IPM: Integrated Management of Insects, Diseases and Weeds in Wheat

Balanced Protection for Sustainable Harvests

IPM in wheat uses biological and cultural methods, including the release of beneficial organisms to control pests either gradually (inoculative) or immediately (inundative) during outbreaks. Techniques like altering planting times, rotating crops with rice and legumes, increasing crop density, and mass trapping with pheromones effectively manage aphids, whiteflies, thrips, and weeds while minimizing chemical inputs.

This technology is TAAT1 validated.

8•9

Scaling readiness: idea maturity 8/9; level of use 9/9

Project adoption2

Technology integrated in the CREW, and ENSURE projects.

Project	Countries	Beneficiaries	Budget (USD) & duration	Key figures
CREW Climate Resilient Wheat Value Chain Development Project	Ethiopia	Direct: 2,300,000	94.30 million African Development Bank (AfDB) 2023–2028	4 t/ha increase in wheat production 528 water pumps installed 50,000 farmer hubs equipped with laboratories 23,092 ha irrigation systems rehabilitated
ENSURE Enabling Environments for Sustainable Regional Agriculture Extension	Kenya Rwanda Burundi The Democratic Republic of the Congo South Sudan Uganda Tanzania, United Republic	Direct: 3,000,000	13.14 million African Development Bank (AfDB) 2024–2027	149,940 farmers trained 9,996 Training 2→3.5 tons/ha cereals production expected 350 agent trained

Project

Countries

Beneficiaries

Budget (USD) & duration

Key figures

CREW
Climate Resilient Wheat Value Chain Development Project

Ethiopia

Direct: 2,300,000

94.30 million

African Development Bank (AfDB)

2023–2028

4 t/ha increase in wheat production
528 water pumps installed
50,000 farmer hubs equipped with laboratories
23,092 ha irrigation systems rehabilitated

ENSURE
Enabling Environments for Sustainable Regional Agriculture Extension

Kenya
Rwanda
Burundi
The Democratic Republic of the Congo
South Sudan
Uganda
Tanzania, United Republic

Direct: 3,000,000

13.14 million

African Development Bank (AfDB)

2024–2027

149,940 farmers trained
9,996 Training
2→3.5 tons/ha cereals production expected
350 agent trained

Figures in italic are from project plans and may change during implementation.

See project details ›

Adults 18 and over: Positive high

This technology can lead to higher income and food security, fostering economic stability.

Others: Positive medium

Stakeholders such as consumers and environmentalists benefit from IPM through increased food safety and environmental protection, leading to a healthier ecosystem.

The poor: Positive high

By increasing crop yields sustainably, it enhances their economic situation.

Under 18: Positive high

It reduces pesticide exposure, leading to better health outcomes for children who may be more vulnerable to chemical exposures.

Women: Positive high

This empowerment leads to improved economic opportunities and health for themselves and their families.

Climate adaptability: Highly adaptable

IPM practices are versatile and can be tailored to various climatic conditions, making them suitable for diverse agricultural settings.

Farmer climate change readiness: Significant improvement

IPM promotes resilience by using ecological principles that enhance farmers' ability to cope with climate variability and extreme weather events.

Biodiversity: Positive impact on biodiversity

IPM practices enhance biodiversity by promoting beneficial organisms and natural pest predators, leading to healthier ecosystems.

Carbon footprint: Much less carbon released

By reducing the reliance on chemical pesticides and promoting organic practices, IPM contributes to lower carbon emissions in agricultural production.

Environmental health: Greatly improves environmental health

IPM reduces chemical runoff and pesticide residues in ecosystems, leading to improved health for flora, fauna, and humans.

Soil quality: Does not affect soil health and fertility

IPM practices, which focus on biological and cultural methods, help maintain or improve soil health without depleting its nutrients.

Problem

Persistent productivity losses: Crop pests, diseases, and weeds can limit wheat production and threaten food security.
Unsustainable pesticide dependence: Reliance on chemical control can increase costs and contribute to pesticide resistance.
Environmental degradation risks: Poor pesticide management can harm biodiversity and contaminate natural resources.
Limited adoption of integrated practices: Farmers may lack access to training and technical guidance on biological and cultural pest management.
Need for locally adapted solutions: Effective pest management requires practices suited to local pest populations, cropping systems, and agroecological conditions.
Difficulty balancing productivity and sustainability: Development initiatives need approaches that protect crop yields while supporting safer and more environmentally responsible production.

Solution

Food security support: Integrated pest management can help protect wheat yields by addressing several crop protection challenges together.
Capacity development: Training on pest identification, crop monitoring, and intervention thresholds can strengthen farmers’ ability to manage crop threats.
Environmentally responsible agriculture: Biological and cultural practices can reduce unnecessary chemical use and help protect beneficial organisms.
Locally adapted management: Crop rotation, adjusted planting times, and crop density practices can be selected according to local agronomic conditions.
Evidence-informed implementation: Pest monitoring and field assessments can help practitioners evaluate pest pressure and choose suitable interventions.
Scalable technical approach: The technology’s reported maturity and use scores suggest an established approach that development partners can assess for wider application, subject to local suitability and implementation capacity.

Key points to design your program

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) for wheat combines biological, cultural, mechanical, and targeted chemical control methods to reduce crop losses caused by insects, diseases, and weeds while minimizing dependence on synthetic pesticides. It can be integrated into wheat value chain development, food security, sustainable intensification, integrated crop protection, and climate-smart agriculture programmes. By restoring natural pest regulation, conserving beneficial organisms, and promoting evidence-based crop protection decisions, the technology improves food safety, environmental health, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable wheat production. It supports SDGs 2 (Zero Hunger), 3 (Good Health and Well-being), 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and 15 (Life on Land), while reducing health risks associated with pesticide exposure and improving the resilience and profitability of women and smallholder farmers. To successfully integrate this technology, consider the following key actions:

Identify wheat production areas where insect pests, diseases, weeds, excessive pesticide use, and pesticide resistance constrain productivity, food safety, and environmental sustainability.
Establish partnerships with ICARDA, ProPAS, national agricultural research institutions, extension services, plant protection agencies, agro-input suppliers, and farmer organizations to support pest surveillance, technical guidance, and integrated crop protection programmes.
Assess major pest, disease, and weed pressures, existing crop protection practices, beneficial organism populations, local agroecological conditions, and economic intervention thresholds to design locally adapted IPM strategies.
Strengthen technical capacity by training farmers, extension agents, and crop protection service providers on pest identification, field scouting, biological control, cultural and mechanical control practices, economic thresholds, safe pesticide use, and integrated decision-making.
Promote integrated crop protection packages by combining resistant wheat varieties, crop rotation, optimized planting dates and crop density, conservation of beneficial organisms, biological control methods, field sanitation, mechanical weed management, and targeted pesticide applications only when economically justified.
Support demonstration plots, farmer learning platforms, advisory services, and local crop protection networks to facilitate the adoption of locally adapted IPM practices and strengthen long-term technical support.
Monitor programme performance through indicators such as pesticide-use reduction, pest and disease incidence, weed pressure, crop damage, yield stability, biodiversity indicators, adoption rates, and improvements in farmer livelihoods.

17—33 %

Reduction in beetle damage

<10 %

Rust infestation reduction

35 USD per hectare

Profit generated by IPM

IP

Open source / open access

Scaling Readiness describes how complete a technology's development is and its ability to be scaled. It produces a score that measures a technology's readiness along two axes: the level of maturity of the idea itself, and the level to which the technology has been used so far.

Each axis goes from 0 to 9 where 9 is the “ready-to-scale” status. For each technology profile in the e-catalogs we have documented the scaling readiness status from evidence given by the technology providers. The e-catalogs only showcase technologies for which the scaling readiness score is at least 8 for maturity of the idea and 7 for the level of use.

The graph below represents visually the scaling readiness status for this technology, you can see the label of each level by hovering your mouse cursor on the number.

Scaling readiness score of this technology

Maturity of the idea 8 out of 9

Uncontrolled environment: tested

Level of use 9 out of 9

Common use by intended users, in the real world

Maturity of the idea										Level of use
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9

Project	Countries	Beneficiaries	Budget (USD) & duration	Key figures
CREW Climate Resilient Wheat Value Chain Development Project	Ethiopia	Direct: 2,300,000	94.30 million African Development Bank (AfDB) 2023–2028	4 t/ha increase in wheat production 528 water pumps installed 50,000 farmer hubs equipped with laboratories 23,092 ha irrigation systems rehabilitated
ENSURE Enabling Environments for Sustainable Regional Agriculture Extension	Kenya Rwanda Burundi The Democratic Republic of the Congo South Sudan Uganda Tanzania, United Republic	Direct: 3,000,000	13.14 million African Development Bank (AfDB) 2024–2027	149,940 farmers trained 9,996 Training 2→3.5 tons/ha cereals production expected 350 agent trained

Project

Countries

Beneficiaries

Budget (USD) & duration

Key figures

CREW
Climate Resilient Wheat Value Chain Development Project

Ethiopia

Direct: 2,300,000

94.30 million

African Development Bank (AfDB)

2023–2028

4 t/ha increase in wheat production
528 water pumps installed
50,000 farmer hubs equipped with laboratories
23,092 ha irrigation systems rehabilitated

ENSURE
Enabling Environments for Sustainable Regional Agriculture Extension

Kenya
Rwanda
Burundi
The Democratic Republic of the Congo
South Sudan
Uganda
Tanzania, United Republic

Direct: 3,000,000

13.14 million

African Development Bank (AfDB)

2024–2027

149,940 farmers trained
9,996 Training
2→3.5 tons/ha cereals production expected
350 agent trained

Figures in italic are from project plans and may change during implementation.

Countries with a green colour: Tested & adopted
Countries with a bright green colour: Adopted
Countries with a yellow colour: Tested
Countries with a blue colour: Testing ongoing

Countries where the technology is being tested or has been tested and adopted
Country	Testing ongoing	Tested	Adopted
Benin	–No ongoing testing	–Not tested	Adopted
Burkina Faso	–No ongoing testing	–Not tested	Adopted
Ethiopia	–No ongoing testing	–Not tested	Adopted
Kenya	–No ongoing testing	–Not tested	Adopted
Niger	–No ongoing testing	–Not tested	Adopted
Nigeria	–No ongoing testing	–Not tested	Adopted
The Republic of the Sudan	–No ongoing testing	–Not tested	Adopted
Zimbabwe	–No ongoing testing	–Not tested	Adopted

This technology can be used in the colored agro-ecological zones. Any zones shown in white are not suitable for this technology.

Agro-ecological zones where this technology can be used
AEZ	Subtropic - warm	Subtropic - cool	Tropic - warm	Tropic - cool
Arid	–	–	–	–
Semiarid	–		–
Subhumid
Humid

Source: HarvestChoice/IFPRI 2009

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals that are applicable to this technology.

Goal 2: zero hunger

Its ensures a more stable food supply and protects crops from pests, ultimately contributing to the goal of eradicating hunger.

Goal 15: life on land

IPM supports biodiversity conservation by enhancing the presence of beneficial organisms and promoting healthier ecosystems.

Goal 3: good health and well-being

By minimizing the use of harmful pesticides, IPM reduces health risks for farmers, consumers, and surrounding communities

Goal 12: responsible production and consumption

By integrating biological and cultural pest management techniques, IPM supports waste reduction and resource efficiency.

Initial Assessment:
- Identify harmful and beneficial organisms on the farm.
- Determine critical thresholds for economic injury based on community structure and growth stage.
Monitoring Pests:
- Use simple tools like traps, handheld magnifying glasses, or binocular microscopes for regular inspections.
- Employ advanced high-resolution cameras on drones for efficient surveillance of large areas.
Weed Inspection:
- Inspect weeds during emergence and tillering stages when annual broadleaf weeds are less than 1.5 inches (early season).
- Perform additional inspections during or after the harvest (post-season).
Insect and Disease Surveys:
- Conduct surveys at different growth stages, from tillering over stem extension up to flowering.
Data Analysis:
- Utilize software tools for data gathering and analysis to track pest and natural enemy development.
Threshold Evaluation:
- Once critical thresholds for harmful and beneficial organisms are reached, it's time to take action.
Selecting IPM Measures:
- Based on the assessment and monitoring, choose from a combination of biological, mechanical/physical, and cultural techniques.
Implementing Measures:
- Release natural predators and enemies to establish a balanced population.
- Utilize mechanical/physical interventions, such as equipment to deter birds or rodents, or manual pest removal.
- Employ cultural practices like precision sowing, shifting planting dates, waste removal, wildflower strips, and using pest-resistant varieties.
Special Considerations:
- Handle the introduction of new species or increasing beneficial communities with caution, as it can impact non-targeted organisms and ecosystems.
Additional Techniques:

- Employ the inoculative approach for long-term interventions, or the inundative approach for immediate pest suppression in severe outbreaks.
- Provide alternative hosts/prey or suitable nesting and feeding sites to support the reproduction and survival of natural predators and enemies.
- Reduce pest reproduction rates by releasing infecund males, disrupting breeding attempts by fertile males and females.
- Shift planting times to periods less favorable for rapid aphid multiplication.
- Rotate wheat with crops like rice, chickpea, pea, cotton, and others to suppress weed growth.
- Increase crop density and decrease row spacing to reduce weed seed output.
- Use pheromones for mass trapping, suitable for controlling pests like whiteflies and thrips.