Skip to content
DIY Agriculture

Sesame — Pests and Diseases

Metadata research draftEvidence limits

⚠️ Status: metadata draft. Every DOI below is a candidate metadata record from the survey research/sesame-seeds/report.md — title and identifier only, not screened evidence. No pesticide, biological-control, or cultural-control recommendation is made here. The survey states that local Mexico pest calendars and household integrated-management guidance remain gaps (§3.5). Substantive values remain Unknown until S-#### source notes exist (docs/methodology/evidence.md). Not growing or plant-treatment advice.

Field pests vs stored pests — keep them separate

Section titled “Field pests vs stored pests — keep them separate”
  • Field pests attack the standing crop ( foliage feeders, capsule/seed feeders, vectors); stored pests infest the dried seed after harvest. They are different organisms, at different times, with different management points — field evidence says nothing about the store and vice versa. Stored-pest records live in storage.md; this page holds the field side. Evidence: Known (definitional distinction; survey §3.5 vs §3.8).

Field pest candidates

Section titled “Field pest candidates”
  • Sesame webworm: a 2018 candidate links sowing date and insecticide frequency to its management (10.1186/s40066-018-0190-4; survey §3.5). What the record establishes at metadata level: sowing date is studied as a management variable. What it does not establish: any spray, dose, timing, or date recommendation — none is made or implied here. Sowing-date links continue in planting.md.
  • Sesame seed bug: a 2011 candidate connects the bug with harvest loss (10.4314/sinet.v31i2.66645; survey §3.5). Two cautions: pest-driven seed loss is a field/harvest-time loss and must be recorded separately from capsule-dehiscence loss (see harvesting.md); and no loss magnitude, region, or method is claimed from the title.

Disease candidates

Section titled “Disease candidates”
  • Sesame phyllody phytoplasma (10.1590/s1982-56762010000500006, 2010; survey §3.5) — a candidate record on this phytoplasma disease. Vector, distribution, and management — Evidence: Unknown.
  • Charcoal rot resistance QTL (10.1038/s41598-017-08858-2, 2017; survey §3.5) — breeding-genetics evidence about resistance loci, not disease diagnosis or soil management. Practical disease pressure in a plot — Evidence: Unknown; soil-side context in soil.md.
  • Other diseases are not represented in the report shortlist; their presence and importance locally are Evidence: Unknown.

Weeds

Section titled “Weeds”
  • One weed-management extension candidate (10.32473/edis-ag396-2021, 2021; survey §3.5) — an extension-type record listed at metadata level. It is not a weeding method for this project’s plots; small-scale weed interference and hand-weeding labor — Evidence: Unknown. Weed competition ties into the density balance in planting.md.

Mexico gap

Section titled “Mexico gap”
  • The survey states: “Local Mexico pest calendars and household integrated-management guidance remain gaps” (§3.5). No regional candidate exists for pest identification, phenology, or household-level response. Which pests and diseases materially affect sesame in the intended region — Evidence: Unknown (open question 8).

Coverage limits

Section titled “Coverage limits”
  • The survey names integrated disease management among its weak areas (§7), and more than 49% of canonical records lack abstracts, limiting metadata triage.
  • The analyzer found 25 broad pest/disease/weed hits, but the page shortlist is intentionally narrow. Absence of an organism from this page says nothing about local importance.

Screening priority

Section titled “Screening priority”
  • The webworm record (10.1186/s40066-018-0190-4) is the only field-practice-adjacent candidate (sowing date as a management variable) and matters for the sowing-window question shared with planting.md.
  • The seed-bug record (10.4314/sinet.v31i2.66645) should be screened with harvest questions in mind: separating pest loss from dehiscence loss is a prerequisite for honest loss accounting in E2/E3 (harvesting.md).

Presence vs damage vs loss

Section titled “Presence vs damage vs loss”
  • Three different records, kept separate: a pest’s presence (seen on the crop), the damage it causes (plant parts affected, severity), and the loss it produces (measured seed not recovered). Presence does not imply damage; damage does not imply measurable loss. E2/E3 can only attribute loss correctly if all three are logged independently — and pest loss must stay separable from dehiscence loss (harvesting.md).

Small-scale relevance

Section titled “Small-scale relevance”
  • A household grower’s first need is a name and a calendar: what attacks the crop here, and when. That is exactly the missing layer. Until then, the workable practice is observation and record-keeping (identity, plant part, date, weather, cultivar) rather than borrowed control measures.
  • Any future control decision needs jurisdiction-authorized guidance for any chemical option; this project does not prescribe pesticides at any strength of evidence.

Unknowns and experiments

Section titled “Unknowns and experiments”
  • Regional pest/disease/weed spectrum and calendars — Evidence: Unknown (open question 8).
  • Webworm pressure as a function of sowing date locally — Evidence: Unknown (candidate unread).
  • Seed-bug contribution to harvest loss vs dehiscence-driven loss — Evidence: Unknown; Evidence: Needs experiment (E2 staged-harvest and E3 loss benchmark can separate pest loss from timing loss if pests are recorded per stage).
  • Stored-pest organisms and their local importance — Evidence: Unknown; see storage.md.
Section titled “Related pages”

Provenance

Section titled “Provenance”