integrated mycotoxin management - michigan state university

41
Integrated Mycotoxin Management Michigan Agribusiness Association 2020 Winter Conference January 15, 2020 Katlin Fusilier and Manni Singh MSU Department of Plant, Soil, and Microbial Sciences

Upload: others

Post on 29-Apr-2022

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Integrated Mycotoxin Management

Michigan Agribusiness Association 2020 Winter Conference

January 15, 2020

Katlin Fusilier and Manni Singh

MSU Department of Plant, Soil, and Microbial Sciences

Page 2: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Fungal Ear Rots

▪ Many of the issues with grain quality are the result of fungal activity

▪ Grain that is infected with ear rot is often unfit for food or feed

▪ Ear rots can produce mycotoxins (secondary metabolites) which can cause health problems in both humans and animals

Page 3: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Ear Rots

Disease

Host

PathogenEnvironment

-Hybrid susceptibility

-Hybrid characteristics

-Crop growth stage (silking)

-Weather conditions

-Field management

Other Factors-Ex. Ear feeding insects

Page 4: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Contamination by Ear Rots and Mycotoxins

▪ Between 2012 and 2015 Michigan had an estimated yield loss of approximately 26 million bushels due to ear rots

▪ During this same time, an estimated 44,000 bushels were contaminated by mycotoxins in the state of Michigan

▪ Since 2015, outbreaks of mycotoxin contamination have occurred in the state of Michigan (2016 and 2018)

▪ Managing mycotoxin levels is important from a health and safety prospective along with an economic prospective

Page 5: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Ear Rots in the U.S.

▪ Aspergillus Ear Rot (Aspergillus flavus)

▪ Fusarium Ear Rot (Fusarium verticillioides)

▪ Gibberella Ear Rot (Fusarium graminearum)

▪ Diplodia Ear Rot (Stenocarpella maydis and S. macrospora)

▪ Cladosporium Ear Rot (Cladosporium spp.)

▪ Nigrospora Ear Rot (Nigrospora oryzae)

▪ Penicillium Ear Rot (Penicillium spp.)

▪ Trichoderma Ear Rot (Trichoderma spp.)

Page 6: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Ear Rots in the U.S.

▪ Aspergillus Ear Rot (Aspergillus flavus)

▪ Fusarium Ear Rot (Fusarium verticillioides)

▪ Gibberella Ear Rot (Fusarium graminearum)

▪ Diplodia Ear Rot (Stenocarpella maydis and S. macrospora)

▪ Cladosporium Ear Rot (Cladosporium spp.)

▪ Nigrospora Ear Rot (Nigrospora oryzae)

▪ Penicillium Ear Rot (Penicillium spp.)

▪ Trichoderma Ear Rot (Trichoderma spp.)

Page 7: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Aspergillus ear rot (Aspergillus flavus)

▪ Olive-green ear rot

▪ Mycotoxin Produced

▪ Aflatoxins

Page 8: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Fusarium ear rot (Fusarium verticillioidies)

▪ Diseased kernels are often isolated

▪ Affected kernels appear tan or brown

▪ Kernels often have a starburst pattern

▪ Mycotoxin Produced

▪ Fumonisins

Page 9: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Gibberella ear rot (Fusarium graminearum)

▪ Pink to red ear rot

▪ Mycotoxins Produced

▪ Deoxynivalenol (DON)

• Also known as vomitoxin

• Causes:

–Feed refusal

–Vomiting

▪ Zearalenone

Page 10: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Vomitoxin (Deoxynivalenol/DON) Discount Schedules in Michigan

Page 11: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Ear Rot and Mycotoxin Management

▪ In-season

▪ Once an ear is infected, fungal growth may continue during post-harvest stages

▪ Goal: alter conditions so that they are unfavorable for fungi i.e. reducing infection rates

▪ Harvest and Drying

▪ Reduce the amount of mycotoxin contamination in harvested corn

▪ Prevent further mycotoxin development in stored grain

▪ Storage

▪ Limit fungal growth in storage

Page 12: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Management of Mycotoxins in Corn GrainHost

Disease

Host

Pathogen Environment

Other Factors

Page 13: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Hybrid Selection

▪ Hybrid susceptibility/resistance

▪ Silk resistance

▪ Kernel resistance

▪ Hybrid morphology

▪ Husk cover- tighter husk cover hold in more moisture

▪ Ear erectness- erect ear holds more moisture

Host

Page 14: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Host

Page 15: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Host

Page 16: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Host Plant Resistance- Ear Rot Incidence

bab a

0

20

40

60

80

100

Below Average Average Above Average

ER

I (%

)

Ear Rot Rating

Huron 2018

bb

a

0

20

40

60

80

100

Below Average Average Above Average

ER

I (%

)

Ear Rot Rating

Washtenaw 2017

a a a

0

20

40

60

80

100

Below Average Average Above Average

ER

I (%

)

Ear Rot Rating

Saginaw 2018

a a a

0

20

40

60

80

100

Below Average Average Above Average

ER

I (%

)

Ear Rot Rating

Montcalm 2018

p=0.0005

p=0.99p=0.98

p=0.051

No consistent difference

Host

Page 17: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Host Plant Resistance- Ear Rot Severity

a a a

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Below Average Average Above Average

ER

S (

%)

Ear Rot Rating

Saginaw 2018

a aa

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Below Average Average Above Average

ER

S (

%)

Ear Rot Rating

Montcalm 2018

p=0.94p=0.21

No consistent difference

bcbc c

bc

aba

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Below Average Average Above Average

ER

S (

%)

Huron 2018

SmartStax VT Double PROp=0.021

b

a aab b

ab

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Below Average Average Above Average

ER

S (

%)

Washtenaw 2017

SmartStax VT Double PROp=0.015

Host

Page 18: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Reduce Overall Plant Stress

▪ Drought stress can increase aflatoxins in corn due to increased susceptibility to A. flavus

▪ High aflatoxin levels have been associated with fertility and weed stress

▪ In one study increased nitrogen rates consistently reduces aflatoxin levels

Aspergillus, DuPont Pioneer

Host

Page 19: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Management of Mycotoxins in Corn GrainPathogen

Disease

Host

Pathogen Environment

Other Factors

Page 20: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Residue Reduction: Crop rotation and Tillage▪ Inoculum is often from

infected residues left in the field

▪ Avoid corn on corn

▪ Wheat affected by Fusarium head blight Fusarium graminearum = Gibberella zeae

▪ Greater risk of infection in corn following wheat vs alfalfa

▪ Conventional tillage may reduce ear rot incidence

0

20

40

60

80

100

Conventional Reduced Tillage No-Till

Gib

ber

ella

Ear

Ro

t In

cid

ence

(%

)

Dill-Macky and Jones (2009)

Pathogen

Page 21: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Fungicide application▪ Fungicides have been shown to decrease DON levels in

some experiments, but this reduction is not always present

▪ Timing is important

▪ Fungicide chemistry is important (do not use strobilurins)

▪ Environmental conditions may determine fungicide efficacy

a

b

c

d

b

a

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

UTC 0 4 8 13 19

DO

N

Application Timing (Days After Silking)

(Limay-Rios and Schaafsma, 2018)

Pathogen

Page 22: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Fungicide- Ear Rot Severity

b

a

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Treated Non-treated

ER

S (

%)

Fungicide

Huron 2018

a a

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Treated Non-treated

ER

S (

%)

Fungicide

Montcalm 2018

p=0.038 p=0.93

Pathogen

Page 23: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Fungicide- Deoxynivalenol

a

a

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Treated Non-treated

DO

N p

pm

Fungicide

Huron 2018

aa

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Treated Non-treated

DO

N p

pm

Fungicide

Montcalm 2018

Fungicide did not reduce DON levels

p=0.26 p=0.57

Pathogen

Page 24: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Management of Mycotoxins in Corn GrainEnvironment

Disease

Host

Pathogen Environment

Other Factors

Page 25: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Planting Date

▪ Earlier planting dates generally result in a lower risk of fungal infection

▪ Later planting dates generally lead to a delay in harvest which can affect dry down conditions that the crop is exposed to

▪ Yearly weather differences can jeopardize this advantage

Environment

Page 26: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Planting Population

▪ Higher population densities result in higher ear rot and mycotoxin levels

▪ 15-56% increase in ear rot severity in three out of four years with a high population (33,200 plants a-1) vs. a low population (26,300 plants a-1)

▪ Microclimatic conditions are altered as population increases

▪ Higher populations lead to lower air flow and higher relative humidity

Environment

Page 27: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

DON Forecasting▪ Modeling efforts can be used to do a better job estimating

the probability of disease in a specific region or field

▪ Models can be used to make decisions about other management strategies

▪ Researchers in Michigan and other nearby regions such as Ontario are working to create DON forecasting models

Environment

Page 28: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Management of Mycotoxins in Corn GrainOther Factors

Disease

Host

Pathogen Environment

Other Factors

Page 29: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Managing Ear Feeding Insects

▪ Physically injured kernels have a higher incidence of ear rot injury

▪ Wounds are an entry point for fungal spores into the ear

▪ Studies have found correlations between western bean cutworm damage and Gibberella ear rot

Other Factors

Page 30: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

WBC and Ear Rot Incidence

y = 0.4399x + 68.022

R² = 0.16

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

ER

I (%

)

WBCI (%)

Huron 2018

P<0.001

y = 1.0594x - 5.7138

R² = 0.65

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

ER

I (%

)

WBCI (%)

Washtenaw 2017

P<0.001

y = 0.732x + 41.42

R² = 0.41

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

ER

I (%

)

WBCI (%)

Montcalm 2018

P<0.001

y = 0.7119x + 55.929

R² = 0.15

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

ER

I (%

)

WBCI (%)

Saginaw 2018

P=0.02

0 mm rainfall 10 days after

R1

5 mm rainfall 10 days after

R1

54 mm rainfall 10

days after R1

47 mm rainfall 10

days after R1

Other Factors

Page 31: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Ear Feeding Insect Issues in Michigan

▪ Western Bean Cutworm

▪ Has been in Michigan since 2006

▪ Cry1F no longer offers control due to resistance

▪ European Corn Borer

▪ Regularly found in Michigan on organic or non-Bt corn

▪ Not much of an issue in Michigan on Bt corn

▪ Resistance found in eastern Canada to Cry1F Bt

▪ Corn Earworm

▪ Little concern in the past 20 years due to Bt traits

▪ Surprise for many growers in 2019- moved north earlier along with resistance issues to Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2

Other Factors

Page 32: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Hybrid Selection

▪ The use of Bt traits to control European corn borer was associated with a reduction in mycotoxin contamination

▪ Knowing what traits to use is important

▪ Handy Bt Trait Table

Other Factors

Page 33: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Other Factors

Page 34: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Bt Trait Selection▪ Bt trait selection is important

▪ Traits that control for European corn borer (Cy1A, Cry1Ab, and Cry2Ab) have no effect on WBC

▪ Western bean cutworm

• Cry1F

• Vip3A

Western

Bean

Cutworm

feeding

Other Factors

Page 35: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Cry1F for WBC control

a a

0

20

40

60

80

100

SmartStax VT Double PRO

WB

CI

(%)

Insect Protection Trait

Washtenaw 2017

aa

0

20

40

60

80

100

SmartStax VT Double PRO

WB

CI

(%)

Insect Protection Trait

Huron 2018

a a

0

20

40

60

80

100

SmartStax VT Double PRO

WB

CI

(%)

Insect Protection Trait

Montcalm 2018

a a

0

20

40

60

80

100

SmartStax VT Double PRO

WB

CI

(%)

Insect Protection Trait

Saginaw 2018

No difference between SmartStax & VT Double PRO hybrids

p=0.29 p=0.76

p=0.092p=0.14

Other Factors

Page 36: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Insect Trait Package-Agrisure Viptera

Viptera lowered WBC levels during the 2018 growing season

b

a

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Viptera Non-Viptera

WB

CI

(%)

Insect Protection Trait

Huron 2018

b

a

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Viptera Non-Viptera

WB

CI

(%)

Insect Protection Trait

Montcalm 2018

b

a

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Viptera Non-Viptera

WB

CI

(%)

Insect Protection Trait

Saginaw 2018

Other Factors

Page 37: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Insect Trait Package-Agrisure Viptera

Viptera effect on DON levels was limited to one out of three locations in 2018

b

a

0123456789

10

DO

N p

pm

Insect Protection Trait

Huron 2018

a a

0123456789

10

DO

N p

pm

Insect Protection Trait

Montcalm 2018

a a

0123456789

10

DO

N p

pm

Insect Protection Trait

Saginaw 2018

Other Factors

Page 38: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Insecticide▪ Recommended threshold in the Great Lakes region for WBC

control

▪ Cumulative threshold of 5% of plants

▪ One study in the Great Lakes region has shown 38-88% decrease in WBC incidence and 55-95% decrease in WBC severity

▪ Plots with insecticides targeting early instar generally had lower DON levels than fungicides alone

▪ Insecticides did not provide complete protection from injury

▪ Insecticide-fungicide tank mix recommended at R1 (silking) to optimize fungicide protection

Other Factors

Page 39: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Integrated Mycotoxin Management▪ Hybrid selection

▪ Residue management

▪ Crop rotation

▪ Tillage

▪ Reduce plant stress

▪ Manage for uniformity

▪ WBC control (traits, scout and spray)

▪ Fungicide application (timing, chemistry)

▪ Harvest high risk fields first

▪ Post-harvest drying

Page 40: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Future Research- Silage Mycotoxin Management

▪ Objectives: Study how various management strategies impact ear rots, mycotoxins, silage yield, and silage quality

▪ Determine the effects of a foliar fungicide in hybrids with differing ear rot resistance and insect protection traits

▪ Quantify the role of planting date and population

▪ Investigate impacts of various agronomic practices

Experiment #1

▪ Huron, Ingham, Ottawa counties

▪ 6 hybrids

▪ Fungicide application

Experiment #2

▪ Ingham county

▪ 3 planting dates (5/17, 5/27, 6/19)

▪ 4 populations (28k-46k)

Experiment #3

▪ Collect samples from across the state of Michigan

▪ Gather info about field management

Page 41: Integrated Mycotoxin Management - Michigan State University

Questions?

Contact Us:

Manni Singh

[email protected]

Katlin Fusilier

[email protected]