RAPID ACCESS TO THE LATEST REGIONAL CROP PEST AND DISEASE LEVELS
HGCA logo
CropMonitor > Winter Wheat > Encyclopaedia > Fusarium Head Blight > Effect of fungicides on mycotoxin production  


EFFECT OF FUNGICIDE ON MYCOTOXIN PRODUCTION
 
Mycotoxins are secondary metabolites produced by some of the FHB pathogens in the UK. It is thought that in some cases the role of the toxin may be to aid infection of the plant by the pathogen. Mycotoxins are of concern due to their potentially harmful effect to both humans and animals.

Mycotoxins produced by FHB pathogens in the UK include:

Fusarium species Main mycotoxins produced
F. culmorum Deoxynivalenol, nivalenol, zearalenone
F. graminearum Deoxynivalenol, nivalenol, zearalenone
F. avenaceum Enniatins
F. poae HT-2 and T-2 toxins, diacetoxyscirpenol, nivalenol
M. nivale None confirmed
 
The European Commission is currently evaluating the risk posed by a number of trichothecenes toxins produced by Fusarium species. These include deoxynivalenol (DON), nivalenol (NIV), T-2 toxin, HT-2 toxin and zearalenone. Maximum limits in foodstuffs will be introduced shortly.

Currently, there is no one fungicide on the market capable of giving 100% control of FHB.

To date the best control achieved is between 60 and 70%. However to achieve this level of control the fungicide needs to be applied at the correct time.

  • Optimal fungicide timing = five days pre or post inoculum arriving on the ear

This can be difficult to achieve and as a result fungicides should be used only as part of an integrated management program.

As part of a three-year project funded by the HGCA (Project Report No. 297), several trials have been carried out at CSL to investigate the effectiveness of fungicides against FHB. Unless otherwise stated the results presented are from CSL trials.

The trials were carried out on plots artificially inoculated with a mixed conidial suspension containing F. culmorum, F. graminearum, F. avenaceum, F. poae and M. nivale vars nivale and majus. Plot humidity was maintained at a level greater than 70% for five days following inoculation.

Grain was analysed for deoxynivalenol (DON) content using either DON FAST kits (r-biopharm) or GC/MS. Results from trials carried out between 1999 and 2001 are presented.


 
1999
The effect of a range of fungicides, applied at full rate, on mycotoxin production were investigated. All fungicides were applied two days post inoculation.

Fungicides applied were difenoconazole (as �Plover� at 0.3 l/ha), kresoxim-methyl + epoxiconazole (as �Landmark� at 1 l/ha), metconazole (as �Caramba� at 1.5 l/ha), carbendazim (as �Derosal WDG� at 400 g/ha), azoxystrobin (as �Amistar� at 1 l/ha), tebuconazole (as �Folicur� at 1 l/ha) and prochloraz (as �Sportak� at 0.9 l/ha).



  • No reduction in DON level was seen following treatment with azoxystrobin or difenoconazole.

  • All other fungicide treatments significantly reduced the level of DON. The greatest reductions were seen following treatment with carbendazim, tebuconazole or metconazole.


2000
The effects of fungicide rate and fungicide mixtures on mycotoxin production were investigated. All fungicides were applied two days post inoculation.

Fungicides applied were tebuconazole (as �Folicur� at 1 l/ha and 0.5 l/ha), metconazole (as �Caramba� at 1.5 l/ha and 0.75 l/ha), azoxystrobin (as �Amistar� at 1 l/ha and 0.5 l/ha), kresoxim-methyl + epoxiconazole (as �Landmark� at1 l/ha), epoxiconazole (as �Opus� at 1 l/ha and 0.5 l/ha), tebuconazole + azoxystrobin (as �Folicur� and �Amistar� both at 0.5 l/ha), metconazole + azoxystrobin (as �Caramba� and �Amistar� at 0.75 l/ha and 0.5 l/ha respectively), and epoxiconazole + azoxystrobin (as �Opus� and �Amistar� both at 0.5 l/ha).

CSL, York
graph

  • Significant differences in the level of DON were seen between the treatments.

  • The level of DON present in the grain was reduced by all treatments with the exception of azoxystrobin (full and � rate).

  • Levels of DON were lower following the application of a full rate straight formulation when compared to the equivalent application at � rate.

Morley Research Centre, Wymondham, Norfolk
graph

  • No fungicide application gave a significant reduction in the level of DON present in the grain.

  • Tebuconazole and metconazole were the most effective treatments.

  • Treatment with a straight formulation of azoxystrobin (at either full rate or half rate) significantly increased the level of DON found in grain.

  • DON levels were lowered, compared to the straight azoxystrobin application, if azoxystrobin was applied in mixture with a triazole.

  • The application of kresoxim methyl + epoxiconazole did not increase the levels of DON.


2001
The effect of fungicide rate and application timing on mycotoxin production was investigated. Fungicides were applied to plots either 2 days pre -inoculation (S1) or 2 days post inoculation (S2). Inoculum levels were reduced Levels of inoculum used to artificially infect the plots were reduced compared to previous years in order to achieve disease levels comparable to a natural infection.

Fungicides applied were tebuconazole (as 'Folicur' at 0.5 l/ha and 0.25 l/ha), azoxystrobin (as 'Amistar' at 0.5 l/ha and 0.25 l/ha) and tebuconazole + azoxystrobin (as 'Folicur' and 'Amistar' both at 0.5 l/ha and 0.25 l/ha).

graph

  • Mycotoxin levels on control plots were much lower than in previous years (2.6 ppm compared to circa 12 ppm).

  • All fungicide treatments, with the exception of the pre-inoculation azoxystrobin/tebuconazole (0.25 l/ha) treatment, significantly reduced the level of mycotoxin compared to the control plots. No other significant differences were seen.

  • In general the higher the fungicide application rate the lower the level of toxin in grain. No difference in DON levels was seen between the two fungicide application times.

  • Reducing the level of inoculum applied to the ear reduced the differences in fungicide efficacy seen in previous years.


 
Return to FHB Index page

 
Defra Logo delivered to the industry by HGCA
This website was last updated on: 27/08/2008     © Crown Copyright Central Science Laboratory 2007
CSL Logo
All risk predictions published by CropMonitor are provided in good faith and are NOT a substitute for rigorous fieldwalking in combination with advice from BASIS qualified persons. CropMonitor accepts no liability for crop loss or damage resulting from the use of CropMonitor.