The Effect of Agrotechnical Factors on Fusarium Mycotoxins Level in Maize
1
Department of Mathematical and Statistical Methods, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 28, 60-637 Poznań, Poland
2
Department of Agronomy, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Dojazd 11, 60-632 Poznań, Poland
3
Department of Chemistry, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 75, 60-625 Poznań, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2020, 10(11), 528; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10110528
Submission received: 18 September 2020
/
Revised: 30 October 2020
/
Accepted: 4 November 2020
/
Published: 5 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Product Quality and Safety)
Abstract
:The occurrence of diseases in the cultivation of maize (Zea mays L.) leads to the loss of grain yield and the simultaneous deterioration of its quality. Fungi of the genus Fusarium spp. pose the greatest threat to maize cultivation. These fungi occur at all stages of the plant’s development, causing Fusarium seedling blight, root rot, foot rot, and ear rot, including grains. Therefore, the aim of the conducted field studies was to determine the influence of selected agriculture factors on mycotoxin contents in maize grain and ear core. Moreover, it should be noted that the presence of mycotoxins in food products in terms of legal regulations is quite a fundamental barrier both in domestic and international trade. The field experiment was carried out at the Department of Agronomy of Poznań University of Life Sciences, on the fields of the Experimental and Educational Unit in Swadzim, Poland, in 2013–2014, in four field replicates. The study involved the following factors: soil sowing preparation method, types of variates, and fertilization method, all of which shape mycotoxin accumulation. The results indicated that the main effects of years were significant for all observed traits for both the core and grain. The concentrations of deoxynivalenol, nivalenol, and zearalenone were higher in 2014 than in 2013 for both core and grain. The concentrations of fumonisin B1 and fumonisin B2 were higher in the first year of study for core and grain. The direct sowing of maize significantly affects plants’ health status, expressed by an increase in mycotoxin accumulation. Traditional hybrid SY Cooky characterized higher values of observed traits than “stay-green” hybrid Drim (except fumonisin B2 for cob). The positive effect of the row method of NP fertilizer application is based on a decrease in mycotoxin content.
Keywords:
maize; agrotechnical factors; core; ergosterol; deoxynivalenol; fumonisins; grain; nivalenol; zearalenone; Fusarium mycotoxins1. Introduction
The occurrence of diseases in the cultivation of maize (Zea mays L.) leads to the loss of grain yield and the simultaneous deterioration of its quality [1]. According to literature data, fungi of the genus Fusarium spp. pose the greatest threat to maize cultivation [2,3,4]. These fungi occur at all stages of the plant’s development, causing Fusarium seedling blight, root rot, foot rot, and ear rot, including grains [5]. Diseases caused by Fusarium spp. belong to the so-called very important diseases in the cultivation of this species and the importance of these diseases will not change in the coming years [6]. The infection sources are grains and plant residues in which the fungus can survive in the form of hyphae or chlamydospores [7]. Foot rot develops as a result of root infection, while the ears are infected by pistil stigma during flowering and by damage to the ears as a result of pest feeding. Ear rot is even more dangerous, due to the health or even life hazard to humans and animals [4,8]. Disease symptoms are visible on husk leaves and later on grains and peduncles and depending on the species, may be whitish, pink, or red. Infected grains are damaged and contaminated with secondary metabolites of Fusarium spp., mainly fumonisins, trichothecenes, and zearalenone [9]. These toxins can be found in both food and feed, posing a threat to human and animal health [10]. The danger is all the greater because under certain conditions they can be accumulated in the grain even at a low infestation level [11,12]. Fusarium spp., due to their polyphagic and facultative nature, can grow on plants both in the field causing ear diseases of fine grain cereals and maize ears, as well as after harvest, and the secondary metabolites produced by them are one of the most common mycotoxins in crops, mainly grain [13]. The date of harvest and preparation of the grain for storage is an essential element affecting grain colonization by fungi of the genus Fusarium, and associated mycotoxin contamination. In addition to the agrotechnical factors mentioned above, optimized mineral fertilization has a tremendous impact on maize health [1]. The disruption of maize nutritional homeostasis increases pathogen pressure in this species cultivation. Maize grain usually contains 28–33% water at the time of harvest, and unless it is dried quickly after harvest, the inoculum of F. graminearum, F. culmorum and other species present in it may lead to the development of these fungi and the production of significant amounts of mycotoxins [14]. It should be emphasized that the content of mycotoxins is not genetically determined. Their quantity is associated with intensive cultivation. Therefore, scientific studies are focused on determining the impact of selected agriculture factors that may reduce mycotoxins in agricultural crops in order to reduce the risk of their occurrence. The study of Szulc et al. [15]) demonstrated significant differences in fumonisin levels in the grains of sixteen maize cultivars. The grain of the cultivars with a higher FAO number was characterized by lower fumonisin contents. Moreover, it was found that the hybrids flint (F) and dent (D) contained more fumonisins than the hybrid hybrids D/F and F/D. According to Tangendjaja et al. [16], all necessary measures should be taken to prevent mycotoxin contamination of maize intended for feed, such as the improvement of post-harvest drying and storage processes, as well as pre-harvest control methods.
Therefore, field studies were conducted at the Department of Agronomy of the Poznań University of Life Sciences to determine the effect of selected agrotechnical factors and the ear core. The experimental hypothesis assumed that differentiated agrotechnical factors: (i) soil sowing preparation method, (ii) maize hybrid type, and (iii) fertilization method affect mycotoxin accumulation.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Field
The field experiment was carried out at the Department of Agronomy of Poznań University of Life Sciences, on the fields of the Experimental and Educational Unit in Swadzim (52°26′ N; 16°45′ E), Poland, in the years 2013–2014. It was carried out for two years in the same scheme in a split-split-plot design with three factors in four field replicates. The study involved the following factors: A—1st order factor—two methods of maize sowing: A1—sowing to the soil (traditional cultivation), A2—direct sowing to the stubble after winter wheat (straw harvested); B—2nd order factor—two types of variates: B1—traditional hybrid SY Cooky, B2—“stay-green” hybrid Drim; C—3rd order factor—two methods of supplying NP fertilizer: C1—broadcasting on the entire surface before seed sowing, C2—in rows simultaneously with seed sowing. The same level of mineral fertilization (100 kg N/ha, 70 kg P2O5/ha, and 130 kg K2O/ha) was applied to all experimental objects. Fertilization was balanced against phosphorus, which was applied at the whole required dose in the form of ammonium phosphate under the trade name of polidap NP (18% N, 46% P2O5). N and K fertilization were performed before maize sowing using urea (46% N) and potassium salt (60%). The N dose was reduced by the amount of nitrogen present in the polidap. The assumed planting density in the years of research was 7.95 pcs/m2 (79,500 grain/ha), with a spacing between rows of 70 cm and a sowing depth of 5–6 cm. The grain maize harvest was performed using a Wintersteiger plot harvester, and the grain yield was converted to constant moisture of 15%. The size of the plot area for harvesting was 14 m2. The sample size was Ten random ears that were collected from each plot. The influence of the examined agriculture factors on grain yield was presented in an earlier work [17].
2.2. Weather Conditions
During plant vegetation, thermal and humidity conditions in the years of the research were very diverse for maize growth and development (Table 1). Influence of the thermal and humidity factor is comprehensively best depicted by the hydrothermal coefficient of water supply [K] according to Sielianinov:
where P is monthly amount of precipitation [mm], D is the number of days, T is the average daily air temperature for the month [°C]. The optimal value of the coefficient is 1. Values below 1 stand for drought, while those above 1 stand for a period of relative humidity.
K = (10 × P)/(D × T),
2.3. Soil Conditions
According to the international FAO classification, the soil was classified as Albic Luvisols, while according to the American classification, it belongs to the order Alfisols. According to the international classification, it was defined as loamy sand underlined by loam in terms of grain size. It was included in the 4th agricultural usefulness complex (very good rye) and bonitation class III b. Soil abundance in basic macronutrients is presented in Table 2.
2.4. Mycotoxins Analysis
Fusarium mycotoxin standards and ergosterol were purchased with a standard grade certificate from Sigma-Aldrich (Steinheim, Germany). All chemicals used for extraction and purification procedure were purchased from POCh (Gliwice, Poland). Water for the HPLC mobile phase was purified using a Milli-Q system (Millipore, Bedford, MA, USA).
Samples of 50 g homogenized plant materials were used in extraction and purification process according to the detailed procedure described by Stępień and Waśkiewicz [18] and Waśkiewicz et al. [19].
The chromatographic system consisted of a Waters 2695 high-performance liquid chromatograph with detectors: Waters 2996 Photodiode Array Detector (PDA) and Waters 2475 Multi λ Fluorescence Detector (FLD) (Waters, Milford, MA, USA). Depending on the analyzed compound, different detection types were used. The details of the separation parameters are presented in Table 3.
EmpowerTM 1 software was used for data processing. The concentration of mycotoxins and ERG was determined as a result of comparing the retention times with the external standards. All samples were injected in triplicate.
2.5. Statistical Analysis
Firstly, the normality of the distributions of the studied traits (deoxynivalenol—DON, nivalenol—NIV, zearalenone—ZON, fumonisin B1—FB1, fumonisin B2—FB2, fumonisin B3—FB3 and the sum of fumonisins—FBs, in core and grain) were tested using Shapiro–Wilk’s normality test [20]. The statistical analyses such as the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s honestly significant differences (HSDs) test for the comparisons of pairs of means were performed in the study years separately and over course of the years, according to the model of data obtained from the experiment designed as a split-split-plot. The relationships between observed traits were assessed on the basis of Pearson’s correlation coefficients for each year independent. The calculations were carried out using the statistical package GenStat 18th edition and in R version 3.6.2.
3. Results
The different weather conditions in the study years 2013–2014 were reflected in all observed maize traits in core (Table 4) and grain (Table 5).
The concentrations of DON, NIV, and ZON were higher in 2014 than in 2013 for both core (Table 6) and grain (Table 7). The concentrations of FB1, FB2, and FBs were higher in the first year of study for core and grain (Table 6 and Table 7). For the concentrations of FB3, we observed different reactions at two years of research: in 2013 FB3 concentration level was lower than in 2014 for core; however, for grain this relationship was opposite (Table 6 and Table 7). Analysis of variance indicated that the main effects of methods of maize sowing were significant for ZON, FB1, FB2, FB3, and FBs in core (Table 4) as well as DON, NIV, ZON, and FBs in grain (Table 5). In all these cases we observed higher values of observed traits for direct sowing to the stubble after winter wheat (straw harvested) than for sowing to the soil—traditional cultivation (Table 6 and Table 7). The types of hybrids that were statistically significant determined the concentration of DON and FB2 in core (Table 4) as well as the all observed traits (except FB3) in grain (Table 5). Traditional hybrid SY Cooky characterized higher values of observed traits than “stay-green” hybrid Drim (except FB2 for core) (Table 6 and Table 7).
The results of ANOVA showed that the main effects of methods of supplying NP fertilizer were significant for NIV, FB1, and FBs in both core and grain. Additionally, the methods of supplying NP fertilizer determined FB1 and FB3 in core (Table 4), and DON and ZON in grain (Table 5). In all these cases we observed higher values of observed traits for the method of supplying NP fertilizer by broadcasting on the entire surface before seed sowing than for method of supplying NP fertilizer in rows simultaneously with seed sowing (Table 6 and Table 7).
Linear correlation coefficients for the observed traits are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. They are, respectively, samples collected in 2013 and 2014. The correlation matrix was divided into three subgroups: maize core (_c), maize grain (_g), and correlation between traits in core and grain.
Studies in 2013 shows only positive correlation coefficient in core and grain between the observed traits (Figure 1). In maize core subgroup the strongest correlation was between FB1 and FBs (0.99), DON and NIV (0.73), FB2 and FBs (0.66), DON and FB3 (0.58), FB1 and FB2 (0.57). Statistically significant correlations were also observed between NIV and FB1, FB2, FB3, FBs (Figure 1). In grain subgroup strong, positive correlations was found between FB1 and FBs (0.99), FB2 and ZON (0.75), FB2 and FBs (0.72), ZON and FBs (0.64), FB1 and FB2 (0.62), and ZON and FB1 (0.58). Statistically significant correlations were also observed between DON and NIV, ZON, FB1, FBs as well as NIV and FB1. Correlation coefficients between core and grain subgroups show a strong, negative correlation between ZON_c and NIV_g (−0.69). Strong, positive correlations were observed between DON_c and FBs_g (0.79), DON_c and FB1_g (0.78), NIV_c and FBs_g (0.72), NIV_c and FB1_g (0.71), FB1_c and FBs_g (0.71), FB1_c and FB1_g (0.70), FBs_c and FB1_g (0.70), FBs_c and FBs_g (0.70), DON_c and DON_g (0.68), DON_c and FB2_g (0.63), DON_c and ZON_g (0.61), NIV_c and FB2_g (0.56), FB3_c and FBs_g (0.52), FB3_c and FB2_g (0.50). Statistically significant correlations were also observed between NIV_c and ZON_g, FB1_c and ZON_g, FB2_g as well as FB3_c and FB1_g, FBs_c and ZON_g, FB2_g (Figure 1).
Studies in 2014 show only positive correlation in all 3 subgroups (Figure 2). In the maize core subgroup strong correlations was observed between FB1 and FBs (0.98), FB2 and FBs (0.77), FB2 and FB3 (0.74), FB1 and FB2 (0.64), FB3 and FBs (0.61), ZON and FB2 (0.52). Statistically significant correlations were also observed between ZON and FBs as well as FB1 and FB3 (Figure 2). In grain subgroup strong correlation was observed between FB1 and FBS (0.97), DON and FB2 (0.86), DON and NIV (0.79), NIV and FB2 (0.69), NIV and ZON (0.68), FB2 and FB3 (0.66), ZON and FB2 (0.62), DON and ZON (0.58), DON and FB3 (0.52), NIV and FBs (0.52), ZON and FB3 (0.52). Statistically significant correlations were also observed between DON and FBs as well as NIV and FB3 (Figure 2). Correlation coefficients between core and grain subgroups shows strong, positive correlation between FBs_c and FBs_g (0.77), FBs_c and FB1_g (0.76), FB2_c and FB1_g (0.75), FB1_c and FBs_g (0.72), FB1_c and NIV_g (0.71), FB2_c and FBs_g (0.71), FB1_c and FB1_g (0.70), FBs_c and NIV_g (0.68), DON_c and FB2_g (0.63), DON_c and ZON_g (0.61), FB3_c and FBs_g (0.56), FB3_c and FB1_g (0.55), ZON_c and ZON_g (0.54), DON_c and DON_g (0.53), NIV_c and FB1_g (0.52). Statistically significant correlations were also observed between NIV_c and FBs_g (Figure 2).
4. Discussion
A high proportion of cereals in crop rotation increases infection risk by many pathogenic fungi, especially of the genus Fusarium. These fungi develop on crop residues and can be found in the soil [13]. The application of simplified cultivation systems (reduction of tillage operations, including direct sowing) causes worse soil coverage of crop residues, which extends their mineralization and creates the possibility of further fungal development. A pathogen may overwinter in crop residues in the form of mycelium or chlamydospores. The fungi of this genus pose a potential threat to high yields of good quality [11,21]. Metabolites (mycotoxins) produced by fungi of the genus Fusarium spp. are dangerous for human and animal health. Deoxynivalenol and zearalenone are the most common mycotoxins in Europe produced by fungi causing ear rot [11]. The colonization of grain by Fusarium may cause exceeding the permissible standards of the mentioned mycotoxins set by the European Union (EU). In the present study, the analysis of mycotoxin content in the grain and ear core of maize cultivated in direct and traditional sowing (deep autumn plowing) showed that healthier grain was obtained from traditional cultivation than from direct sowing. Regarding the ear core, maize grown traditionally (autumn plowing) was characterized by a lower accumulation of such mycotoxins as ZON, FB1, FB2, FB3, and FBs, compared to direct sowing. In turn, traditional maize cultivation resulted in a significant reduction in the accumulation of the following mycotoxins in maize grain: DON, NIV, ZON and FBs. According to Bernhoft et al. [22], a non-tillage system (direct sowing) contributed to the development of Fusarium spp. In addition to the cultivation system, the depth of cultivation also affects the development of these fungi—the deeper the plowing, the lower the number of isolated fungi [23]. It was shown for hybrid maize that the “stay-green” type was more resistant to mycotoxin accumulation in the grain and core compared to the classical hybrid. Different types of maize hybrids differ in their susceptibility to infection by fungi of the genus Fusarium. A toxic consequence of Fusarium spp. development is the presence of its products of secondary metabolism, such as fumonisins [10]. Bocianowski et al. [3] showed that the “stay-green” maize hybrid is definitely more resistant to fumonisin accumulation than the traditional hybrid. “Stay-green” hybrids are more tolerant to stress conditions, such as drought [24], in which plants are more susceptible to the action of pathogens. Michalski et al. [25] demonstrated the lack of correlation between hybrids’ earliness and their infection by Fusarium spp. According to this author, in addition to the earliness of hybrids, their resistance, morphological structure, and weather conditions during the growing season also had an impact on Fusarium spp. infections of maize plants. With more favorable weather conditions (higher temperatures and higher rainfall in summer, resulting in a longer growing season), the possibility of the development of Fusarium fungi on ears and grains also increases [26]. Blandino et al. [27] reported that the highest mycotoxin contamination of maize grain occurred in the growing seasons characterized by high precipitation and lower temperatures in the period from maize flowering to maturation. Drought increased the occurrence of Fusarium spp. in maize cultivation and mycotoxin accumulation, especially fumonisins [28]. Maize irrigation was shown to alleviate drought stress and reduce F. verticilliodes infection and accumulation of mycotoxins like fumonisins in the grain [29]. Damage caused by maize pests, and mainly by the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis Hbn.), has a significant impact on the occurrence and severity of fusarium diseases. Szulc [30] showed a high positive correlation coefficient between the presence of the European corn borer and the infestation of maize plants by Fusarium spp. Increased susceptibility of the crop to fungal infections occurs under conditions of unbalanced fertilization, mainly during potassium deficiency and simultaneous nitrogen excess [31]. The plant defense against diseases is due to its ability to form a cork layer around the wound (potential infection site). The better the plant is nourished with potassium, the faster this process occurs. Mineral fertilizers used in plant cultivation can cause increased infection by fungi of the genus Fusarium spp., which contaminate the yield through the rapid decomposition of crop residues and the activity of soil biological life [13]. According to these authors, excess nitrogen in the soil increased the frequency of grain infection with fungi of the genus Fusarium spp. It was clearly demonstrated in the current study that initially fertilized (in rows) maize with two-component NP fertilizer was characterized by significantly lower accumulation of mycotoxins in the grain and core compared to broadcasting fertilization. It is conditioned that this method of component application better nourishes maize plants [32] and exhibit faster initial growth dynamics [33]. This behavior of maize plants reduces their susceptibility to pathogens, which in turn results in the production of a higher yield of good quality grain.
5. Conclusions
The direct sowing and selection of traditional maize hybrids for cultivation significantly affect plants’ health status, expressed by an increase in mycotoxin accumulation. The positive effect of the row (initial) NP fertilizer application method is based on a decrease in mycotoxin content. The mechanism of action of NP fertilizer application requires more in-depth research, mainly indicating the role of P as a factor limiting mycotoxin accumulation. This field of science requires further intensive research, both basic research conducted by phytopathologists and geneticists, as well as application research carried out by agriculture technicians. Only such a combination of scientific disciplines will allow for the development of comprehensive agriculture solutions to reduce or eliminate harmful mycotoxins from the crops. The present study showed that mycotoxins’ presence in maize grain and ear core could be limited by the appropriate selection of agriculture practices.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, J.B. and P.S.; methodology, P.S. and A.W.; software, J.B. and A.C.; project administration, J.B.; validation, J.B., P.S., A.W. and A.C.; formal analysis, J.B., A.W. and A.C.; investigation, A.W.; resources, J.B., P.S., A.W. and A.C.; data curation, P.S. and A.W.; writing—original draft preparation, J.B.; writing—review and editing, J.B., P.S., A.W. and A.C.; visualization, A.C.; supervision, J.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
The publication was co-financed within the framework of Ministry of Science and Higher Education programme as “Regional Initiative Excellence” in years 2019–2022, Project No. 005/RID/2018/19.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Szulc, P.; Bocianowski, J.; Nowosad, K.; Michalski, T.; Waligóra, H.; Olejarski, P. Assessment of the Influence of Fertilization and Environmental Conditions on Maize Health. Plant Prot. Sci. 2018, 54, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Szulc, P.; Bocianowski, J.; Kruczek, A.; Waśkiewicz, A.; Beszterda, M.; Goliński, P. Profile of Fusarium Mycotoxins in Various Maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2015, 24, 707–715. [Google Scholar]
- Bocianowski, J.; Szulc, P.; Waśkiewicz, A.; Nowosad, K.; Kobus-Cisowska, J. Ergosterol and Fusarium Mycotoxins Content in Two Maize Cultivars under Different forms of Nitrogen Fertilizers. J. Phytopathol. 2019, 167, 516–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, P.; Singh, R.; Suby, S.B.; Kaur, J.; Sekhar, J.C.; Soujanya, P.L. An overview of Crop Loss Assessment in Maize. Maize J. 2018, 7, 56–63. [Google Scholar]
- Blandino, M.; Reyneri, A.; Vanara, F.; Tamietti, G.; Pietri, A. Influence of Agricultural Practices on Fusarium Infection, Fumonisin and Deoxynivalenol Contamination of Maize Kernels. World Mycotoxin J. 2009, 2, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Da Costa, R.V.; Simon, J.; Cota, L.V.; Da Silva, D.D.; De Almeida, R.E.M.; Lanza, F.E.; Lago, B.C.; Pereira, A.A.; Campos, L.J.M.; Figueiredo, J.E.F. Yield Losses in Off-Season Corn Crop Due to Stalk Rot Disease. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 2019, 54, e00283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Del Rio Garcia, J.C.; Moreno, R.C.; Pinton, P.; Mendoza, E.S.; Oswald, I.P. Evaluation of the Cytotoxicity of Aflatoxin and Fumonisin in Swine Intestinal Cells. Rev. Iberoam. de Micol. 2007, 24, 136–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cota, L.V.; Da Costa, R.V.; Silva, D.D.; Casela, C.R.; Parreira, D.F. Quantification of Yield Losses Due to Anthracnose Stalk Rot on Corn in Brazilian Conditions. J. Phytopathol. 2012, 160, 680–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marasas, W.F.O.; Riley, R.T.; Hendricks, K.A.; Stevens, V.L.; Sadler, T.W.; Waes, J.G.-V.; Missmer, S.A.; Cabrera, J.; Torres, O.; Gelderblom, W.C.A. Fumonisins Disrupt Sphingolipid Metabolism, Folate Transport, and Neural Tube Development in Embryo Culture and In Vivo: A Potential Risk Factor for Human Neural Tube Defects among Populations Consuming Fumonisin-Contaminated Maize. J. Nutr. 2004, 134, 711–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dilkin, P.; Direito, G.; Simas, M.; Mallmann, C.A.; Correa, B. Toxicokinetics and Toxicological Effects of Single Oral Dose of Fumonisin B1 Containing Fusarium Verticillioides Culture Material in Weaned Piglets. Chem. Interact. 2010, 185, 157–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bottalico, A.; Perrone, G. Toxigenic Fusarium Species and Mycotoxins Associated with Head Blight in Small-Grain Cereals in Europe. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2002, 108, 611–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sopterean, L.M.; Puia, C. The Major Mycotoxins Produced by Fusarium Fungi and Their Effects. ProEnvironment 2012, 5, 55–59. [Google Scholar]
- Mielniczuk, E.; Skwaryło-Bednarz, B. Fusarium Head Blight, Mycotoxins and Strategies for Their Reduction. Agronomy 2020, 10, 509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bottalico, A. Fusarium Diseases of Cereals: Species Complex and Related Mycotoxin Profiles, in Europe. J. Plant Pathol. 1998, 80, 85–103. [Google Scholar]
- Szulc, P.; Bocianowski, J.; Waśkiewicz, A.; Beszterda, M. Impact of Applying Different Nitrogen Fertilizers on the Level of Fumonisins in Maize Hybrids Grain. Prog. Plant Prot. 2012, 52, 306–309. [Google Scholar]
- Tangendjaja, B.; Rachmawati, S.; Wina, E. Mycotoxin Contamination on Corn Used by Feed Mills in Indonesia. Indones. J. Agric. Sci. 2008, 9, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jagła, M.; Szulc, P.; Ambroży-Deręgowska, K.; Mejza, I.; Kobus-Cisowska, J. Yielding of Two Types of Maize Cultivars in Relation to Selected Agrotechnical Factors. Plant Soil Environ. 2019, 65, 416–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stępień, Ł.; Waśkiewicz, A. Sequence Divergence of the Enniatin Synthase Gene in Relation to Production of Beauvericin and Enniatins in Fusarium Species. Toxins 2013, 5, 537–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waśkiewicz, A.; Irzykowska, L.; Drzewiecka, K.; Bocianowski, J.; Dobosz, B.; Weber, Z.; Karolewski, Z.; Krzyminiewski, R.; Goliński, P. Plant-Pathogen Interactions During Infection Process of Asparagus with Fusarium spp. Open Life Sci. 2013, 8, 1065–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shapiro, S.S.; Wilk, M.B. An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples). Biometrika 1965, 52, 591–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maresca, M. From the Gut to the Brain: Journey and Pathophysiological Effects of the Food-Associated Trichothecene Mycotoxin Deoxynivalenol. Toxins 2013, 5, 784–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernhoft, A.; Torp, M.; Clasen, P.-E.; Løes, A.-K.; Kristoffersen, A. Influence of Agronomic and Climatic Factors on Fusariumin Festation and Mycotoxin Contamination of Cereals in Norway. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2012, 29, 1129–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Steinkellner, S.; Langer, I. Impact of Tillage on the Incidence of Fusarium spp. in Soil. Plant Soil 2004, 267, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahalakshmi, V.; Bidinger, F.R. Evaluation of Stay-Green Sorghum Germplasm Lines at ICRISAT. Crop. Sci. 2002, 42, 965–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Michalski, T.; Perkowski, J.; Stachowiak, J. Yielding of Grain Maize and Presence of Fusarium Toxinis in Depence on Harvest Time. J. Plant Prot. Res. 2000, 40, 271–279. [Google Scholar]
- Piacentini, K.C.; Rocha, L.O.; Savi, G.D.; Carnielli-Queiroz, L.; Fontes, L.D.C.; Corrêa, B. Assessment of Toxigenic Fusarium Species and Their Mycotoxins in Brewing Barley Grains. Toxins 2019, 11, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Blandino, M.; Scarpino, V.; Giordano, D.; Sulyok, M.; Krska, R.; Vanara, F.; Reyneri, A. Impact of Sowing Time, Hybrid and Environmental Conditions on the Contamination of Maize by Emerging Mycotoxins and Fungal Metabolites. Ital. J. Agron. 2017, 12, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ferrigo, D.; Raiola, A.; Causin, R. Fusarium Toxins in Cereals: Occurrence, Legislation, Factors Promoting the Appearance and Their Management. Molecules 2016, 21, 627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Torelli, E.; Firrao, G.; Bianchi, G.; Saccardo, F.; Locci, R. The Influence of Local Factors on the Prediction of Fumonisin Contamination in Maize. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2012, 92, 1808–1814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bocianowski, J.; Szulc, P.; Tratwal, A.; Nowosad, K.; Piesik, D. The Influence of Potassium to Mineral Fertilizers on The Maize Health. J. Integr. Agric. 2016, 15, 1286–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Szulc, P. Organic and Mineral Fertilization of Maize Affecting Prevalence of Fusarium Diseases (Fusarium spp.) and European Corn Borer (Ostrinia nubilalis Hbn.). Prog. Plant Prot. 2013, 53, 498–502. [Google Scholar]
- Szulc, P. The Effect of The Sum of Absolute Values of Nutrient Status Indexes in Plants of Two Hybrid Types of Maize (Zea mays L.) on Dynamics of Dry Matter Accumulation in Initial Vegetation Period at varied Soil Nitrogen and Magnesium Resources. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2013, 22, 2616–2624. [Google Scholar]
- Szulc, P.; Bocianowski, J.; Nowosad, K.; Rybus-Zając, M.; Waligóra, H.; Michalski, T. The Dynamics of a Dry Matter Accumulation in the Initial Period of Growth of Four Varieties of the “Stay-Green” Type of Maize (Zea mays L.). Pak. J. Bot. 2017, 49, 1017–1022. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1.
The coefficients of linear Pearson correlations for the observed traits studied in 2013. Results are grouped by maize core (_c) and grain (_g). Below diagonal only statistically significant correlation coefficients were shown (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001). DON—deoxynivalenol, NIV—nivalenol, ZON—zearalenone, FB1—fumonisin B1, FB2—fumonisin B2, FB3—fumonisin B3, FBs—sum of FB1, FB2 and FB3.
Figure 1.
The coefficients of linear Pearson correlations for the observed traits studied in 2013. Results are grouped by maize core (_c) and grain (_g). Below diagonal only statistically significant correlation coefficients were shown (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001). DON—deoxynivalenol, NIV—nivalenol, ZON—zearalenone, FB1—fumonisin B1, FB2—fumonisin B2, FB3—fumonisin B3, FBs—sum of FB1, FB2 and FB3.
Figure 2.
The coefficients of linear Pearson correlations for the observed traits studied in 2014. Results are grouped by maize core (_c) and grain (_g). Below diagonal only statistically significant correlations coefficients were shown (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001). DON—deoxynivalenol, NIV—nivalenol, ZON—zearalenone, FB1—fumonisin B1, FB2—fumonisin B2, FB3—fumonisin B3, FBs—sum of FB1, FB2 and FB3.
Figure 2.
The coefficients of linear Pearson correlations for the observed traits studied in 2014. Results are grouped by maize core (_c) and grain (_g). Below diagonal only statistically significant correlations coefficients were shown (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001). DON—deoxynivalenol, NIV—nivalenol, ZON—zearalenone, FB1—fumonisin B1, FB2—fumonisin B2, FB3—fumonisin B3, FBs—sum of FB1, FB2 and FB3.
Table 1.
Values of coefficient (K) in vegetation periods of maize.
| Years | Values of Coefficient (K) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IV | V | VI | VII | VIII | IX | X | Mean | |
| 2013 | 0.39 | 1.97 | 2.01 | 0.77 | 0.51 | 1.91 | 0.45 | 1.14 |
| 2014 | 1.48 | 1.78 | 0.83 | 0.71 | 0.96 | 0.81 | 0.83 | 1.06 |
Table 2.
Nutrient content and soil pH.
| Specifications | Years | |
|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 2014 | |
| P [mg P kg−1 dm soil] | 38.0 | 127.0 |
| K [mg K kg−1 dm soil] | 111.0 | 261.0 |
| Mg [mg Mg kg−1 dm soil] | 23.0 | 36.0 |
| pH [w 1 mol dm−3 KCl] | 4.80 | 4.70 |
Table 3.
Chromatographic parameters for mycotoxins.
| Compound | Detection | λ [nm] | Chromatographic Column | LOD [ng g−1] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zearalenone—ZON | PDA and FLD | λex = 274 λem = 440 | Nova Pak C-18 (150 × 3.9 mm) | 1.0 |
| Deoxynivalenol—DON | PDA | 224 | Nova Pak C-18 (300 × 3.9 mm) | 5.0 |
| Nivalenol—NIV | PDA | 224 | Nova Pak C-18 (300 × 3.9 mm) | 5.0 |
| Fumonisins—FBs | FLD | λex = 335 λem = 440 | XBridge C-18 (3.0 × 100 mm) | 2.0 |
Table 4.
Results (mean squares) of the four-stratum: year (Y); methods of maize sowing (A); types of hybrids (B); methods of supplying NP fertilizer (C) analysis of variance for concentrations of DON, NIV, ZON, FB1, FB2, FB3 and sum of FBs in core.
Table 4.
Results (mean squares) of the four-stratum: year (Y); methods of maize sowing (A); types of hybrids (B); methods of supplying NP fertilizer (C) analysis of variance for concentrations of DON, NIV, ZON, FB1, FB2, FB3 and sum of FBs in core.
| Source of Variation | d.f. | DON | NIV | ZON | FB1 | FB2 | FB3 | FBs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blocks | 2 | 20.16 | 12.09 | 1.855 | 109.6 | 17.07 | 1.141 | 72.6 |
| A | 1 | 397.96 | 5.02 | 292.004 * | 31,617.7 ** | 1093.38 * | 6.214 * | 45,527.9 ** |
| Residual 1 | 2 | 28.52 | 34.79 | 3.366 | 125.6 | 20.49 | 0.24 | 256.1 |
| B | 1 | 4918.12 ** | 2.65 | 15.402 | 3717.6 | 85.95 ** | 3.939 | 2882.2 |
| A × B | 1 | 19.42 | 62.22 | 1015.588 *** | 5297.3 | 128.48 *** | 3.614 | 6759.5 |
| Residual 2 | 4 | 141.8 | 12.66 | 4.572 | 1014.5 | 1.46 | 1.741 | 909.9 |
| C | 1 | 282.42 | 733.91 ** | 19.931 | 73,172.7 *** | 1160.83 *** | 20.869 ** | 95,569.8 *** |
| A × C | 1 | 35.76 | 4.17 | 168.263 *** | 2860.6 ** | 45.14 | 5.012 | 3899 ** |
| B × C | 1 | 33.48 | 114.42 | 196.871 *** | 522.3 | 476.97*** | 0.345 | 2050.3 * |
| A × B × C | 1 | 274.9 | 144.11 | 5.194 | 1565.8 * | 507.46 *** | 24.069 ** | 4489.4 ** |
| Residual 3 | 8 | 86.19 | 46.83 | 5.176 | 216.3 | 17.09 | 1.124 | 246.4 |
| Y | 1 | 52,134.15 *** | 982.2 *** | 4752.319 *** | 537,707.4 *** | 2195.24 *** | 42.056 *** | 598,540 *** |
| Y × A | 1 | 78.36 | 6.8 | 50 * | 10,616.9 *** | 68.9 * | 7.262 * | 11,803.6 *** |
| Y × B | 1 | 701.89 ** | 220.46 * | 49.187 * | 17,532.7 *** | 0.05 | 20.869 *** | 18,701.3 *** |
| Y × C | 1 | 191.8 | 304.47 ** | 171.499 *** | 643.1 | 7.25 | 14.796 ** | 354.2 |
| Y × A × B | 1 | 174 | 9.23 | 1887.395 *** | 0.6 | 524.9 *** | 24.41 *** | 731.7 |
| Y × A × C | 1 | 68.9 | 109.66 | 71.224 * | 1699.9 | 681.39 *** | 4.148 | 4263.7 * |
| Y × B × C | 1 | 456.4 ** | 413.66 *** | 17.533 | 2410.2 | 95.46 * | 0.231 | 1508.8 |
| Y × A × B × C | 1 | 280.29 * | 12.78 | 2.079 | 4681.7 * | 131.57 ** | 63.918 *** | 2396.9 |
| Residual 4 | 16 | 46.26 | 25.49 | 8.252 | 589.9 | 15.13 | 1.072 | 616.2 |
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; d.f.—number of degrees of freedom.
Table 5.
Results (mean squares) of the four-stratum: year (Y); methods of maize sowing (A); types of hybrids (B); methods of supplying NP fertilizer (C) analysis of variance for concentrations of DON, NIV, ZON, FB1, FB2, FB3 and sum of FBs in grain.
Table 5.
Results (mean squares) of the four-stratum: year (Y); methods of maize sowing (A); types of hybrids (B); methods of supplying NP fertilizer (C) analysis of variance for concentrations of DON, NIV, ZON, FB1, FB2, FB3 and sum of FBs in grain.
| Source of Variation | d.f. | DON | NIV | ZON | FB1 | FB2 | FB3 | FBs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blocks | 2 | 280.2 | 105.91 | 47 | 173.2 | 15.563 | 3.244 | 337 |
| A | 1 | 17,415.1 *** | 1491.76 * | 1194.51 ** | 3126.5 | 509.929 | 5.985 | 6551.8 * |
| Residual 1 | 2 | 10.4 | 26.44 | 4.03 | 241.2 | 33.761 | 0.969 | 146 |
| B | 1 | 85,587.5 *** | 3549.56 *** | 1759.95 *** | 20,303.8 *** | 376.712 *** | 6.818 | 27,064.1 *** |
| A × B | 1 | 25,716.4 *** | 519.36 * | 70.4 | 342.7 | 204.311 ** | 0.006 | 1071 |
| Residual 2 | 4 | 275.7 | 30.02 | 14.53 | 179.5 | 3.247 | 1.077 | 173.4 |
| C | 1 | 44,890.8 *** | 8680.9 *** | 69 * | 13,939.1 *** | 33.617 | 0.263 | 15,469 *** |
| A × C | 1 | 82.1 | 426.8 * | 1.1 | 103 | 6.728 | 0.983 | 188.7 |
| B × C | 1 | 21,765.6 *** | 3101.99 *** | 0.16 | 229.3 | 1.364 | 9.747 * | 117.8 |
| A × B × C | 1 | 1928 * | 709.4 ** | 510.32 *** | 11 | 109.656 ** | 0.064 | 183.3 |
| Residual 3 | 8 | 200.8 | 37.41 | 7.9 | 405.1 | 7.37 | 1.491 | 368.4 |
| Y | 1 | 289,978 *** | 49,823.08 *** | 640.28 *** | 169,158.2 *** | 2106.618 *** | 10.277 * | 211,960.9 *** |
| Y × A | 1 | 22,097.4 *** | 3094.28 *** | 96.19 * | 3040.2 ** | 401.074 *** | 0.088 | 5694.4 *** |
| Y × B | 1 | 47,004.5 *** | 1046.92 *** | 0.13 | 23,647 *** | 83.029 * | 6.969 | 25,679.4 *** |
| Y × C | 1 | 50,382.6 *** | 4526.22 *** | 296.76 *** | 2015.4 * | 5.488 | 1.821 | 2105.6 * |
| Y × A × B | 1 | 28,530 *** | 29.59 | 85.15 * | 1795.2 * | 124.711 ** | 5.103 | 2629.5 * |
| Y × A × C | 1 | 32.6 | 1197.3 *** | 69.72 * | 1486 * | 0.743 | 22.236 ** | 1087.1 |
| Y × B × C | 1 | 16,079.5 *** | 2834.69 *** | 156.49 ** | 231 | 19.14 | 12.99 * | 52.1 |
| Y × A × B × C | 1 | 3069 *** | 630.24 *** | 19.14 | 552.2 | 112.394 ** | 7.092 | 988.4 |
| Residual 4 | 16 | 160.2 | 33.76 | 13.64 | 267.6 | 9.944 | 2.175 | 307.2 |
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; d.f.—number of degrees of freedom.
Table 6.
Mean values (± standard deviations) of the observed traits for the years and other studied factors in core.
Table 6.
Mean values (± standard deviations) of the observed traits for the years and other studied factors in core.
| Factor | Factor Level | DON | NIV | ZON | FB1 | FB2 | FB3 | FBs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year, Y | 2013 | 18.33 b ± 8.23 | 1.908 b ± 4.066 | 8.53 b ± 3.944 | 384.3 a ± 74.42 | 37.86 a ± 11.26 | 3.362 b ± 1.909 | 425.6 a ± 81.42 |
| 2014 | 84.24 a ± 19.17 | 10.96 a ± 10.815 | 28.43 a ± 12.865 | 172.7 b ± 44.07 | 24.34 b ± 10.53 | 5.235 a ± 2.569 | 202.2 b ± 53 | |
| HSD0.05 | 4.16 | 3.09 | 1.76 | 14.86 | 2.38 | 0.63 | 15.19 | |
| Methods of maize sowing, A | A1 | 48.4 a ± 35.43 | 6.108 a ± 10.473 | 16.01 b ± 13.22 | 252.8 b ± 104.2 | 26.33 b ± 11.39 | 3.939 b ± 1.786 | 283.1 b ± 110.8 |
| A2 | 54.16 a ± 37.8 | 6.755 a ± 8.143 | 20.95 a ± 14.15 | 304.2 a ± 136.4 | 35.87 a ± 12.48 | 4.658 a ± 2.934 | 344.7 a ± 145.6 | |
| HSD0.05 | 6.63 | 7.33 | 2.28 | 13.92 | 5.62 | 0.61 | 19.88 | |
| Types of hybrids, B | B1 | 61.41 a ± 38.75 | 6.197 a ± 7.083 | 19.05 a ± 13.06 | 287.3 a ± 137.9 | 29.76 b ± 13.89 | 4.585 a ± 1.62 | 321.6 a ± 148.2 |
| B2 | 41.16 b ± 31.41 | 6.667 a ± 11.221 | 17.91 a ± 14.71 | 269.7 a ± 108 | 32.44 a ± 11.69 | 4.012 a ± 3.045 | 306.1 a ± 115.6 | |
| HSD0.05 | 9.54 | 2.85 | 1.71 | 25.53 | 0.97 | 1.06 | 24.18 | |
| Methods of supplying NP fertilizer, C | C1 | 53.71 a ± 38.01 | 10.342 a ± 10.781 | 19.12 a ± 15.73 | 317.5 a ± 123.2 | 36.02 a ± 13.11 | 4.958 a ± 2.889 | 358.5 a ± 131.4 |
| C2 | 48.86 a ± 35.28 | 2.522 b ± 5.297 | 17.83 b ± 11.8 | 239.5 b ± 111.8 | 26.18 b ± 10.52 | 3.639 b ± 1.679 | 269.3 b ± 118.5 | |
| HSD0.05 | 6.18 | 4.56 | 1.52 | 9.79 | 2.75 | 0.71 | 10.45 |
a, b—homogeneous groups (α = 0.05).
Table 7.
Mean values (± standard deviations) of the observed traits for the years and other studied factors in grain.
Table 7.
Mean values (± standard deviations) of the observed traits for the years and other studied factors in grain.
| Factor | Factor Level | DON | NIV | ZON | FB1 | FB2 | FB3 | FBs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year, Y | 2013 | 75.8 b ± 13.66 | 9.6 b ± 7.77 | 23.12 b ± 10.45 | 180.4 a ± 57.43 | 20.23 a ± 9.861 | 2.363 a ± 1.809 | 203 a ± 64.04 |
| 2014 | 231.3 a ± 126.17 | 74.03 a ± 37.11 | 30.43 a ± 9.91 | 61.7 b ± 13.22 | 6.98 b ± 1.888 | 1.437 b ± 1.673 | 70.1 b ± 13.32 | |
| HSD0.05 | 7.74 | 3.56 | 2.26 | 10.01 | 1.93 | 0.9 | 10.73 | |
| Methods of maize sowing, A | A1 | 134.5 b ± 79.9 | 36.24 b ± 31.44 | 21.78 b ± 10.602 | 113 a ± 62.03 | 10.34 a ± 5.315 | 1.547 a ± 1.603 | 124.8 b ± 66.45 |
| A2 | 172.6 a ± 146.9 | 47.39 a ± 50.5 | 31.76 a ± 8.422 | 129.1 a ± 82.73 | 16.86 a ± 11.916 | 2.253 a ± 1.921 | 148.2 a ± 93.77 | |
| HSD0.05 | 4 | 6.39 | 2.49 | 19.29 | 7.22 | 1.22 | 15.01 | |
| >Types of hybrids, B | B1 | 195.8 a ± 149 | 50.41 a ± 49.41 | 32.83 a ± 8.26 | 141.6 a ± 89.51 | 16.4 a ± 11.459 | 2.277 a ± 1.91 | 160.3 a ± 99.09 |
| B2 | 111.3 b ± 52.9 | 33.21 b ± 31.75 | 20.72 b ± 9.513 | 100.5 b ± 43.97 | 10.8 b ± 6.687 | 1.523 a ± 1.604 | 112.8 b ± 49.98 | |
| HSD0.05 | 13.31 | 4.39 | 3.06 | 10.74 | 1.44 | 0.83 | 10.55 | |
| Methods of supplying NP fertilizer, C | C1 | 184.1 a ± 149.4 | 55.26 a ± 50.8 | 27.97 a ± 11.05 | 138.1 a ± 79.38 | 14.44 a ± 10.459 | 1.974 a ± 1.732 | 154.5 a ± 87.87 |
| C2 | 123 b ± 66.5 | 28.37 b ± 25.42 | 25.57 b ± 10.5 | 104 b ± 62.62 | 12.76 a ± 9.031 | 1.826 a ± 1.873 | 118.6 b ± 71.42 | |
| HSD0.05 | 9.43 | 4.07 | 1.87 | 13.4 | 1.81 | 0.81 | 12.78 |
a, b—homogeneous groups (α = 0.05).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Bocianowski, J.; Szulc, P.; Waśkiewicz, A.; Cyplik, A. The Effect of Agrotechnical Factors on Fusarium Mycotoxins Level in Maize. Agriculture 2020, 10, 528. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10110528
AMA Style
Bocianowski J, Szulc P, Waśkiewicz A, Cyplik A. The Effect of Agrotechnical Factors on Fusarium Mycotoxins Level in Maize. Agriculture. 2020; 10(11):528. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10110528
Chicago/Turabian StyleBocianowski, Jan, Piotr Szulc, Agnieszka Waśkiewicz, and Adrian Cyplik. 2020. "The Effect of Agrotechnical Factors on Fusarium Mycotoxins Level in Maize" Agriculture 10, no. 11: 528. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10110528
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
