A meta‐analysis of the effects of Strigacontrol methods on maize, sorghum, and major millets production in sub‐Saharan Africa

Parasitic Strigaweeds severely damage cereal crops in sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA), leading to yield losses in susceptible varieties. A range of Strigacontrol methods are commonly recommended, including cultural practices, chemical herbicides, biological control agents, and host resistance, either as solo treatments or in combinations of these approaches (i.e., integrated Strigamanagement [ISM]). A limited number of studies compared the relative efficacy of the recommended Strigacontrol methods, or their combinations for ISM, in cereal crop production in SSA. The objective of this paper was to undertake a meta‐analysis and provide a detailed comparison of the Strigacontrol methods in the production of maize, sorghum, and the major millets, as a guide to effective Strigamanagement. The study was conducted as a meta‐analysis of 66 research articles that reported on various control measures. The following agronomic data were collected: grain yield (GY) response of the assessed crops and Strigaparameters such as damage rating score (SDR) and emergence count (SEC). Maize varieties possessing Striga‐resistant genes displayed high mean yield values at 2053.00 kg ha−1, varying from 281.00 to 6260.00 kg ha−1, and a mean SDR of 4.70, ranging from 2.00 to 7.00. Likewise, sorghum varieties with Strigaresistance genes achieved greater GY with a mean yield response of 1738.00 kg ha−1, ranging from 850.00 to 2162.00 kg ha−1. A relatively low GY was achieved in maize and sorghum production when deploying ISM (e.g., cultural control + host resistance and host resistance + chemical herbicides) and chemical Strigacontrol. Effective ISM and pre‐ and post‐emergent herbicides have not yet been identified for Strigacontrol and yield gains. Strigadamage negatively affected GY in maize, as revealed by the significant correlation (r= −0.36, P< 0.001) between GY and SDR. A relatively weak correlation was detected in maize between GY and SEC (r= 0.003, P= 0.96). Sorghum GY was negatively correlated with SEC, although nonsignificantly (r= −0.30, P= 0.36). Few studies have evaluated Strigacontrol methods in pearl millet and finger millet, limiting the opportunity for an effective comparison. The study recommends SDR as the best selection criterion for improving GY performance in maize, while SEC and SDR are the parameters of choice in sorghum selection programs for better GY under Strigainfestation. Overall, the meta‐analysis indicates that host resistance is the most effective method for controlling Strigainfestation and boosting GY in maize and sorghum. There is an ongoing need for research into the best combinations of the reported control methods as a sound basis for the recommendation of an ISM package across target production environments of common cereals in Africa. Maize and sorghum varieties that are resistant to Strigadisplayed high mean yield values under Strigainfestation.Effective ISM and pre‐and post‐emergent herbicides have not yet been identified for Strigacontrol and yield gains.Host resistance is the most effective method for controlling Strigaand boosting yield in maize and sorghum.There is a need to investigate the best combinations of the reported control methods to recommend an ISM package.Few studies have evaluated Strigacontrol methods in pearl millet and finger millet limiting effective comparison.