extending 

from September to October. 

Figure 1 illustrates the map of sample woredas of Ari zone. Geographically, the Zone is located North of Equator 

from 5° 30‟N to 6° 20‟N latitude and from 36° 10‟ to 37° 20‟ East, longitude (Figure 1). 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 12(1): 23-34 

 

 
25 

© 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
Figure 1. Location map of surveyed areas of Ari zone. 

 

2.2. Survey Methods and Data Collection 

Both Districts were selected purposively because they are potential in enset producing areas in the zone. Stratified 

random sampling methods used for collecting data from a total of fourteen (14) representative kebeles by consulting 

district experts on enset production status (only major enset growing kebeles was selected). Farms were surveyed 

from January to march, 2023/2024. Five to ten enset farms were randomly visited at a distance of 1-3km based on 

enset availability. From each selected field, five randomly selected enset plants were assessed. The population density 

of the enset root mealy bug on roots and corms were counted. 

The data collection was conducted mainly through direct field observation and interview. From each farm 5 enset 

plants scouted for enset root mealybug population count. Totally Ninety-five (95) farms and 485 enset plants were 

visited and assessed. At each farm, a questionnaire was administered and the farm owner was asked about the age of 

the enset plant, about enset production status in comparison with crops commonly grown, landholdings, names of 

the clones and purpose each clone is grown, the reaction of each clone to the enset root mealybug, major challenges 

faced during enset production, awareness on enset root mealybug prevalence and its impact on enset production, 

complex pests occurred on enset crop production and existing management practices. if pesticides were applied and 

if so, which types were applied, if the farm was weeded. This information was collected from each farmer. In addition, 

it was confirmed by our own observation, particularly, in the case of weeding and whether the enset was intercropped. 

Altitude in meters above sea level (m.a.s.l) was taken, using a Garmin Ground Positioning System (GPS) at a central 

point for each farm surveyed. Data collected on infested plant (incidence), population count (severity) and infested 

farm (prevalence) were summarized as means for all farms surveyed and standard errors were calculated. 

Mealy bug population was counted from corm and roots of infested enset plant. 

Prevalence= (NIF/NTF) ×100, where, 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 12(1): 23-34 

 

 
26 

© 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 NIF is the number of infested farms that represents the total number of farms that were found to have mealybug 

infestations during the survey or observation period; NTF is the number of total visited farm that refers to the overall 

number of farms that were surveyed or visited to assess the presence of mealy bug infestation. 

Incidence = (NI/NT) ×100, where, NI is the number of infested plants that indicates the number of individual 

plants that were found to be infested by mealy bug pest; NT is the number of total observed plants that represents 

the total number of plants that were examined during the survey or study. Table 1 illustrates number of surveyed 

sample farms from each district. From South Ari sixty five (65) farms and from North Ari 30 farms were observed. 

Totally Ninety five (95) farms were visited.  Figure 2 illustrates data collection procedure through field observation 

and interview in both districts that (A) represents North Ari and (B) represents South Ari woreda. 

 

Table 1. Distribution of surveyed farms per districts.  

Districts Number of farms 

South Ari 65 

North Ari 30 
Total 95 

 

 

 
Figure 2. Field observation of Enset root mealybug (A) North Ari (B) South Ari. 

 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 12(1): 23-34 

 

 
27 

© 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

3. RESULTS  

3.1. Prevalence and Incidence of Enset Root Mealybug in North and South Ari Zone 

Table 2 illustrates the prevalence and incidence of Enset Root Mealybug in sampled kebeles of North and South 

Ari woredas. The prevalence (percentage of farms affected) and incidence (percentage of infected enset plants) vary 

significantly among kebeles of North Ari. The highest prevalence (100%) was recorded in Zitna Dawa and Shama 

Bulketi, indicating that all farms in these kebeles are affected. Ayika Salmi showed no mealy bug infestation, with 0% 

prevalence and incidence. Ambi had a low prevalence (20%) but an extremely high incidence (88%), suggesting severe 

infestation on fewer farms. The overall mean prevalence for North Ari is 60%, and the mean incidence is 42%, showing 

that over half of the farms and a considerable portion of enset plants are affected. 

In South Ari District: The prevalence ranged widely, with Ayida showing 100% prevalence and 88% incidence. 

Wosat and Mendir had the lowest prevalence (28.57% and 25%, respectively) and low incidence values (12.5%). The 

mean prevalence in South Ari is 46.88%, and the mean incidence is 37.81%. While South Ari has a slightly lower 

prevalence and incidence than North Ari, individual kebeles (e.g., Ayida) still show significant infestation. Across both 

districts, the grand mean prevalence is 53.44%, and the grand mean incidence is 39.91%, indicating that over half of 

the farms and a significant number of plants are affected across the region (Table 2).  

Figure 3 illustrates the summary of prevalence and incidence of Enset Root Mealybug in North and South Ari 

woredas. In North Ari District, the average prevalence rate stands at 60%, with an incidence rate averaging 42%. 

Meanwhile, South Ari District reports a slightly lower mean prevalence of 46.88%, accompanied by an incidence rate 

of 37.81%. When considering the region as a whole, the combined average reveals a mean prevalence of 53.44% and 

an incidence rate of 39.91%, reflecting the overall health landscape across both districts. 

 

Table 2. Distribution, prevalence and incidence of Enset root mealybug in selected enset producing kebeles of North and South Ari districts, 
Ari zone. 

Districts Kebele % of farms with enset 

root mealybug 

(Prevalence) (%) 

% of enset plant infected by Enset 

root mealybug (Incidence) 

North Ari 

  

Zitna dawa 100 68 

Gasina Zama 80 28 

Ayika Salmi 0 0 

Shama Bulketi 100 34 

Kellet 60 36 

Ambi 20 88 

Mean 60 42 

South Ari Aynalalem 50 65 

Mendir 25 12.5 

Muti 30 14 

Ayida 100 88 

Gedir 37.5 52.5 

Dordora 44 40 

Del 60 18 

Wosat 28.57 12.5 

Mean  46.88 37.81 

Grand mean 53.44 39.91 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 12(1): 23-34 

 

 
28 

© 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
Figure 3. Prevalence and incidence of Enset root mealybug in selected study districts of Ari zone. 

 

3.2. Effect of Altitude on Enset Mealy Bug Distribution and Incidence 

Figure 4 illustrates the altitude of surveyed farms varied considerably between the districts. The highest-altitude 

farms were recorded in North Ari District, with an average of 2430 m.a.s.l., while farms in South Ari District had a 

mean altitude of 2067 m.a.s.l. The highest altitude point measured was 2860 m.a.s.l., and the lowest point was 1580 

m.a.s.l. Altitude was found to influence the distribution and incidence of enset root mealy bug, as the relationship 

between the percentage of infested plants and altitude was quite apparent during the survey period. Across both 

districts, the highest percentage of infested farms (70%) was recorded in the altitude range from 1681 m.a.s.l. to 2200 

m.a.s.l. Enset root mealy bug infestation decreased as altitudes increased. During the survey period, farms located at 

higher altitudes (typically above 2400 m.a.s.l.) had fewer mealy bugs, while those at lower altitudes (mainly from 1681 

m.a.s.l. to 2200 m.a.s.l.) were more infested by the pest (Figure 4). 

 

 
Figure 4. Effect of altitude on Enset mealybug infestation. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 12(1): 23-34 

 

 
29 

© 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

3.3. Distribution of Enset Root Mealy Bug Population on Enset Plant Parts 

Figure 5 illustrates the number of mealy bugs found on different parts of enset plants sampled from 50 plants. 

Approximately 20 mealy bugs were observed on the corms, and fewer (about 10) were found on the roots. The total 

count of mealy bugs across both parts is about 30, reflecting the sum of the bugs found on the corm and roots. The 

pest distribution on different plant parts highlights its preference for specific areas like roots and corms, which might 

suggest targeted management practices. The infestation was more significant on the corm than on the roots (Figure 

5). This suggests that control measures may need to focus on the corm, as it is the most infested part. 

 

 
Figure 5. Distribution of enset root mealybug population on corm and roots of enset plants. 

 

3.4. Farmers' Awareness and Practices 

Table 3 illustrates farmers' awareness and practices toward enset root mealy bug. Farmers identified Enset 

bacterial wilt and rot (61%) as the most severe pest challenge, with mealy bugs (8.42%) being less prioritized, possibly 

due to a lack of awareness. Other challenges include mole rats (18.95%), termites (11.58%), and enset root mealybugs 

(8.42%), but they are less prominent compared to bacterial wilt and rot. 

An overwhelming 93.68% of farmers do not know about the threat of enset mealybugs or their damage symptoms, 

suggesting a significant lack of awareness that could hinder timely intervention. Only 6.32% of respondents are aware 

of the mealy bug threat, highlighting a gap in education or extension services. Few farmers identified mealy bug-

related damage symptoms: Retarded plant growth (50%) and dried outer leaves (33.33%) were the most recognized 

symptoms. Death of the whole plant was rarely noted (16.66%). No one mentioned "Reduced number of roots" as a 

symptom, possibly reflecting limited knowledge of root-level impacts. Pest infestations are perceived to be most 

severe during the dry season (93.68%), indicating that climatic conditions may exacerbate pest problems during this 

time. Only 6.32% associate pest severity with the wet season. Most farmers relied on themselves (75.79%) for enset 

farming, while some got help from model farmers (17.89%) and the Development Agent (DA) or research centers 

(6.32%). Pest infestations are perceived to be most severe on young crop growth stage (93.68%), indicating that stage 

of the crop may facilitate pest problems during this stage. Only 6.32% of respondent farmers associate pest severity 

with the old growth stage of enset crop (Table 3). 

Despite this, 62.11% of farmers would exchange planting materials with other farmers or markets, indicating 

some level of engagement in the spread of pest populations, even though many may not be aware of the risks. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 12(1): 23-34 

 

 
30 

© 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Interestingly, most farmers do not burn debris after cleaning the field (92.63%), a possible route for mealy bug spread. 

In terms of pest control, cultural practices (36.84%) are the most common management approach, while many farmers 

(63.15%) do nothing to manage pests. Chemical control and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) are not widely 

practiced (0%) (Table 3). 

 

Table 3. Farmers perception on enset root mealybug in comparison with other challenging enset pests.  

Asked questions  Variables Frequency Percentage 

What are major pest challenges do you 
experience in enset farming? 

Enset bacterial wilt and rot  58 61 
Enset root mealybug 8 8.42 
Mole rat 18 18.95 
Termite 11 11.58 

Do you know threat of enset mealy bug and 
their damage symptom? 

Yes  6 6.32 
No  89 93.68 

How do you identify damage symptoms 
from healthy plant? 

Death of the whole plant parts 1 16.66 
Dried outer leaves 2 33.33 
Reduced number of roots  0 0 
Retarded plant growth  3 50 

In which season the pest infestation severe? Dry season 89 93.68 
Wet season 6 6.32 

On which crop growth stage of enset 
infestation severe? 

Young stage 89 93.68 
Old age 6 6.32 

From where did you get support on enset 
farming?  
 

Developmental agents and 
research center 

6 63.12 

Model farmers 17 17.89 
Myself  72 75.79 

Would you exchange planting materials 
with another farmers and market? 

Yes 59 62.11 
No 36 37.89 

Would you do burning of debris after 
cleaning the field? 

Yes 7 7.37 
No 88 92.63 

What management option do you use?  Chemical 0 0 
Cultural practices  35 36.84 
Integrated pest management 0 0 
No intervention 60 63.15 

 

4. DISCUSSION 

4.1. Prevalence and Incidence of Enset Root Mealybug  

Field survey was made in the current study areas to assess the prevalence, distribution, incidence and infestation 

of enset root mealybug as well as farmer’s awareness on the prevalence and impacts of the pest. 

In the present study, the prevalence of enset root mealybug in both North and South Ari Districts ranged from 

0% (in Ayika Salmi) to 100% (in Zitna Dawa and Ayida), with an overall mean prevalence of 53.44% and incidence of 

39.91%. Previous studies have reported varying levels of mealy bug infestation in other regions, with some studies in 

Ethiopia indicating similar or higher infestation rates. For example, a study by Teshome, et al. [23] in southern 

Ethiopia found a prevalence of 45–80% in enset-growing areas, which aligns closely with these findings. Similarly, 

Gebrehiwot, et al. [24] reported that the prevalence of mealy bug infestation varied significantly depending on local 

agricultural practices, climate, and altitude, reinforcing the relationship between pest distribution and environmental 

factors. A study conducted by Teshome, et al. [23] found that the enset root mealybug pest was present in various 

enset-growing areas.  

A study by Getu and Abate [25] found that the prevalence of enset root mealybug could reach as high as 70-

80% in some regions whereas; the incidence of the pest has been reported to be as high as 50-60% in some region. 

 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 12(1): 23-34 

 

 
31 

© 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

4.2. Altitude and Mealybug Infestation 

Altitude likely plays a role in the distribution and severity of mealybug infestation. Higher infestations may 

correlate with specific altitudinal ranges that favor the pest's survival and reproduction. The effect of altitude on 

mealy bug distribution in this study is consistent with findings from other studies. The study observed that the 

highest infestations occurred between 1681 m.a.s.l. and 2200 m.a.s.l., with a decline at higher altitudes. This supports 

previous research such as that by Mulugeta, et al. [26] who found that pests like mealybugs are more prevalent at 

lower altitudes, where warmer temperatures favor their survival and reproduction. Higher altitudes, where 

temperatures are cooler, were less conducive to pest outbreaks, confirming the findings in this study. This altitude-

related pattern has been noted in several pest management studies in tropical and subtropical regions, which suggest 

that environmental conditions are crucial for pest dynamics. 

 

4.3. Distribution of Enset Root Mealybug Population on Enset Plant Parts and its Impacts 

Regarding, the density and distribution of enset root mealybug on enset plant, most of insect were recorded from 

the corms followed by roots. Addis [27] reported that most of the insect has found on the upper parts of the corm 

and the roots within a 20 cm radius of soil. The number of enset root mealy bug collected from the enset plant from 

study field were fewer in number when compared with study conducted in another location. However, the highest 

number of farm infested with enset root mealybug was observed in the study areas. For now, low population of enset 

root mealy bug recorded might not expect to cause threat to enset farming. Furthermore, Farmers' awareness on the 

presence of enset root mealybug on their field and its impact is very low. They consider as no substantial threat to 

enset farming from enset root mealybugs even when exist. Most farmers in the zone were exchange planting materials 

and allowing debris left on the field as source of fertilizer for live plant. These improper practices may cause the 

symptom complexity of enset root mealybug with major known pests such as Enset bacterial wilt, rot diseases, mole 

rat and termites as major challenges in enset production. The exchange of infested planting materials, less experience 

on burning of plant debris and lack of information on the pests among farmers do pose an additional risk for the 

spread/dispersal of the pest and occasional building up of the pest populations at the level of causing threat to enset 

farming. The pest distribution on different plant parts highlights its preference for specific areas like roots and corms, 

which might suggest monitoring and early detection of mealybug infestations and targeted management practices 

that could help to mitigate the spread of the pest and reduce crop losses. 

According to Hailu, et al. [28] an infestation of mealybugs on enset can reduce yields by up to 40-50% in severely 

affected areas, leading to considerable economic losses for smallholder farmers who rely on the crop for subsistence 

and income. The enset root mealybug infests the roots and corm of enset plants, causing a reduced number of roots, 

reduced pseudo stem circumference, dried outer leaves, retarded plant growth and occasional death of the plant and 

reduced plant yields. Addis, et al. [29] reported that reduced plant yields critically affect the smallholders’ food 

security and livelihood, and the overall farming sustainability in this region. 

 

4.4. Farmer’s Awareness, Perception and Practices on Enset Root Mealybug  

While mealy bugs were not perceived as the most serious threat by most farmers in this study, with Enset 

bacterial wilt and rot (61%) being considered more damaging, this is consistent with findings from Tamrat, et al. 

[30]. In their study, farmers in southern Ethiopia also ranked bacterial wilt and other diseases as more critical than 

insect pests. This could be due to the widespread nature of bacterial diseases and their visible impact on enset plants, 

whereas mealy bugs, which often cause root damage and are less conspicuous, may be underreported or misidentified.  

This study found a significant lack of awareness among farmers about the threat of enset root mealybugs, with 

93.68% of farmers unaware of the pest’s impact. This is consistent with other studies conducted in the Horn of Africa, 

where a gap in pest awareness and knowledge often leads to ineffective pest management practices. Hailu, et al. [31] 

observed similar results in their study in southern Ethiopia, where the majority of farmers did not recognize enset 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 12(1): 23-34 

 

 
32 

© 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

root mealy bugs as a major pest, often attributing crop failure to other factors like disease or environmental stress. 

Furthermore, their research highlighted the importance of farmer education and extension services in pest 

management, an area where this study also points to the need for improvement. 

The lack of knowledge observed here correlates with low intervention rates. Efforts should be made towards 

awareness creation to farmers and experts on the prevalence and importance of the major pests in general and enset 

root mealy bug specifically. Teach farmers on the specific characteristics of the pest including biology and ecology of 

enset root mealybug, symptom, spread route and its management practices is very important. Implementation of 

sustainable management such as proper seedling (suckers) preparation, development of resistance varieties, and 

implementation of improved agronomic practices such as field cleaning and burning of debris should be demonstrated. 

In general, we recommended that awareness creation with integrated approach is required in the areas which score 

highest prevalence and incidence to manage the enset root mealybug pest in the zone for sustainable production of 

the enset crop. In this study, cultural practices (36.84%) were the most common management method, while 63.15% 

of farmers did not implement any pest control measures. This finding is in line with Alemayehu, et al. [32] who noted 

that farmers often rely on traditional methods such as crop rotation or manual removal of pests, rather than chemical 

or integrated pest management (IPM) approaches. The low use of chemical control (0%) and IPM (0%) in this study 

mirrors the situation in other enset-growing regions, where there is limited access to pesticides or knowledge of IPM 

strategies. This suggests that while farmers may be aware of cultural practices, there is a lack of capacity and resources 

to implement more advanced or scientifically-backed pest management techniques.  

 

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 

The enset root mealybug remains a significant threat to enset cultivation in Ethiopia, affecting both smallholder 

farmers' food security and their income. This study aimed to assess the prevalence, incidence, and impact of enset root 

mealybug along with current management practices, to develop sustainable solutions for enset farming in the study 

area and similar agro ecologies. This study results aligns with previous research in terms of the distribution and 

severity of enset root mealybug infestations, the role of environmental factors like altitude, and the limited awareness 

and management practices among farmers.  

The findings underscore the importance of improving pest awareness, enhancing extension services, and 

adopting more sustainable pest management strategies, such as IPM, to mitigate the impact of pests on enset 

production. This reinforces the conclusions of earlier studies, highlighting a need for greater farmer education and 

practical pest management interventions. Many farmers lack sufficient knowledge about the pest's biology and 

effective control measures.  

Integrated and sustainable approaches are needed to combat this pest effectively. High Infestation Levels 

observed during this study shows Mealy bug prevalence and incidences are widespread in both districts, with some 

kebeles experiencing severe impacts. Farmers show limited knowledge of mealy bug damage and minimal adoption 

of effective management practices. Expanding training and extension services on pest management, particularly 

focusing on integrated pest management (IPM) techniques and strictly controls on planting material exchange are 

crucial and can help farmer’s better control the mealy bug.  

Monitoring and early detection of mealy bug infestations could help mitigate the spread of the pest and reduce 

crop losses. Collaboration between government agencies, research institutions, and farmers is crucial for improving 

pest management practices and promoting sustainable agricultural practices. 

 

 

 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 12(1): 23-34 

 

 
33 

© 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.    
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. 
Transparency: The authors declare that the manuscript is honest, truthful and transparent, that no important 
aspects of the study have been omitted and that all deviations from the planned study have been made clear. 
This study followed all rules of writing ethics. 
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. 
Authors’ Contributions: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study. All 
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. 

 

REFERENCES 

[1] G. Taye, Y. Tsehaye, and T. Woldemariam, "Agricultural practices and enset cultivation in Southwestern Ethiopia," 

East African Agricultural Research Journal, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 103-115, 1967.  

[2] Y. Tsehaye and F. Kebebew, "The propagation and management of enset in Ethiopia," Enset: A Food Security Crop, vol. 

44, no. 3, pp. 105-113, 2006.  

[3] Y. Zerihun, M. Hussein, D. Mulugeta, A. Temesgen, and B. Guy, "Enset (Ensete ventricosum) clone selection by farmers 

and their cultural practices in Southern Ethiopia," Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 1- 16, 2013.  

[4] M. Mitiku, Z. Yemataw, and T. Dejene, "Community mobilization and awareness creation for the management of enset 

bacterial Wilt (Xanthomonas campestris pv. musacearum) Disease in Essera District, Dawro Zone, Ethiopia," Journal 

Plant Pathology Microbiology, vol. 13, no. 9, p. 636, 2022.  

[5] Z. Yemataw, A. Mitiku, and G. Taye, "Enset cultivation in Southern Ethiopia: Current status and future challenges," 

African Agricultural Review, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 150-160, 2018.  

[6] S. A. Brandt et al., "The tree against hunger," Enset-Based Agricultural Systems in Ethiopia. American Association for 

the Advancement of Science,  University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries, p. 56, 1997.  

[7] A. Tsegaye and P. C. Struik, "Agronomic practices in enset farming systems of southern Ethiopia," Field Crops Research, 

vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 65-74, 2001.  

[8] A. Mohammed, A. Daba, and F. Jemal, "Socio-economic importance of enset in Southern Ethiopia," Journal of Economic 

Botany, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 255-265, 2013.  

[9] A. Kavian, S. Yadollahi, and M. Amini, "Enset (Ensete ventricosum) and its role in sustainable agriculture: A case study 

in Southern Ethiopia," Agricultural Sustainability Review, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 75-84, 2017.  

[10] A. Woldetensaye, "Enset cultivation and its importance for environmental sustainability in Ethiopia," African Journal of 

Environmental Studies, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 190-198, 2001.  

[11] B. Tesfaye, "The effects of pests and diseases on enset production in Ethiopia," International Journal of Plant Protection, 

vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 101-108, 2008.  

[12] W. Mekuria, A. Amare, and C. Alemayehu, "Assessment of bacterial wilt (Xanthomonas campestris pv. musacearum) of 

enset in Southern Ethiopia," African Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 11, no. 19, pp. 1724–1733, 2016.  

[13] R. Shank and S. Chernet, "Enset bacterial wilt: A serious disease affecting enset production in Ethiopia " Phytopathology 

Journal, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 33-39, 1996.  

[14] C. McKnight, "Integrated management of bacterial wilt of Enset (Ensete ventricosum (Welw.) Cheesman) caused by 

Xanthomonas campestris pv. musacearum in Ethiopia," Enset Bacterial wilt Annual Report, 11-283, 2013.  

[15] H. Fikre, "Community based integrated management of enset bacterial wilt through collective action in Hallo Hartume, 

Gedeb," International Journal of Science and Research, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 2213-2219, 2017.  

[16] A. Z. Ambachew Zerfu, S. L. G. Sintayehu Legesse Gebre, G. B. Gezahegn Berecha, and K. G. Kefelegn Getahun, 

"Assessment of spatial distribution of enset plant diversity and enset bacteria wilt using geostatistical techniques in Yem 

special district, Southern Ethiopia," Environmental Systems Research vol. 7, no. 1, p. 23, 2018.  

[17] H. Befekadu, C. Fininsa, and H. Terefe, "Distribution and management of bacterial wilt (Xanthomonas campestris pv. 

Musacearum) of Enset in Ethiopia " Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural Science, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 40-53, 2020.  

[18] A. G. Temesgen, A. Tesfaye, and A. Teshome, "Impact of enset root mealybug on smallholder food security and farming 

sustainability in Southern Ethiopia," International Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 45-55, 2008.  



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 12(1): 23-34 

 

 
34 

© 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

[19] D. Lemawork, B. Tesfaye, and S. Tsegaye, "Impact of the enset root mealybug (Cataenococcus ensete) on enset 

production in Southern Ethiopia," Pest Management Science, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 482-488, 2011.  

[20] F. Azerefegne et al., "An IPM guide for Enset root mealybug (Cataenococcus ensete) in Enset production," Journal of 

Pest Management, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 120-130, 2009.  

[21] T. Tadesse, G. Mekuria, and Y. Tsehaye, "Field trial on enset root mealybug control using Militia ferruginea extract in 

Southern Ethiopia," Crop Protection, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 150-157, 2010.  

[22] G. Mesele, A. Tsegaye, and P. C. Struik, "Integrated pest management for enset root mealybug control: A review of 

practices in Southern Ethiopia," Crop Protection, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 693-700, 2010.  

[23] A. Teshome, S. Tsegaye, and B. Hailu, "The prevalence and distribution of enset root mealybug (Cataenococcus ensete) 

in different enset-growing regions of Southern Ethiopia," African Entomology, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 25-30, 2014.  

[24] H. Gebrehiwot, G. Mulugeta, and M. Hailu, "Distribution of enset root mealybug in Ethiopia: Impact of local practices, 

climate, and altitude," African Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 215-225, 2020.  

[25] M. Getu and T. Abate, "Assessment of enset root mealy bug prevalence in Southern Ethiopia," Journal of Entomological 

Research, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 92-100, 2015.  

[26] G. Mulugeta, A. Teshome, and M. Zeleke, "The effect of altitude on the distribution of enset root mealy bug 

(Cataenococcus ensete) in Southern Ethiopia," Tropical Agriculture Journal, vol. 97, no. 2, pp. 105-112, 2019.  

[27] T. Addis, "Biology of enset root mealybug (Cataenococcus ensete) Williams and Matile-Ferrero (Homoptera: 

Pseudococcidae) and its geographical distribution in Southern Ethiopia," Doctoral Dissertation, Alemaya University, 

2005.  

[28] G. Hailu, T. Degefu, and M. Tadesse, "Impact of the enset root mealy bug on the production of enset in Ethiopia: A case 

study from the Kembata and Hadiya zones," African Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 1999-2008, 2017.  

[29] T. Addis, F. Azerefegne, and G. Blomme, "Density and distribution on enset root mealybugs on enset," African Crop 

Science Journal, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 67-74, 2008.  https://doi.org/10.4314/acsj.v16i1.54344 

[30] E. Tamrat, A. Alemayehu, and T. Wondimu, "Perception of enset farming communities toward pests in Southern 

Ethiopia," Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 130-140, 2018.  

[31] S. Hailu, A. Lemma, and G. Mulugeta, "Farmers' perception and awareness of enset root mealy bug as a pest in Southern 

Ethiopia," Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 125-134, 2022.  

[32] M. Alemayehu, G. Tesfaye, and M. Mengistu, "Farmers' pest management practices in Southern Ethiopia: A case study 

of enset-growing regions," Agricultural Systems, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 50-60, 2020.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Current Research in Agricultural Sciences shall not be responsible or 
answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 

 

https://doi.org/10.4314/acsj.v16i1.54344

