Fusarium head blight

1. CHEMICAL CONTROL OF FUSARIUM HEAD
BLIGHT OF WHEAT
RUFUS AKINRINLOLA
DEPARTMENT of PLANT PATHOLOGY
PLPT 802

2.  An above-ground disease of wheat, barley and rice.
 FHB is caused by several species of Fusarium
 FHB poses a global threat to the host crops
 F. graminearum (Gibberella zeae); prevalent in United States
 Favored by; high rainfall 2mm/day
 Temperature range from 10-30°C, optimum 25°C
FUSARIUM HEAD BLIGHT (FHB)
Yuen and Schoneweis, 2007).

3. Symptoms:
 Premature bleaching of
floret and spikelet
 Damaged kernels:
discolored or shrivel
kernels
Fusarium head blight (FHB)
https://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org
HK FDK
https://pubs.ext.vt.edu

4. FHB PATHOGEN AND DISEASE CYCLE
 Common FHB species:
• F. graminearum,
• F. culmorum,
• F. avenaceum,
• F. poae and
• F. triticum
Fernandez, et al, 2005, Bai & Shaner, 2004
 Infective inoculum:
 Ascospores
 Macroconidia
 Hyphae
 Primary inoculum
 Ascospores
 Wide host range
• Wheat
• Barley
• Rice
• Corn

5. Conidia
Perithecia
Overwinteringspores
Mycotoxins
in FDK
seeds
DISEASE CYCLE OF FUSARIUM GRAMINEARUM
Sexual
spore
Macroconidia
SPRING
Winter
Summer
Fall
20-25°C
Humidity
> 80%
Optimum
Moisture
0.2-2.5
1°Inoculum spread
by wind and
rainsplash
Seedborne infection

6.  FHB reduces grains yields and quality of economic crop
 FHB epidemics affect up to 26 states in the U.S in the 1990s
 Yield loss (wheat and barley) close to $8 billion USD
between 1992-1993
 The trichothecene mycotoxins is poisonous to human and
animals
FHB: ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE
Nganje et al, 2004; Champeil et al, 2004.

7. FACTS ABOUT FHB CONTROLS
 No complete resistance against fusarium head blight
 Fungicide treatment of fusarium head blight is inconsistent
 Most effective control is by integrated management

8.  FHB CHEMICAL CONTROL FACTORS
 INOCULUM DENSITY
 VARIETY RESISTANCE
 CLIMATIC FACTOR
 FUNGICIDE
 Inoculum  Host varieties
 Fungicide  Climatic factor

9.  FHB CHEMICAL CONTROL FACTORS
 Inoculum

10.  FHB CHEMICAL CONTROL FACTORS
 HOST VARIETY
- Fungicide translocation
- Flowering speed
- Susceptibility window
- Resistance to FHB
- Lodging
- Earliness

11.  FHB CHEMICAL CONTROL FACTORS
 CLIMATIC FACTORS
• Precipitation: 5mm/day
• Temperature range:10-30ºC,
• Optimum temperature:
25ºC
• High humidity
• Wet flowers

12.  FHB CHEMICAL CONTROL FACTORS
 THE FUNGICIDE FACTOR
• Fungicide types
• Time of application
• Mode of application

13.  FHB CHEMICAL CONTROL FACTORS
 THE FUNGICIDE FACTOR
• Fungicide types
• Time of application
• Mode of application
o Nozzle types
• Hollow cone tips (Coneject)
• Flat spray tips (Twinjet)
Mesterházy, 2014

14.  FHB CHEMICAL CONTROL FACTORS
 THE FUNGICIDE FACTOR
• Fungicide types
• Mode of application
• Time of application
• Types of nozzles
Mesterházy, 2014
o At flowering stage (Z61)
o Mid-flowering stage (Z65)
o Beginning of flowering and mid flowering
stage

15.  FHB CHEMICAL CONTROL FACTORS
 THE FUNGICIDE FACTOR
• Fungicide types
• Mode of application
• Time of application
• Types of nozzles
• Metconazole
• Tebuconazole
Mesterházy, 2014

16. FUNGICIDE TYPE
Mesterházy, 2014

17.  METCONAZOLE AND TEBUCONAZOLE
Properties and mode of action
 Non –specific/broad spectrum
 Are triazole fungicides
 Prevents C14 demethylases activity
 Demethylation/sterol biosynthesis inhibitor
 Prevent spore formation
 Inhibits mycelia growth Nufarm.com

18.  ‘MET’AND ‘TEB’ FUNGICIDE PRODUCTS
http://www.epestsolutions.com/

19.  ‘MET’AND ‘TEB’ FUNGICIDE PRODUCTS
Nufarm.com
http://www.cropscience.bayer.in/Products

20.  ‘MET’AND ‘TEB’ FUNGICIDE PRODUCTS
Application rate:
4-30 Oz/Acre
http://www.domyownpestcontrol.com/

21.  CONCLUSION
 Chemical control of Fusarium head blight is inconsistent
 Fungicides efficacy is affected by host, climatic and fungicide factors
 There is no complete host resistance to fusarium head blight
 Tebuconazole and metconazole containing fungicides are the most
effective against pathogen

23. • Bai, G., & Shaner, G. (2004). Management and resistance in wheat and barley to Fusarium head blight 1. Annu. Rev.
Phytopathol., 42, 135-161.
• Champeil, A., Dore, T., & Fourbet, J. F. (2004). Fusarium head blight: epidemiological origin of the effects of cultural practices
on head blight attacks and the production of mycotoxins by Fusarium in wheat grains. Plant science, 166(6), 1389-1415.
• Fernandez, M. R., Selles, F., Gehl, D., DePauw, R. M., & Zentner, R. P. (2005). Crop production factors associated with Fusarium
head blight in spring wheat in eastern Saskatchewan. Crop Science, 45(5), 1908-1916.
• Nganje, W. E., Kaitibie, S., Wilson, W. W., Leistritz, F. L., & Bangsund, D. A. (2004). Economic impacts of Fusarium head blight
in wheat and barley: 1993-2001. Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, Agricultural Experiment Station, North
Dakota State University.
• Safa, M., Samarasinghe, S., & Mohssen, M. (2009). Modeling fuel consumption in wheat production using neural networks.
• Yuen, G. Y., & Schoneweis, S. D. (2007). Strategies for managing Fusarium head blight and deoxynivalenol accumulation in
wheat. International journal of food microbiology, 119(1), 126-130.
• Mesterházy, Á. (2014). Chemical Control of Fusarium Head Blight of Wheat.Mycotoxin Reduction in Grain Chains, 232-247.
• Nakajima, T. (2010). Fungicides application against Fusarium head blight in wheat and barley for ensuring food safety. INTECH
Open Access Publisher.
 SOURCES