Journals / Turkish Journal Of Field Crops / 2019 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 1

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF AFLATOXIGENIC FUNGI ON PEANUT: FOR THE PRE-HARVEST APPROACH

Pages
21–27
Publication Date
2019-06-14
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Therefore, it can be said that a biological control method is a promising approach for controlling aflatoxin.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study was carried out to determine the efficacy of different applications of a biopesticide for reduction of aflatoxin contamination in peanut.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Biocontrol treatments included: (ı) soil application during sowing, (ıı) multiple application during sowing and 40 days after planting, (ııı) foliar application at 60 days after planting (ıv) control (untreated plots).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, it can be said that a biological control method is a promising approach for controlling aflatoxin.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Aspergillus flavus · Aspergillus flavus NRRL 21882 · Biological control

Abstract

This study was carried out to determine the efficacy of different applications of a biopesticide for reduction of aflatoxin contamination in peanut. The biopesticide, afla-guard, delivers a nontoxigenic Aspergillus flavus to the field where it competes with naturally occurring toxigenic fungus. Biocontrol treatments included: (ı) soil application during sowing, (ıı) multiple application during sowing and 40 days after planting, (ııı) foliar application at 60 days after planting (ıv) control (untreated plots). Biopesiticide was applied to peanut plots in 2015 and 2016 in Randomized Complete Block Design with four replications. Peanuts were collected from control and treated plots at harvest-drying-pre-storage periods and analysed for aflatoxins. Aflatoxin concentrations were generally quite low in 2015, also the aflatoxin concentration in treated samples (from 0.04 to 0.71 μg/kg) was reduced by 97.38 to 99.82% compared with controls (from 21.84 to 27.12 μg/kg). In 2016, reductions were also noted for all biocontrol treatments (from 89.07 to 92.39%) compared with controls. In conjunction with the reductions in aflatoxin contamination, biocontrol treatments produced significant reductions with biopesticide in peanut. Therefore, it can be said that a biological control method is a promising approach for controlling aflatoxin.

🔖

Cite This Article

LAVKOR, İ., ARIOGLU, H., VAR, İ., OZTEMIZ, S. (2019). BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF AFLATOXIGENIC FUNGI ON PEANUT: FOR THE PRE-HARVEST APPROACH. Turkish Journal Of Field Crops, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 1, 21–27. https://ajindex.com/articles/181031

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Anonymous, 2014. http://www.syngenta-us.com/currentlabel/ afla-guard-gr. Afla-Guard® GR Anonymous, 2017. The meteorological data for Adana. The Turkish State Meteorological Service Adana Regional Directorship, 2015, 2016.
  2. Arıoglu, H. 2000.
  3. Peanuts cultivation breeding. Adana, Turkey: Cukurova University Faculty of Agriculture publishing. Arzandeh, S. and S. Jinap. 2011. Effect of initial aflatoxin concentration, heating time and roasting temperature on aflatoxin reduction in contaminated peanuts and process optimization using response surface modeling. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 46: 485–491.
  4. Atehnkeng, J., P.S. Ojiambob, P.J. Cotty and R. Bandyopadhyay. 2014. Field efficacy of a mixture of atoxigenic Aspergillus flavus Link: FR vegetative compatibility groups in preventing aflatoxin contamination in maize (Zea mays L.). Biol. Control, 72: 62-70.
  5. Chepsergon, J., E.K. Kiprop, L.A. Mwamburi. Biocontrol of aflatoxins in corn using atoxigenic Aspergillus flavus. Review International Journal of Science and Research. 12:1954-1958.
  6. Cole, R.J., T.H. Sanders, J.W. Dorner and P.D. Blankenship. 1989. Environmental conditions required to induce preharvest aflatoxin contamination of groundnuts: Summary of six years’ research. In: Aflatoxin contamination of groundnut: Proceedings of the international workshop, ed. Hall SD., 279-287,
  7. ICRISAT Center, Patancheru, AP, India. Denizel, T. and O. Kosker. 1972. A mycological survey of various kinds of nuts commercially available in the UK with reference to mycotoxins. University of Ankara, Turkey: Yearbook of the Faculty of Agriculture. Dorner, J.W., R.J. Cole and P.D. Blankenship. 1992. Use of a biocompetitive agent to control preharvest aflatoxin in drought stressed peanuts. J. Food Prot. 55: 888-892.
  8. Dorner, J.W., R.J. Cole and P.D. Blankenship. 1998. Effect of inoculum rate of biological control agents on preharvest aflatoxin contamination of peanuts. Biol. Cont. 12: 171-176.
  9. Dorner, J.W. and R.J. Cole. 2002. Effect of application of nontoxigenic strains of Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus on subsequent aflatoxin contamination of peanuts in storage. J. Stored Prod. Res. 38: 329-339.
  10. Dorner, J.W., R.J. Cole, W.J. Connick, D.J. Daigle, M.R. Mcguire and B.S. Shashac. 2003. Evaluation of biological control formulations to reduce aflatoxin contamination in peanuts. Biol. Cont. 26: 318-324.
  11. Dorner, J.W. 2004. Combined effects of biological control formulations, cultivars, and fungicides on preharvest colonization and aflatoxi