







































 

 

 
96 

© 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Integrated management of pigeon pea pests improves yields in Kenya   

 

 

Joseph Mutunga 
Mulwa1+ 
Matolo Nyamai2 
John Huria Nderitu3 
Lusike Wasilwa4 
Muo Kasina5 

1National Sericulture Research Centre, Kenya Agricultural and Livestock 
Research Organization, Thika, Kenya. 
1Email: josemulwa0009@gmail.com  
2,5Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (Kabete), 
Nairobi, Kenya. 
2Email: matolonyamai@gmail.com  
5Email: Muo.Kasina@kalro.org  
3National Potato Council of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya. 
3Email: hurianderitu@gmail.com  
4Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (HQ), 
Nairobi, Kenya. 
4Email: Lusike.Wasilwa@kalro.org  

 

 
(+ Corresponding author) 

 ABSTRACT 
 
Article History 
Received: 7 February 2025 
Revised: 13 June 2025 
Accepted: 30 June 2025 
Published: 21 July 2025 
 

Keywords 
Agroecological zone 
Aphids 
Chemical control 
Helicoverpa amigera 
Integrated pest management 
Pigeon pea 
Yields. 

 
This study was conducted in lower eastern Kenya to compare the impact of various 
management practices on pigeon pea pests. Six and eight farms planted with pigeon 
pea crops were used in seasons one and two, respectively, based on Agro-Ecological 
Zones (UM & LM). In each farm, three plots were established where pests were 
managed using integrated pest management (IPM), farmer practice (FP), or control 
without pest management, as a check. Results showed a highly significant 

difference (p<.001) in the pigeon pea grain yields with 1.66±0.041; 0.91±0.042 tons 
per Ha for UM and LM Agro-ecological zones, respectively. An increase of 43.29% 
and 52.35% in the number of pods was recorded in IPM and FP-managed plots, 
respectively, compared with the control. Furthermore, pod weight (g) for the IPM 
plot increased by 39.24%, while in the FP-managed plots, it increased by 48.22%. 
Additionally, grain weight (g) increased by 34.77% in the IPM and by 51.60% in 
the FP-managed plots. A significant (p=0.05) increase in percent protein content 
was recorded, with 16.85%, 16.67%, and 14.64% from FP, IPM, and control-
managed plots, respectively. Pest management is a key input in pigeon pea 
production, and farmers need to manage pests for improved yields. 
 

Contribution/Originality: Integrated pest management methods applied were based on scouting decisions 

on the farm. The results provide farmers with clear evidence of the effectiveness of scouting and the benefits of 

IPM when applied across all crop pest challenges. 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L. Millsp.) is a protein-rich grain leguminous plant, serving as a source of fuel, 

fodder, fencing material, and contributing to soil fertility while helping to manage soil erosion [1]. High 

nutritive value has been attributed to the grains [2] as food, whereas the foliage is extensively used as fodder 

and feed for livestock [3].  

Pigeon pea yields in African nations are very low, with Kenya producing an average of 0.40 tons per hectare 

[4] Uganda 0.45 tons per hectare [5] and Nigeria 0.7 tons per hectare [6] since 2004, this is in contrast to the 

Current Research in Agricultural Sciences 
2025 Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 96-101 
ISSN(e): 2312-6418 
ISSN(p): 2313-3716 
DOI: 10.18488/cras.v12i1.4305 
© 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 

mailto:josemulwa0009@gmail.com
mailto:matolonyamai@gmail.com
mailto:Muo.Kasina@kalro.org
mailto:hurianderitu@gmail.com
mailto:Lusike.Wasilwa@kalro.org
https://www.doi.org/10.18488/cras.v12i1.4305


Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 12(1): 96-101 

 
97 

© 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

average yield potential of between 1.5 and 2.5 t ha−1, observed in India, and up to 3 t ha−1 in Malawi [7]. The 

reduced grain yield may be attributed to biotic and abiotic pressures, which include drought, diseases, insect 

pests, lack of quality seeds, and poor production practices, among others [8].  

Reductions in crop yields due to pests (insects, mites, pathogens, and weeds) have been a significant risk to 

the incomes of rural populations and global food security [9]. Insect pests have been described as causing 15-

25% destruction in pigeon pea in India [10]. In Africa, a study conducted on pigeon pea in Nigeria documented 

a significant 78% yield loss caused by pod-sucking bugs [11].  

Seed damage caused by pod-sucking bugs in Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, and Uganda ranged from 3% to 32% 

and varied among locations, within and between countries [12]. Disease losses in pigeon pea have been projected 

at 5-10% in India. [10] with the recent work by Sharma et al. [13] specifying that Fusarium wilt, a severe 

disease in major pigeon pea production regions of the world, could cause yield reductions ranging from 18.86% 

to 54.24%. Previous studies have reported that the yield loss in a pigeon pea monocrop due to weeds was between 

32% and 90% [14].  

 

2. METHODOLOGY 

This study was conducted in Machakos County, Lower Eastern Kenya (Figure 1). The county is situated 

within latitudes 0° 45’ south and 1° 31’ south, and longitudes 36° 45’ east and 37° 45’ east, in a region 

characterized by semi-arid to arid climates [15]. Temperatures vary between 9.1 and 26.70C, and rainfall ranges 

from 500 mm to 900 mm annually. The county is situated at an altitude of 1,000 to 1,600 meters above sea level 

[16].  

Pigeon pea, variety Mbaazi II, seeds treated with Thiram to protect against soil-borne pathogens, were 

sourced from KALRO - Katumani for planting in farmers' fields. Sowing of pigeon pea seeds was undertaken at 

the onset of the October-December rains, with row-to-row spacing of 100 cm and plant-to-plant spacing of 50 

cm [1]. 

 

 
Figure 1. Study site map (Matolo Nyamai, 2023). 

 

2.1. Experimental Design  

The trial was conducted in a farmland. Each farm served as a block. The experiment was replicated across 

eight farms in season one (October 2020 – September 2021), with four farms in each Agro-Ecological Zone 

(AEZ), UM and LM. In season two (November 2021 – September 2022), it was replicated in six farms, with 

three farms in each AEZ (UM and LM). Each farm, planted with pigeon pea, was divided into three plots 

separated by five-meter buffer strips with pigeon pea crops. Treatments in each farm included pigeon pea with 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 12(1): 96-101 

 
98 

© 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

integrated pest management (IPM), a crop where pest management was performed according to farmers’ 

practices (use of synthetic insecticides, non-IPM), and a control without pest management. 

Total grain yields were determined for each treatment at harvest, where forty plants were randomly 

selected, and dry pods were harvested. Yield parameters included pods per plant, weight (g) of pods per plant, 

number and weight (g) of seeds per plant. Yield data from different pest management practices were subjected 

to analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine whether significant differences existed among the means [17].  

 

3. RESULTS 

Highly significant differences (p<.001) in number and weight (g) of pigeon pea pods and grains were 

recorded in different agroecological zones (UM and LM). Upper midland zone had increased percentage of pods 

(35.71%), weight (g) of pods (43.71%), number of grains (69.61%) and weight (g) of grains (45.39%) per pigeon 

pea plant. Grain yields of 0.91 tons and 1.66 tons per hectare in LM AEZ and UM AEZ, respectively, were 

recorded. This translates to an 82.42% increase in pigeon pea yields under UM AEZ compared to LM AEZ 

(Table 1). 

 

Table 1. Mean number and weight (g) of pigeon pea pods and grains for different Agro ecological zones (AEZ), combined for seasons 
one & two in Machakos County, Kenya. 

AEZ No of pods 
per plant 

Weight (g) of 
pods per plant 

No of grains 
per plant 

Weight (g) of 
grains per plant 

Weight (Tons) of grains 
per Ha 

LM 72.28±3.16 75.20±3.45 278.4±12.61 45.44±2.12 0.91±0.042 
UM 112.42±2.73 133.60±3.16 472.2±12.05 83.21±2.10 1.66±0.041 
t- value -9.61 -12.48 -11.11 -12.66 -12.66 
df 1343 1384 1361 1361 1361 
p- value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 

 

Combined pigeon pea yields for both cropping seasons showed highly significant differences (p<0.001) in 

the number and weight (g) of pigeon pea pods and grains. The mean number of pods in the control, IPM, and 

FP managed plots were 70.28, 100.71, and 107.07, respectively. This represented a 43.30% and 52.35% increase 

in the number of pigeon pea pods per plant in the IPM and FP managed plots, respectively. Pod weight (g) per 

pigeon pea plant from the control, IPM, and FP managed plots were 81.3, 113.2, and 120.5, respectively. There 

was a highly significant difference (p<0.001) in pod weight between the treatments, translating to a 39.24% and 

48.22% increase in pod weight (g) per plant in the IPM and FP managed plots, respectively (Table 2).  

There were highly significant differences (p<0.001) in the number and weight (g) of grains per pigeon pea 

plant. Additionally, 285.2, 401.6, and 443.1 grains per plant were harvested from the control, IPM, and FP 

managed plots, respectively. This indicates that IPM resulted in a 40.81% increase, while the FP managed plot 

showed a 55.37% increase in the number of grains per pigeon pea plant. The weight (g) of grains per pigeon pea 

plant from the control, IPM, and FP managed plots were 50.19, 67.64, and 76.09, respectively. This represents 

a 34.77% increase from the IPM and a 51.60% increase from the FP managed plot per pigeon pea plant (Table 

2). 

 

Table 2. Mean number and weight (g) of pigeon pea pods and grains for different treatments, for seasons one & two in Machakos County, 
Kenya. 

Treatment 
No. of pods per 

plant 
Weight (g) of 
pods per plant 

No. of grains per 
plant 

Weight (g) of 
grains per plant 

Control 70.28±3.69b 81.30±4.25b 285.20±15.68b 50.19±2.72b 
IPM 100.71±3.61a 113.20±4.15a 401.60±15.14a 67.64±2.63a 
Farmer practice 107.07±3.64a 120.50±4.19a 443.10±15.59a 76.09±2.71a 
p value (5%) < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 
LSD (5%) 10.12 11.64 42.91 7.46 
CV (%) 84.36 85.69 87.3 88.42 

Note: The letters a and b denote groups of means that are statistically significant at the 5% level (P<0.05). 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 12(1): 96-101 

 
99 

© 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

During this study, pest management impacted the protein (%) content in pigeon pea grains harvested from 

different plots. Protein contents of 14.64%, 16.67%, and 16.85% were recorded in pigeon pea grains from the 

control, IPM, and FP managed plots, respectively. This indicated that pest management increased the protein 

content of pigeon pea by 13.8% (IPM) and 15.1% (FP) managed crops (Figure 2). 

 
Figure 2. Protein (%) in pigeon pea grains from different plots in Machakos County, Kenya. 

 

4. DISCUSSIONS 

This study noted that the Upper Midland Agroecological Zone (UM AEZ) had the highest pigeon pea yield 

in terms of the number and weight of pods and grains. Similar results have been reported for pigeon peas [18], 

although working on different AEZs (LM4 and LM5) through a survey conducted in Machakos County, Kenya, 

where LM4 had higher yields. Similar reports have been documented, indicating that agro-ecological zones 

determine crop suitability [19, 20].  

During this study, crop losses of up to 34.04% when insect pests were not managed were recorded. Although 

at a lower percentage, Sharma et al. [21] reported yield losses of 15–25% caused by pests in both pigeon pea 

and chickpea in India. However, in Kenya, most yield loss studies have been undertaken on stored grains, where 

losses as high as 50% have often been encountered in some of the important legumes such as faba bean, field pea, 

chickpea, and lentil from some aggressive storage insect pests like C. chinensis [22].  

Results from this study indicate that pest management on pigeon pea increased protein (%) content by up 

to 15.1%. This implies that pigeon pea produced under pest pressure will have low protein content, thus 

resulting in low-quality food/feed. Similarly, a protein content of 22.3% has been reported in other studies [23]. 

However, although not related to nutritional composition, pests are known to reduce the quality of farm produce, 

such as appearance, shape, size, and color [24].  Additionally, a significant amount of loss evaluation due to 

pests has been conducted on stored grains, where seeds of legumes, once damaged by storage insects, are no 

longer suitable for planting (due to poor germination) or for food and feed, owing to spoilage and bad odor [25].  



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 12(1): 96-101 

 
100 

© 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Pest management is an essential input in pigeon pea production to enhance both quantity and quality. It is 

recommended that pest management be implemented during the cultivation of pigeon peas. Additionally, the 

upper midland (UM) AEZ is preferable to the lower midland (LM) for pigeon pea production in Machakos 

County, Kenya. 

 

Funding: This research is supported by the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization 
(KALRO) (Grant number: P154784). 
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. 
Transparency: The authors state that the manuscript is honest, truthful, and transparent, that no key 
aspects of the investigation have been omitted, and that any differences from the study as planned have 
been clarified. This study followed all 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] M. A. T. Ayenan, A. Danquah, L. E. Ahoton, and K. Ofori, "Utilization and farmers’ knowledge on pigeonpea 

diversity in Benin, West Africa," Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, vol. 13, pp. 37, 2017.   

[2] K. B. Saxena, R. Vijaya Kumar, and R. Sultana, "Quality nutrition through pigeonpea—a review," Health, vol. 2, 

no. 11, pp. 1335-1344, 2010.   

[3] S. Rao, S. Coleman, and H. Mayeux, "Forage production and nutritive value of selected pigeonpea ecotypes in the 

southern great plains," Crop Science, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 1259-1263, 2002.   

[4] M. N. Makelo, "Development of pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.)] hybrids for the semi-arid Kenya," Doctoral 

Dissertation, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2011.  

[5] N. Khaki, "Evaluation of Malawi pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (l) accessions for tolerance to moisture stress and 

superior agronomic traits in Uganda," a Thesis Submitted to the Directorate of Research and Graduate Training 

in Partial Fulfilment for the Award of a Masters, Kampala: Makerere University Pp.1-110, 2014.  

[6] O. Egbe and T. Vange, "Yield and agronomic characteristics of 30 pigeon pea genotypes at Otobi in Southern 

Guinea Savanna of Nigeria," Life Science Journal, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 70-80, 2008.   

[7] FAOSTAT, Pigeonpea production in Kenya 2000-2013. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations, 2015. 

[8] G. Mergeai et al., "Survey of pigeonpea production systems, utilization and marketing in semi-arid lands of Kenya," 

Biotechnology Agronomy Social Environment, vol. 5, pp. 145-153, 2001.  

[9] S. Savary, L. Willocquet, S. J. Pethybridge, P. Esker, N. McRoberts, and A. Nelson, "The global burden of 

pathogens and pests on major food crops," Nature Ecology & Evolution, vol. 3, pp. 430-439, 2019.   

[10] O. Sharma et al., "Implementation of integrated pest management in pigeonpea and chickpea pests in major pulse-

growing areas of Maharashtra," Journal of Integrated Pest Management, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 12, 2015.   

[11] S. Dialoke et al., "Survey of insect pests on pigeonpea in Nigeria," Journal of SAT Agricultural Research, vol. 8, pp. 

1-8, 2010.  

[12] E. M. Minja, Insect pests of pigeon pea in Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania and Uganda; and grain yield losses in Kenya - a 

consultant’s report. Bulawayo, Zimbabwe: International Crops Research Institute for Semi- Arid Tropics (South. 

East. Afr. Reg.), 1997. 

[13] R. Sharma, T. Mishra, R. Bhagat, and V. Swarnkar, "Integrated disease management for Pigeonpea wilt caused by 

Fusarium udum," Agricultural Science Digest-A Research Journal, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 119-123, 2019.   

[14] A. S. Talnikar, G. Kadam, D. Karande, and P. Jogdand, "Integrated weed management in pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan 

(L.) Millsp.]," International Journal of Agricultural Science, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 363-370, 2008.  

[15] J. M. Huho, "An analysis of rainfall characteristics in Machakos County, Kenya," IOSR Journal of Environmental 

Science, Toxicology and Food Technology, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 64-72, 2017.   



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 12(1): 96-101 

 
101 

© 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

[16] K. Thiongo, J. Ngaira, and S. China, "Strategies used by farmers to cope with drought in Machakos County, 

Kenya," Journal of Applied Management Science, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 1-10, 2016.  

[17] R. Steel and J. Torrie, Principles and procedures of statistics: A biometrical approach, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 

1980. 

[18] J. M. Wambua, M. Ngigi, and M. Lutta, "Yields of green grams and pigeonpeas under smallholder conditions in 

Machakos County, Kenya," East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal, vol. 82, no. 2-4, pp. 91-117, 2017.   

[19] FAO, Agro-ecological zoning, guidelines. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 1978. 

[20] R. Jätzold and H. Kutsch, "Agro-ecological zones of the tropics, with a sample from Kenya," 1982.  

[21] O. Sharma, J. Gopali, S. Yelshetty, O. Bambawale, D. Garg, and B. Bhosle, "Pests of pigeonpea and their 

management," NCIPM, LBS Building, IARI Campus, New Delhi-110012, India, vol. 4, no. 1080, p. 

07352681003617483, 2010.  

[22] T. Damte and M. Dawd, "Chickpea, lentil and grass pea insect pest research in Ethiopia: A review," in In Food and 

Forage Legumes of Ethiopia: Progress and Prospects, Proceedings of a Workshop on Food and Forage Legumes, Addis 

Ababa, Ethiopia, 22–26 September 2003; Ali, K., Keneni, G., Ahmed, S., Malhotra, R., Beniwal, S., Makkouk, K., Halila, 

M.H., Eds.; ICARDA: Aleppo, Syria, pp. 260-273, 2006.  

[23] Anonymous. Annual Reports, AICRP on Pigeon pea. Kanpur: Indian Institute of Pulse Research, 2011. 

[24] C. Yue, F. Alfnes, and H. H. Jensen, "Discounting spotted apples: Investigating consumers' willingness to accept 

cosmetic damage in an organic product," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 29-46, 

2009.   

[25] M. Aslam, F. A. Shaheen, M. A. Abbas, and A. Saba, "Management of Callosobruchus chinensis Linnaeus through 

use of resistance in stored chickpea varieties," World Journal of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 82-84, 2006.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

 

 


