4.2 Article

Mycotoxin-producing Fusarium Species Occurring in Winter Wheat in Belgium (Flanders) During 2002-2005

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYTOPATHOLOGY
卷 157, 期 2, 页码 108-116

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0434.2008.01443.x

关键词

Fusarium; deoxynivalenol; ELISA; wheat; Belgium

资金

  1. Flemish Institute for the Stimulation of Scientific-Technological Research in Industry (IWT, Brussels, Belgium)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Deoxynivalenol (DON) content and Fusarium spp. (Fusarium graminearum, Fusarium culmorum, Fusarium avenaceum, Microdochium nivale and Fusarium poae) of mycotoxin-producing Fusarium species in winter wheat in Belgium (Flanders) were determined. Field trials were set up in the varietal testing network of Flanders Agricultural Centre for Small Grains (Roeselare - Beitem, Belgium) and followed up during growing seasons 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. Fusarium infection and DON contamination were mainly influenced by location and environmental parameters. Mean DON levels ranged from 0 to 15 mg/kg. Over the period of four growing seasons cvs Deben, Ordeal and Napier had the highest DON contamination. Seasonal and local weather conditions before and during flowering together with local crop husbandry measures (crop rotation, soil preparation) seemed to be of great importance in explaining the variation in results obtained. At Bottelare a positive correlation between disease index and DON content was found for the growing seasons 2001-2002 and 2002-2003, but not the season 2003-2004. Fusarium graminearum and F. culmorum were in general the most frequently occurring Fusarium spp. in Flanders over the 4 years but the composition of the Fusarium population varied strongly from location to location and from year to year. Fusarium graminearum predominated in areas especially where maize was cultivated, whereas in areas with more small cereals in the crop rotation more F. culmorum was present. Also temperature played a role in the composition of Fusarium spp.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据