Efficacy of acetic acid vapours and dry heat to control Fusarium graminearum and Bipolaris sorokiniana in barley and wheat seeds

IF 0.3 4区 农林科学 Q4 PLANT SCIENCES Phytoprotection Pub Date : 2016-09-29 DOI:10.7202/1037531AR
S. Rioux, S. Pouleur, P. Randall, A. Vanasse, T. Turkington, Y. Dion, K. Belkacemi
{"title":"Efficacy of acetic acid vapours and dry heat to control Fusarium graminearum and Bipolaris sorokiniana in barley and wheat seeds","authors":"S. Rioux, S. Pouleur, P. Randall, A. Vanasse, T. Turkington, Y. Dion, K. Belkacemi","doi":"10.7202/1037531AR","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To find seed treatments that are acceptable for organic cereal production, we tested the efficacy of three treatments, i.e. dry heat, a low dose of acetic acid vapours (AAV-L), and a high dose of AAV (AAV-H), to control Fusarium graminearum (Fg) and Bipolaris sorokiniana (Bs), two seed-borne pathogens affecting emergence and yield in barley and wheat. These treatments were compared with a control (no treatment) and Vitaflo®-280. Treatments were applied on six barley and six wheat seed lots contaminated with Fg at a rate of > 20% (i.e. > 20% of seeds contaminated) and/or Bs at a rate of > 50%. For all Fg-contaminated lots, the three non-chemical treatments reduced the contamination rate under the rejection threshold of 15%, which is the Danish recommendation for Fusarium spp. For Bs-contaminated lots, AAV-H reduced contamination the most, followed by AAV-L, and then by dry heat, which had no effect on barley. However, these treatments did not reduce Bs contamination under the rejection threshold of 30%, except for AAV-H in one barley lot and dry heat in one wheat lot. Also, AAV-H reduced the germination in three wheat lots and in the hulless barley AC Hawkeye, and this had negative effects on grain yield for two of the wheat lots. AAV-H had no effect on grain yield in the other lots, and neither did the other treatments in any of the lots. Dry heat was effective for controlling Fg in both cereals, whereas AAV-H showed some potential to control both pathogens, but only in covered grains. None of the treatments evaluated appears to be appropriate for reducing contamination by either pathogens in wheat and barley.","PeriodicalId":49693,"journal":{"name":"Phytoprotection","volume":"25 1","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Phytoprotection","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7202/1037531AR","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PLANT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

To find seed treatments that are acceptable for organic cereal production, we tested the efficacy of three treatments, i.e. dry heat, a low dose of acetic acid vapours (AAV-L), and a high dose of AAV (AAV-H), to control Fusarium graminearum (Fg) and Bipolaris sorokiniana (Bs), two seed-borne pathogens affecting emergence and yield in barley and wheat. These treatments were compared with a control (no treatment) and Vitaflo®-280. Treatments were applied on six barley and six wheat seed lots contaminated with Fg at a rate of > 20% (i.e. > 20% of seeds contaminated) and/or Bs at a rate of > 50%. For all Fg-contaminated lots, the three non-chemical treatments reduced the contamination rate under the rejection threshold of 15%, which is the Danish recommendation for Fusarium spp. For Bs-contaminated lots, AAV-H reduced contamination the most, followed by AAV-L, and then by dry heat, which had no effect on barley. However, these treatments did not reduce Bs contamination under the rejection threshold of 30%, except for AAV-H in one barley lot and dry heat in one wheat lot. Also, AAV-H reduced the germination in three wheat lots and in the hulless barley AC Hawkeye, and this had negative effects on grain yield for two of the wheat lots. AAV-H had no effect on grain yield in the other lots, and neither did the other treatments in any of the lots. Dry heat was effective for controlling Fg in both cereals, whereas AAV-H showed some potential to control both pathogens, but only in covered grains. None of the treatments evaluated appears to be appropriate for reducing contamination by either pathogens in wheat and barley.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
醋酸蒸汽和干热对大麦和小麦种子镰刀菌和小麦双星病菌的防治效果
为了寻找有机谷物生产可接受的种子处理,我们测试了干热、低剂量醋酸蒸汽(AAV- l)和高剂量AAV (AAV- h)三种处理对影响大麦和小麦出苗和产量的两种种子传播病原体镰刀菌(Fg)和双北极星(Bs)的控制效果。这些治疗与对照组(未治疗)和Vitaflo®-280进行比较。6个大麦和6个小麦种子批次,Fg污染率> 20%(即污染率> 20%),b污染率> 50%。对于所有的fg污染批次,三种非化学处理将污染率降低到15%的拒收阈值以下,这是丹麦对镰刀菌的推荐值。对于bs污染批次,AAV-H减少污染最多,其次是AAV-L,然后是干热,对大麦没有影响。然而,在30%的拒收阈值下,除了一个大麦批次的AAV-H和一个小麦批次的干热处理外,这些处理都没有减少Bs污染。此外,AAV-H还降低了3个小麦批次和无壳大麦AC鹰眼的发芽率,并对2个小麦批次的籽粒产量产生负面影响。AAV-H对其他批次的产量没有影响,其他处理对其他批次的产量也没有影响。干热对两种谷物的Fg均有抑制作用,而AAV-H对两种病原菌均有一定的抑制作用,但仅限于被盖谷物。所评估的处理似乎都不适合减少小麦和大麦中任何一种病原体的污染。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Phytoprotection
Phytoprotection 生物-植物科学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
Le virus des feuilles jaunes en cuillère de la tomate favorise la tolérance au stress de la sécheresse de Solanum lycopersicum L. Revue documentaire et nouvelles perspectives de l’anatomie du bois aidant à mieux comprendre et lutter contre le flétrissement du chêne Utilisation de la crotalaire, Crotalaria juncea, comme engrais vert pour la gestion des nématodes phytoparasites de la carotte en sol organique Évaluation des effets d’un pesticide d’origine végétale sur Tetranychus urticae, Botrytis cinerea et Bombus impatiens Chemical composition, antioxidant and allelopathic activities of essential oils and crude extracts of Cupressus arizonica Greene
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1