Next Article in Journal
Overall Quality of “Early” Potato Tubers as Affected by Organic Cultivation
Next Article in Special Issue
A Two-Year Field Experiment for the Integrated Management of Bread and Durum Wheat Fungal Diseases and of Deoxynivalenol Accumulation in the Grain in Central Italy
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Nitrification Inhibitors on Nitrogen Dynamics and Ammonia Oxidizers in Three Black Agricultural Soils
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Thiosemicarbazone Derivatives and Fusarium culmorum (Wm.G. Sm.) Sacc. Infection of Winter Wheat Seedlings on Their Health Status and Soil Biological Activity
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/agronomy12020295
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Reaction of Oat Genotypes to Fusarium equiseti (Corda) Sacc. Infection and Mycotoxin Concentrations in Grain

by
Elżbieta Mielniczuk
1,*,
Marcin Wit
2,
Elżbieta Patkowska
1,*,
Małgorzata Cegiełko
1 and
Wojciech Wakuliński
2
1
Department of Plant Protection, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Leszczyńskiego 7, 20-069 Lublin, Poland
2
Department of Plant Protection, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Nowoursynowska 159, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2022, 12(2), 295; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020295
Submission received: 9 December 2021 / Revised: 18 January 2022 / Accepted: 20 January 2022 / Published: 24 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fungal Disease Management and Mycotoxin Prevention in Cereals)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Fusarium head blight and the contamination of cereals with toxic fungal metabolites are particularly important problems in global agriculture. The increasingly frequent isolation of F. equiseti from cereal grain and the sparse information in the literature on the harmfulness of this fungus to oat encouraged us to conduct the present research. The aim of the study was to determine the susceptibility of oat genotypes to panicle infection by F. equiseti and mycotoxin content in the grain. Field experiments involving 10 oat genotypes were conducted over three years (2015–2017). Oat panicles were inoculated with a conidial suspension of F. equiseti, which reduced the kernels yield by 38.34%, the number of kernels per panicle by 31.16% and 1000 kernels weight by 12.66%. F. equiseti accumulated type A trichothecenes (T-2 and HT-2 toxins, scirpentriol, diacetoxyscirpenol, T-2 triol, T-2 tetraol) and type B trichothecenes (deoxynivalenol, 3Ac-DON, 15Ac-DON, nivalenol, fusarenone X) in kernels at an average level of 0.0616 and 0.2035 mg·kg−1, respectively. The highest susceptibility to scabs caused by F. equiseti was found for genotype POB 4901/10, whereas cv. Elegant exhibited the highest resistance to F. equiseti in terms of yield reduction after inoculation.

1. Introduction

Fusarium head blight (FHB or scab) is a serious disease of cereals all over the world, including oat. The occurrence of this disease on cereals grown in various climate zones causes significant losses in the grain yield [1,2,3]. The main pathogens causing head blight are Fusarium graminearum (Schwabe), Fusarium culmorum (Wm. G. Sm.) Sacc., Fusarium avenaceum (Fr.) Sacc. and Fusarium poae (Wr.) Peck [1,4,5,6]. Moreover, cereal ears can also be infected by F. equiseti [4,5]. The predominance of a given species in FHB induction is modified, among others, by weather conditions [7,8]. Fusarium graminearum develops most optimally in warm and humid weather conditions and it occurs mainly in warmer regions of the world [9]. F. culmorum, on the other hand, is the main pathogen of cereals grown mostly in temperate climates, and warm weather with occasional rainfall during flowering is conducive to ear infection [10]. F. avenaceum and F. equiseti are temperature- and moisture-tolerant species, and very often predominate in cooler climates [2,9,11]. F. equiseti is currently included in the Fusarium incarnatum-equiseti species complex [12] and has been identified, among others, as the causal agent of Fusarium diseases of maize and wheat ears, as well as other cereals grown in Europe and North America [5,11,13,14]. This species has been identified as the cause of Fusarium blight of wheat and barley ears and oat panicles grown in Norway, Denmark and Canada [11,14,15,16,17]. In addition to weather conditions, the resistance of the cultivated cereal genotypes has a modifying effect on the severity of Fusarium head blight [18]. Oat panicles are usually less affected by Fusarium spp. compared to ears of other cereals. However, there are regions where fusarium panicle blight is a serious problem in favorable weather conditions. These include Scandinavia and Canada [14,15,16].
The infection of ears and panicles by Fusarium spp. not only reduces the grain yield, but also poses a risk of cereal grain contamination with compounds toxic to humans and animals [6,19,20]. The factors influencing mycotoxin content in the infected grain are: the climatic and soil conditions, harvest method, grain storage, as well as genetic characteristics of cereal species and cultivars and toxigenic abilities of individual Fusarium spp. strains infecting the ears [5,21]. Hence, cultivation of the least susceptible genotypes is an important element of integrated plant protection against toxic pathogens [4]. Optimal fertilization, proper crop rotation and the application of fungicides from different chemical groups are also important elements of integrated cereal protection against Fusarium disease development. Most pathogenic fungi can survive in harvest residues; therefore, a properly designed crop rotation, in addition to direct and indirect protection methods (fungicide application at flowering, use of cultivars resistant to Fusarium spp.), can significantly reduce Fusarium spp. and grain contamination with mycotoxin [22]. Cultivating cereals one after another is a particularly unfavorable form of crop rotation, especially after wheat and maize [3,4,23].
Currently, biological methods play a significant role in plant protection as an element of biocontrol of fungal pathogens by inhibiting their development and reducing the grain mycotoxin content. According to the literature, Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) are the best line of defense for controlling Fusarium toxin contamination of cereal and maize grains. However, fluctuations in weather conditions can significantly reduce the effectiveness of plant protection methods against Fusarium spp. infection and mycotoxin accumulation in grains [4].
F. equiseti produces various quantities of the following substances: nivalenol, fusarenone X, deoxynivalenol and its acetyl derivatives, diacetoxyscirpenol, monoacetoxyscirpenol, T-2 toxin, HT-2 toxin, T-2 triol, T-2 tetraol, scirpentriol, as well as fusarochromanone, zearalenone, butenolide and equisetin [5,24,25,26,27,28]. According to Langseth et al. [24], F. equiseti cytotoxicity is comparable to that of the most toxic F. culmorum isolates.
The species F. avenaceum, F. culmorum and F. poae are considered to be the main cause of Fusarium panicle disease of oat grown in Europe [15,24,29]; however, the increasingly frequent isolation of F. equiseti from the grain of this cereal and sparse information in the literature on the harmfulness of this fungus to oat prompted us to conduct the present research. Moreover, oat is widely used in the production of healthy food; therefore the aim of the study was to determine the level of contamination of its grain with toxic F. equiseti metabolites, especially in conditions of the epidemic risk of Fusarium panicle infection, and to select the genotypes least susceptible to FHB.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Field Experiment

Susceptibility of panicles of selected 10 oat genotypes (cultivars: Agent, Elegant, Denar, Kozak, Romulus, lines: DC 06011-8, DC 14-8, POB 961-1344/13, POB 4109/10 and POB 6020/10) to F. equiseti No. O-020 infection was determined based on a field experiment with artificial panicle infection during the flowering stage. Oat cultivars and lines used in inoculation experiments were originally developed and introduced in Poland. The seed material was submitted to phytopathological testing by the breeders: Danko Plant Breeding, Sp. z o. o., Strzelce Plant Breeding, Sp. z o. o., Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute (IHAR)—National Research Institute Group and Małopolska Plant Breeding, Sp. z o. o. as part of a research project. Each oat genotype whose panicles were artificially contaminated grew in a separate 10-m2 plot. The plots were located in south-eastern Poland, near Zamość.

2.1.1. Infectious Material

F. equiseti strain No. O-020 was derived from the culture collection of the Department of Phytopathology and Mycology, Department of Plant Protection, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, and was isolated from oat kernels obtained from the panicles with Fusarium blight symptoms. The fungus was isolated from kernels using the plate method on a mineral medium with the following composition: 38 g of sucrose, 0.7 g of NH4NO3, 0.3 g of KH2PO4, 0.3 g of MgSO4 × 7 H2O, trace amount of FeCl3 × 6 H2O, trace amount of ZnSO4 × 7 H2O, trace amount of CuSO4 × 7 H2O, trace amount of MnSO4 × 5 H2O and 20 g of agar. Water was added to a final volume of 1000 mL. F. equiseti was identified by the classical method based on the observation of morphological structures formed on standard media (potato dextrose agar—PDA, carnation leaf agar—CLA and selective medium SNA (synthetic nutrient agar), according to the keys and monographs of Nelson et al. [30] and Leslie and Summerell [31].
The fungus grew rapidly on PDA medium, with the colony reaching the diameter of 5.8 cm after only 4 days. The aerial mycelium was abundant, flocculent at first and then woolly, yellow-beige in color. The reverse of the colony was brown in the center and slightly yellow in the periphery. Macroconidia were sickle-shaped, dorsoventrally curved with an elongated basal cell ending in a prominent long foot; the apical cell was also elongated, tapered, slightly curved. Spores mostly had 4–6 cells and formed on monophialide. Macroconidia formed in orange sporodochia in the central part of the colony. Microconidia were absent. The tested F. equiseti strain formed thick-walled, spherical, rough, yellow-brown, numerous chlamydospores in mycelial hyphae, which occurred singly, in pairs, or were produced in clumps or chains. The morphological structures of the tested F. equiseti strain were consistent with the description provided by Kosiak et al. [28] and Leslie and Summerell [31].
The profile of mycotoxins produced by the analyzed strain of the fungus was determined by high-performance gas chromatography at the Department of Chemistry, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Poland. F. equiseti No. O-020 produced trichothecenes compounds of groups A (T-2 toxin, HT- 2 toxin, scirpentriol (STO), T-2 tetraol, diacetoxyscirpenol (DAS), T-2 triol) and B (deoxynivalenol (DON), 3-Ac DON, 15-AcDON and nivalenol (NIV). The results of these studies were consistent with the results of other authors [24,26,27]. Before the field tests, the pathogenicity of the analyzed strain was assessed using the method of Mishra and Behr [32] based on the evaluation of the germination capacity of oat kernels of the cultivar Bingo. The fungus reduced oat kernels germination to 11%, while 92% kernels germination was recorded in the control combination.
The F. equiseti No. O-020 infectious material was a macroconidia suspension with a density of 5 × 105 spores mL−1. The infectious mixture was prepared as in the research described by Kiecana and co-authors [33]: the growing medium (1:1) was composed of water extract from 0.5 kg of oat leaves and a liquid selective medium—SNA without the addition of agar, autoclaved for 1 h at 121 °C and 1 atm. The medium was inoculated with the mycelium of a two-week-old culture of F. equiseti strain No. O-020 and incubated for two weeks at 18–20 °C with a 12-h period of natural light. After incubation, the inoculum was stirred for 10 min, filtered through a cheesecloth, and the supernatant of the conidial suspension (5 × 105 spores mL−1) was used for the inoculation of panicles in field conditions.

2.1.2. Panicle Inoculation

Panicle inoculation was carried out with a garden sprayer using 4 mL of the infectious material per panicle. One hundred panicles of each oat genotype (4 × 25 panicles per replicate) were inoculated with F. equiseti 4 days after anthesis of a minimum of 50% of plants (on 20–23 June 2015, 25–27 June 2016 and June 30–July 2 2017). The panicles of the control combination (non-inoculated group) were sprayed with distilled water only. After inoculation, the panicles were covered with plastic bags, and thus the infectious material was protected against air currents and drying for 24 h [33].
The inoculated and control panicles were cut at the stage of full grain maturity (harvest dates: 27 July 2015, 2 August 2016 and 5 August 2017), the kernels were separated and the following parameters were determined: the number of kernels per panicle (number of kernels was determined in 40 panicles—4 replicates × 10 panicles), the kernels yield of 40 panicles (4 × 10 panicles) and 1000 kernels weight (TKW). The results obtained from the panicle inoculation experiment were compared to the control.

2.1.3. Fungus Re-Isolation

Fungus re-isolation from the kernels of all experimental combinations was conducted to complete Koch’s postulates. Re-isolation of fungi from kernels obtained from panicles inoculated with F. equiseti was performed using the plate method. Mineral medium (medium with the composition given above), was used to isolate the fungi colonizing the oat kernels. For each genotype, 50 kernels from the combination of the panicle inoculation experiment were analyzed. Fungi of the genus Fusarium were determined on standard media as in the identification of the F. equiseti strain used for panicle inoculation. Colonies of other fungi were determined according to the keys and monographs presented by Mielniczuk and Cegiełko [34].

2.2. Chemical Analyses

Grain samples from oat panicles inoculated with F. equiseti were analyzed for the presence of trichothecenes according to Perkowski et al. [35]. Grain samples (10 g) of each oat genotype were ground and subsequently extracted with acetonitrile/water (82:18) and purified on a charcoal column [Celite 545/charcoal Draco G/60/activated alumina neutral 4:3:4 (w/w/w)]. Mycotoxin content was analyzed in four replications. Type A trichothecenes were analyzed as trifluoroacetyl derivatives. The amount of 100 μL trifluoroacetic acid anhydride was added to the dried sample. After 20 min the reacting substance was evaporated to dryness under nitrogen. The residue was dissolved in 500 μL of isooctane and 1 μL was injected onto a gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer. Type B trichothecenes were analyzed as trimethylsilyl derivatives. A 100-µL volume of a TMSI/TMCS mixture (trimethylsilyl imidazole/trimethylchlorosilane, v/v 100/1) was added to the dried extract. After 10 min, 500 μL of isooctane was added and the reaction was quenched with 1 mL of water. The isooctane layer was used for the analysis and 1 μL of the sample was injected on a GC/MS system. Chromatographic separation and analysis were carried out separately using a gas chromatograph (Hewlett Packard 6890) on a capillary column (HP-5MS, 0.25 mm × 30 m capillary column) coupled to a mass detector (Hewlett Packard 5972 A). The analysis was performed in the selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode. For type A trichothecenes, those were: STO 456 and 555; T-2 tetraol 455 and 568; T-2 triol 455 and 569; DAS 402 and 374; HT-2 455 and 327; T-2 327 and 401. For type B trichothecenes, those were: DON 103 and 512; 3-AcDON 117 and 482; 15-AcDON 193 and 482; FUS 103 and 570; NIV 191 and 600. The helium flow rate was 0.7 cm3·min−1. A full mass range (from 100 to 700 amu) analysis was performed to confirm the presence of the determined toxins in the samples. The obtained results were processed using the Chem Station program. The recovery percentages for the analyzed toxins were: T-2—86 ± 3.8%; T-2 tetraol—88 ± 4.0%; HT-2—91 ± 3.3%; DAS—84 ± 4.6%; DON—84 ± 3.8%; 3AcDON—78 ± 4.8%; AcDON—74 ± 2.2% and NIV—81 ± 3.8%. The detection limit for the analyzed toxins was 0.001 mg·kg−1.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Statistical calculations of the results obtained in the field experiment involving oat panicle inoculation with F. equiseti during flowering, and the results of the chemical analysis for the presence of toxic metabolites were performed using the statistical Statistica software, version 13 (StatSoft Polska, Kraków, Poland) and ARSTAT, developed at the Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science at the University of Life Sciences in Lublin. An analysis of variance was performed to determine the effect of panicle inoculation with the tested fungal strain, where the dependent variables were the absolute values of the yield structure elements (kernels yield, number of kernels per panicle—NKP and 1000 kernels weight—TKW). The Tukey test was used to compare the means for individual cultivars at two factor levels: inoculation and control. An analysis of variance was also performed to assess the reduction of the tested yield components (RYIELD, RNKP, RTKW). For the purpose of statistical analysis, the percentage data were transformed according to Bliss formula (f(x) = Arcsin √x). Pearson correlation coefficients between the components of the kernels yield reduction were also calculated. All the hypotheses were verified with p ≤ 0.05.

2.4. Weather Conditions

Data on temperature and precipitation during oat vegetation seasons in 2015–2017 were obtained from the Meteorological Station in Zamość, belonging to the Department of Environmental Protection and Development of the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences in Zamość, University of Life Sciences in Lublin and the Internet publications of the Institute of Meteorology and Water Management (www.imgw.pl/klimat) (accessed on 1 December 2021).

3. Results

The method of panicle inoculation with a suspension of F. equiseti No. O-020 macroconidia turned out to be effective, because the panicles showed disease symptoms and etiological signs characteristic of scab, with a higher number of spikelets affected in the panicle than under natural infection conditions. Orange sporodochia of the fungus were observed on the chaff of spikelets (Figure 1). The affected spikelets whitened prematurely. The kernels from the infected panicles were smaller, shriveled and discolored (gray) compared to the control, sometimes covered with a layer of mycelium. Some spikelets in the inoculated panicles remained infertile. In contrast, the panicles from the control combination showed normal development and color, with well-developed kernels (Figure 2).
The statistical analysis of the mean results obtained over three study years (2015–2017) showed that panicle inoculation with the strain F. equiseti No. O-020 during flowering significantly influenced the number of kernels per panicle, the kernels yield of 10 panicles and 1000-kernel weight in the analyzed genotypes of this cereal compared to control, the exceptions being the number of kernels per panicle in the Elegant cultivar (Table 1). The effects of F. equiseti on the yield structure of oat in 2015–2017 are presented in supplementary files (Supplementary Tables S1–S3). The harmful effect of the fungus on oat plants was observed in all three growing seasons. The mean number of kernels, kernels yield and 1000 kernels weight were significantly reduced compared to non-infected plants in 2015 (Supplementary Table S1), 2016 (Supplementary Table S2) and 2017 (Supplementary Table S3). The significant of interaction genotype × year was found, indicating the role of the environment on the oat genotype response. In the particular years of the study some genotypes reaction was similar to the control and the reduction of yield structure parameters nonsignificant.
The comparative analysis showed differences between oat genotypes in terms of the reduction of the analyzed yield structure elements. On average, over 3 years of research (2015–2017), the smallest reduction in the number of kernels in the panicle and the kernels yield of 10 panicles was recorded for the cultivar Elegant: 13.63% and 24.35%, respectively, compared to control (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The average reduction in 1000 kernels weight (TKW) for this cultivar was 11.87% (Figure 5). In individual study years, the reduction in the kernels number per panicle in the cultivar Elegant ranged from 0.49% (2017) to 36.60% (2016), while the reduction in the kernels yield was from 7.35% (2017) to 40.50% (2016), and TKW from 6.50% (2016) to 22.30% (2015) (Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5). Significantly the highest average reduction in the number of kernels per panicle and the kernels yield of 10 panicles, over 3 years of research, was found in breeding line POB 4109/10: 51.73% (from 32.60% in 2015 to 65.90% in 2016) and 57.67% (from 44.80% in 2015 to 64.60% in 2016), respectively (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The greatest reduction in 1000 kernels weight was recorded for cv. Romulus—20.75% (from 0.95% in 2017 to 34.7% in 2016) (Figure 5).
Panicle inoculation with F. equiseti No. O-020 macroconidia, of all tested oat genotypes from the years 2015–2017, resulted in a different extent of the kernels number reduction per panicle, the kernels yield and TKW; however, there were no statistically significant differences in the kernels yield between 2015 and 2017, and in 1000 kernels weight (TKW) between 2016 and 2017 (Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5). The lowest decrease in the number of kernels per panicle (18.09%) was recorded in 2015, and the highest in 2016 (44.46%) (Figure 3). The lowest average kernels yield loss was found in 2017 and 2015, 32.39% and 34.24%, respectively, and the highest (48.39%) in 2016 (Figure 4). As regards TKW, the smallest reduction was recorded in 2017 (5.90%), and the largest (21.35%) in 2015 (Figure 5).
In addition, the statistical analysis showed that the kernels yield reduction was most significantly related to the decrease in the kernel number per panicle (r = 0.821), while it was less significantly associated with lower TKW (r = 0.091). There was also a negative correlation between the reduction in the number of kernels per panicle and 1000 kernels weight (r = −0.338) (Table 2).
Re-isolation of the fungus from inoculated kernels carried out according to Koch’s postulates confirmed their colonization by F. equiseti (Table 3).

3.1. Mycotoxin Contents in Grain Obtained from Panicles Inoculated with F. equiseti at the Flowering Stage

The chemical analysis of kernels from panicles artificially infected from 2015–2017 showed the presence of types A and B trichothecene compounds (Table 4). The average total of type A trichothecenes over 3 years of testing of all genotypes ranged from 0.0442 mg·kg−1 (cv. Agent) to 0.0913 mg·kg−1 (cv. Romulus) (Table 4).
The average sums of type A trichothecene compounds in the grain of all oat genotypes in 2015, 2016, and 2017 were 0.0997, 0.0210 and 0.0643 mg·kg−1, respectively (Table 5). Among type A trichothecenes, scirpentriol had the highest concentration—0.0327 mg·kg−1 in oat grain, while T-2 triol the lowest—0.0009 mg·kg−1. In addition, grain from panicles inoculated with F. equiseti was contaminated with HT-2 toxin, diacetoxyscirpenol and T-2 tetraol (Table 4 and Table 5).
The average value over 3 years of testing the total of type B trichothecenes for individual genotypes ranged from 0.0945 mg·kg−1 (POB 4109/10) to 0.3574 mg·kg−1 (Kozak) (Table 6). The average sums of these metabolites in the grain of all oat genotypes in 2015, 2016, and 2017 were 0.1708, 0.1201 µg·kg−1 and 0.3192 mg·kg−1, respectively. Over the three study years, nivalenol was found in the highest amounts in oat grain obtained from panicles inoculated with F. equiseti (on average 0.1362 mg·kg−1—from 0.0692 in 2015 to 0.2455 mg·kg−1 in 2017), while 15-AcDON was determined in the lowest quantities. Kernels from panicles inoculated with F. equiseti were also contaminated with deoxynivalenol, 3-Ac DON and FUS X (Table 7).

3.2. Weather Conditions

In Zamość, the 2015 growing season was characterized by temperatures higher than the long-term average in June, July, and August by +0.2 °C up to +3.7 °C. The percentage of normal rainfall, as compared to the long-term average, was higher only in May by 75.3%. The oat growing season of 2016 was characterized by higher temperatures (0.5 to 1.7 °C) compared to the long-term average. A greater amount of rainfall was also recorded in the months of April, May and July 2016 compared to the long-term average. On the other hand, the 2017 oat growing season was characterized by temperatures higher than the long-term average in May-August, by 0.2 to 1.7 °C. It was also observed that precipitation in this year of the study was lower than the long-term average (Table 8).

4. Discussion

Various methods of ear inoculation are used in phytopathological experiments to determine genotype susceptibility to infection by Fusarium spp. [14,36,37,38,39,40]. The current study applied the method of spraying panicles with a suspension of F. equiseti macroconidia (after Kiecana et al. [33]) as it was found to be most consistent with natural infection. Considering the variable virulence of Fusarium spp. strains [41,42,43,44], the study used F. equiseti strain No. O-020, whose pathogenicity was verified using the method described by Mishra and Behr [32]. McCallum and Tekauz [45] and Vančo et al. [46] reported that ears sprayed with a suspension of F. graminearum and F. culmorum macroconidia yielded a higher number of infected kernels per ear than those in which single spikelets were spot-inoculated.
The conducted research showed that the inoculation of panicles with F. equiseti strain No. O-020 during the flowering stage decreased to a large extent the number of kernels per panicle, while their weight was reduced to a lesser extent. The percentage of infected panicles in the canopy determines yield losses in the cultivated area. The kernels yield from panicles artificially infected with F. equiseti was lower (compared to control) by an average of 39.5%. The conducted research showed that under conditions of artificial panicle infection F. equiseti exerted a similar effect on the reduction of the oat kernels yield to that of F. avenaceum and F. crookwellense in 1996–1998, as well as F. poae in 2008 [33,47,48]. In contrast, F. culmorum proved to be more harmful to oat panicles [49]. F. equiseti was less pathogenic to spring wheat ears than F. avenaceum, F. culmorum and F. graminearum under controlled conditions [13]. In some regions of South Africa this species was found to induce Fusarium head blight more frequently than F. graminearum, which was considered the main cause of FHB in that country [50]. F. equiseti was recognized as one of the factors deteriorating the quality of cereal grains, including oat grown in Norway [11,24,28].
F. equiseti was also isolated from the roots and stem bases of oat [51]. Moreover, this fungus turned out to be the main cause of winter wheat root necrosis and was found to be significantly involved in damaging stem bases of this plant cultivated in the conditions of north-eastern Poland [52].
The results of chemical studies concerning the profile and quantity of mycotoxins produced by F. equiseti confirmed the previous findings that this fungus was capable of producing type A and B trichothecenes [5,25,28]. The composition of mycotoxins produced in kernels from oat panicles artificially infected with F. equiseti was similar to the metabolite profile of this fungus obtained in laboratory conditions [24,26,28]. The presence of T-2 and HT-2 toxins, diaceotoxyscirpenol, T-2 triol, T- 2 tetraol, scirpentriol, as well as deoxynivalenol, 3Ac-DON and nivalenol was found in grain samples of the studied genotypes. However, neosolaniol, monoacetoxyscirpenol or fuzarenone X and zearalenone—i.e., metabolites considered to be characteristic of the mycotoxin profile produced by different F. equiseti isolates—were not detected in oat kernels infected with the analyzed F. equiseti strain [25,28,53]. The concentration of mycotoxins in the grain of oat genotypes was lower compared to the same metabolites produced by different F. equiseti isolates under laboratory conditions [28]. In the present study, F. equiseti strain No. O-020 produced nivalenol in the highest amounts, and the average concentration of this metabolite was 0.1362 mg·kg−1,which was lower than in oat grain from panicles artificially infected with F. crookwellese and F. culmorum [48,49].
The level of oat grain contamination with HT-2 toxin, as a result of artificial panicle infection with F. equiseti, was also higher compared to panicles inoculated with F. poae No. 35 in 2008 [47]. However, F. poae strain No. 35 produced higher amounts of DAS, T-2 tetraol and scirpentriol in oat grain compared to the analyzed F. equiseti strain [47].
Similar to other studies on cereals [33,37,40,43,54], the analyzed genotypes differed in their susceptibility to panicle infection by F. equiseti at the flowering stage. The results of field experiments demonstrated a high variability in the reaction of the tested cultivars to panicle infection by the fungal strain in individual years of the study, which indicated a significant influence of the genotypic-environmental interaction on the development of Fusarium head blight. High temperatures and precipitation in July 2016, directly after panicle inoculation, favored the development of Fusarium head blight and grain contamination with mycotoxins. Similar relationships in wheat and triticale cultivars were demonstrated by Chełkowski and co-authors [54], Vogelgsang and co-authors [43] and Weber and Kita [23]. On the other hand, in the season of 2017, which showed the lowest grain reduction compared to the control, a small amount of rainfall and the relatively lowest temperature in June and July—i.e., during flowering and during grain formation—were recorded. The conditions of 2017 were therefore not conducive to the development of FHB caused by F. equiseti.
The present study did not show a positive relationship between trichothecene content and kernels yield reduction as a result of panicle inoculation with F. equiseti, similar to the analyses of wheat and barley infected by F. culmorum [55,56]. The relationship between mycotoxin content and yield reduction seems to be dependent on the type of cultivar resistance to FHB [18,57].

5. Conclusions

The conducted research confirmed the harmfulness of F. equiseti to oat.
Assuming kernels yield reduction as a result of panicle inoculation with F. equiseti as the evaluation criterion, the cultivar Elegant and breeding line POB 6020/10 should be considered the least susceptible to infection with this pathogen, while the cultivar Romulus as the most susceptible.
The presence of F. equiseti on oat panicles posed a risk of grain contamination with toxic metabolites of type A and B trichothecenes.
The differential response of the studied oat genotypes to F. equiseti infection confirmed that the selection of cultivars characterized by the lowest susceptibility to Fusarium spp. can be an effective method of reducing yield losses and grain contamination with mycotoxins.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy12020295/s1, Table S1: Effect of inoculation of oat panicles with F. equiseti No O-020 on the number of kernels per panicle, kernels yield per 10 panicles and 1000 kernels weight, average in 2015; Table S2: Effect of inoculation of oat panicles with F. equiseti No O-020 on the number of kernels per panicle, kernels yield per 10 panicles and 1000 kernels weight, average in 2016; Table S3: Effect of inoculation of oat panicles with F. equiseti No O-020 on the number of kernels per panicle, kernels yield per 10 panicles and 1000 kernels weight, average in 2017.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.M., E.P., M.C., M.W. and W.W.; methodology, E.M., M.W., W.W., E.P., M.C.; software, E.M., M.W. and W.W.; validation, E.M., M.C, W.W. and M.W.; formal analysis and software, E.M., M.W.; investigation, E.M., M.C. and M.W.; resources, E.M.; data curation, E.M. and M.C.; writing—original draft preparation, E.M. and E.P.; writing—review and editing, E.M., E.P., M.C., W.W. and M.W.; visualization, E.M., E.P., W.W. and M.W.; supervision, E.M.; project administration, E.M.; funding acquisition, E.M. and M.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financed by the Polish Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development OKF/MR/24/2015–2017- HOR hn-801-PB-9/15; HOR hn-801-PB-7/16; HOR.hn.802.22.2017.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this scientific article are available from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Parry, D.W.; Jenkinson, P.; McLeoad, L. Fusarium ear blight (scab) in small grain cereals—A review. Plant Pathol. 1995, 44, 207–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Logrieco, A.; Bottalico, A.; Mule, G.; Morietti, A.; Perrone, G. Epidemiology of toxigenic fungi and their associated mycotoxins for some miediterranean crops. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2003, 109, 557–645. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225231648 (accessed on 6 February 2020). [CrossRef]
  3. McMullen, M.; Bergstrom, G.C.; De Wolf, E.; Dill-Macky, R.; Hershman, D.; Shaner, G.; Van Sanford, D. A unified effort to fight an enemy of wheat and barley: Fusarium head blight. Plant Dis. 2012, 96, 1712–1728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Mielniczuk, E.; Skwaryło-Bednarz, B. Fusarium head blight, mycotoxins and strategies for their reduction. Agronomy 2020, 10, 509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Bottallico, A.; Perrone, G. Toxigenic Fusarium species and mycotoxins associated with head blight in small-grain cereals in Europe. J. Plant. Pathol. 2002, 108, 611–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ferrigo, D.; Raiola, A.; Causin, R. Fusarium toxins in cereals: Occurrence, legislation, factors promoting the appearance and their management. Molecules 2016, 21, 627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Xu, X.M.; Nicholson, P.; Thomsett, M.A.; Simpson, D.; Cooke, B.M.; Doohan, F.M.; Edwards, S.G. Relationship between the fungal complex causing Fusarium head blight of wheat and environmental conditions. Phytopathology 2008, 98, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Covarelli, L.; Beccari, G.; Prodi, A.; Generotti, S.; Etruschi, F.; Juan, C.; Ferrer, E.; Mañes, J. Fusarium species, chemotype characterisation and trichothecene contamination of durum and soft wheat in an area of central Italy. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2015, 95, 540–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Backhouse, D.; Burgess, L.W.; Summerell, B.A. Biogeography of Fusarium. In Fusarium Nelson Memorial Symposium; Summerell, B.A., Leslie, J.F., Backhouse, D., Bryden, W.L., Burgess, L.W., Eds.; APS Press: St Paul, MI, USA, 2012; pp. 122–137. [Google Scholar]
  10. Miedaner, T.; Reinbrecht, C.; Lauber, U.; Schollenberger, M.; Geiger, H.H. Effects of genotype and genotype-environment interaction on deoxynivalenol accumulation and resistance to Fusarium head blight in rye, triticale, and wheat. Plant Breed. 2001, 120, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kosiak, B.; Trop, M.; Skjerve, E.; Andersen, B. Alternaria and Fusarium in Norwegian grains of reduced quality-a matched pair sample study. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2004, 93, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. How to cite this resource - Schoch CL, et al. NCBI Taxonomy: A comprehensive update on curation, resources and tools. Database (Oxford). Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Tree&id=450425&lvl=3&lin=f&unlock (accessed on 8 December 2021).
  13. Fernandez, M.R.; Chen, Y. Pathogenicity of Fusarium species on different plan parts of spring wheat under controlled conditions. Plant Dis. 2005, 89, 164–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Tamburic-Ilincic, L. Fusarium species and mycotoxins associated with oat in southwestern Ontario, Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2010, 90, 211–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kosiak, B.; Trop, M.; Skjerwe, E.; Thrane, U. The prevalence and distribution of Fusarium species in Norwegian cereals: A survey. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B Soil Plant Sci. 2003, 53, 168–176. [Google Scholar]
  16. Nielsen, L.K.; Jensen, J.D.; Nielsen, G.C.; Jensen, J.E.; Spliid, N.H.; Thomsen, I.K.; Justesen, A.F.; Collinge, D.B.; Jørgensen, L.N. Fusarium head blight of cereals in Denmark: Species complex and related mycotoxins. Phytopathology 2011, 101, 960–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Gräfenhan, T.L.; Patrick, S.K.; Roscoe, M.; Trelka, R.; Gaba, D.; Chan, J.M.; McKendry, T.; Clear, R.M.; Tittlemier, S.A. Fusarium damage in cereal grains from Western Canada. 1. Phylogenetic analysis of moniliformin-producing Fusarium species and their natural occurrence in mycotoxin-contaminated wheat, oats, and rye. J. Agric. Food Chem 2013, 61, 5425–5437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Buerstmayr, H.; Lemmens, M. Breeding healthy cereals: Genetic improvement of Fusarium resistance and consequences for mycotoxins. World Mycotox. J. 2015, 8, 591–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Maresca, M. From the gut to the brain: Journey and pathophysiological effects of the food-associated trichothecene mycotoxin deoxynivalenol. Toxins 2013, 5, 784–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pasquali, M.; Beyer, M.; Logrieco, A.; Audenaert, K.; Balmas, V.; Basler, R.; Boutigny, A.-L.; Chrpová, J.; Czembor, E.; Gagkaeva, T.; et al. A European Database Fusarium graminearum and F. culmorum Trichothecene Genotypes. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Yli-Mattila, T. Ecology and evolution of toxigenic Fusarium species in cereals in Northern Europe and Asia. J. Plant Pathol. 2010, 92, 7–18. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41998764 (accessed on 8 December 2021).
  22. Janssen, E.M.; Mourits, M.C.M.; Fels-Klerx, H.J.; Oude Lansink, A.G.J.M. Pre-harvest measures against Fusarium spp. Infection and related mycotoxins implemented by Dutch wheat farmers. Crop Prot. 2019, 122, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Weber, R.; Kita, W. Effects of Tillage system and forecrop type on frequency of Fusarium culmorum and F. avenaceum occurrence on culm base of some winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars. Acta Agrobot. 2010, 63, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Langseth, W.; Bernhoft, A.; Rundberget, T.; Kosiak, B.; Gareis, M. Mycotoxin production and cytotoxity of Fusarium strains isolated from Norwegian cereals. Mycopathologia 1999, 144, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Hestbjerg, H.; Nielsen, K.F.; Thrane, U.; Elmoholt, S. Production of trichothecenes and other secondary metabolites by Fusarium culmorum and Fusarium equiseti on common laboratory media and a soil organic matter agar an ecological interpretation. J. Agric Food Chem. 2002, 50, 7593–7599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Morrison, E.; Rundberget, T.; Kosiak, B.; Aastveit, A.H.; Bernhoft, A. Cytotoxicity of trichothecenes and fusarochromanone produced by Fusarium equiseti strains isolated from Norwegian cereals. Mycopathologia 2002, 153, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Moss, M.; Thrane, H. Fusarium taxonomy with relations to trichothecene formation. Toxicol. Lett. 2004, 153, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Kosiak, E.B.; Holst-Jensen, A.; Runtberget, T.; Jaen, M.T.G.; Torp, M. Morphological, chemical and molecular differentiation of Fusarium equiseti isolated from Norwegian cereals. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2005, 99, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mielniczuk, E. The occurrence of Fusarium spp. on panicles of oat (Avena sativa L.). J. Plant Prot. Res. 2001, 41, 173–180. [Google Scholar]
  30. Nelson, P.E.; Toussoun, T.A.; Marasas, W.F.O. Fusarium species. In An Illustrated Manual of Identification; The Pensylvania State University: State College, PA, USA; Press University Park and London: London, UK, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  31. Leslie, J.F.; Summerell, B.A. The Fusarium Laboratory Manual; Blackwell Publishing: Ames, IA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  32. Mishra, C.B.P.; Behr, L. Der Einfluss von Kulturfiltraten von Fusarium culmorum (W.G.Sm.) Sacc., Fusarium avenaceum (Fr.) Sacc. und Fusarium nivale (Fr.) Ces., Griphosphaeria nivalis Müller et v. Arx auf die Keimung des Weizen. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 1976, 12, 373–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kiecana, I.; Mielniczuk, E.; Kaczmarek, Z.; Kostecki, M.; Goliński, P. Scab response and moniliformin accumulation in kernels of oat genotypes inoculated with Fusarium avenaceum in Poland. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2002, 108, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mielniczuk, E.; Cegiełko, M. Fungi occurred on marigold (Tagetes L.) and harmfulness of Fusarium species to selected cultivars. Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2019, 18, 193–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Perkowski, J.; Kiecana, I.; Kaczmarek, Z. Natural occurrence and distribution of Fusarium toxins in contaminated barley cultivars. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2003, 109, 331–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lemmens, M.; Krska, R.; Buerstmayr, H.; Josephs, R.; Schumacher, R.; Grausgruber, H.; Ruckenbauer, P. Fusarium head blight reactions and accumulation of deoxynivalenol, moniliformin and zearalenone in wheat grains. Cer. Res. Comm. 2003, 31, 407–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Goliński, P.; Waśkiewicz, A.; Wiśniewska, H.; Kiecana, I.; Mielniczuk, E.; Gromadzka, M.; Kostecki, M.; Bocianowski, J.; Rymaniak, E. Reaction of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars to infection with Fusarium spp. mycotoxins contamination in grain and chaff. Food Add. Contam. A 2010, 27, 1015–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Christ, D.S.; Gödecke, R.; von Tiedemann, A.; Varrelmann, M. Pathogenicity, symptom development and mycotoxin formation in wheat by Fusarium species frequently isolated from sugar beet. Phytopathology 2011, 101, 1338–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Gagkaeva, T.; Gavrilova, O.; Yli-Mattila, T.; Loskutov, I. Evaluation of oat germplasm for resistance to Fusarium head blight. Plant Breed. Seed Sci. 2011, 64, 15–22. Available online: http://ojs.ihar.edu.pl/index.php/pbss/article/view/338/290 (accessed on 8 December 2021). [CrossRef]
  40. Linkmeyer, A.; Götz, M.; Hu, L.; Asam, S.; Rychlik, M.; Hausladen, H.; Hess, M.; Hückelhoven, R. Assessment and introduction of quantitative resistance to Fusarium head blight in elite spring barley. Phytopathology 2013, 103, 1252–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Wang, H.; Hwang, S.F.; Eudes, F.; Chang, K.F.; Howard, R.J.; Turnbul, G.D. Trichothecenes and aggressiveness of Fusarium graminearum causing seedling blight and root rot in cereals. Plant Pathol. 2006, 55, 224–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Osborne, L.E.; Stein, J.M. Epidemiology of Fusarium head blight on small-grain cereals. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007, 119, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Vogelgsang, S.; Sullyok, M.; Hecker, A.; Jenny, E.; Krska, R.; Schuhmacher, R.; Forrer, H.-R. Toxigenicity and pathogenicity of Fusarium poae and Fusarium avenaceum on wheat. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2008, 122, 265–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Beccari, G.; Covarelli, L.; Nicholson, P. Infection process and soft wheat response to root rot and crown rot caused by Fusarium culmorum. Plant Pathol. 2011, 60, 671–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. McCallum, B.D.; Tekauz, A. Influence of inoculation method and growth stage on fusarium head blight in barley. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 2002, 24, 77–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Vančo, B.; Šliková, S.; Šudyova, V.; Šrobárová, A. Response to Fusarium culmorum inoculation in barley. Biologia 2007, 62, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Kiecana, I.; Cegiełko, M.; Mielniczuk, E.; Perkowski, J. The occurrence of Fusarium poae (Peck) Wollenw. on oat (Avena sativa L.) panicles and its harmfulness. Acta Agrobot. 2012, 65, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Mielniczuk, E.; Kiecana, I.; Perkowski, J. Susceptybility of oat genotypes to Fusarium crookwellense Burgess, Nelson and Toussoun infection and mycotoxin accumulation in kernels. Biologia 2004, 59, 809–816. [Google Scholar]
  49. Kiecana, I.; Mielniczuk, E.; Cegiełko, M.; Perkowski, J. Panicles blight and biosynthesis of Fusarium toxins in oats kernels field inoculated with Fusarium culmorum (W.G.Sm.) Sacc. In Proceedings of the 11th European Fusarium Seminar “Fusarium—Mycotoxins, Taxonomy, Pathogenicity and Host Resistance”, Book of Abstracts, Radzików, Poland, 20–23 September 2010; Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute—National Research Institute: Radzików, Poland, 2010; p. 281. [Google Scholar]
  50. Van Coller, G.J.; Sedeman, Z.A.R.; Boutigny, A.L.; Rose, L.; Lamprecht, S.C.; Viljoen, A. Fusarium species associated with head blight of wheat in South Africa. In Proceedings of the 11th European Fusarium Seminar “Fusarium—Mycotoxins, Taxonomy, Pathogenicity and Host Resistance”, Book of Abstracts, Radzików, Poland, 20–23 September 2010; Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute—National Research Institute: Radzików, Poland, 2010; pp. 217–218. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kiecana, I.; Mielniczuk, E.; Cegiełko, M.; Pastucha, A. The occurrence of Fusarium spp. on oat (Avena sativa L.) and susceptibility of seedlings of selected genotypes to infection with Fusarium graminearum Schwabe. Acta Agrobot. 2014, 67, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Majchrzak, B.; Kurowski, T.P.; Okorski, A. Fungi isolated from the roots and stem bases of spring wheat grown after different cruciferous plants as forecrops. Pol. J. Natur. Sci. 2008, 23, 299–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Desjardins, A.E. Fusarium–Mycotoxins Chemistry Genetics and Biology; APS Press: St. Paul, MI, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  54. Chełkowski, J.; Kaptur, P.; Tomkowiak, M.; Kostecki, M.; Goliński, P.; Ponitka, A.; Ślusarkiewicz-Jarzina, A.; Bocianowski, J. Moniliformin accumulation in kernels of triticale accessions inoculated with Fusarium avenaceum, in Poland. J. Phytopathol. 2000, 148, 433–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Perkowski, J.; Miedaner, T.; Geiger, H.H.; Müller, H.N.; Chełkowski, J. Occurrence of deoxynivalenol (DON), 3-acetyl-DON, zearalenone and ergosterol in winter rye inoculated with Fusarium culmorum. Cereal Chem. 1995, 72, 205–209. [Google Scholar]
  56. Wiśniewska, H.; Perkowski, J.; Kaczmarek, Z. Scab Response and deoxyniva-lenol accumulation in spring wheat kernels of different geographical origins following inoculation with Fusarium culmorum. J. Phytopathol. 2004, 152, 613–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Snijders, C.H.A.; Perkowski, J. Effect of head blight caused by Fusarium culmorum on toxin content and weight of wheat kernels. Phytopathology 1990, 80, 556–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 12 00295 g001 550
Figure 1. Oat panicles after inoculation with F. equiseti (left) and control (right).
Figure 1. Oat panicles after inoculation with F. equiseti (left) and control (right).
Agronomy 12 00295 g001
Agronomy 12 00295 g002 550
Figure 2. Oat kernels (without chaff) from panicle after inoculation with F. equiseti (left) and kernels from control panicles (without inoculation) (right).
Figure 2. Oat kernels (without chaff) from panicle after inoculation with F. equiseti (left) and kernels from control panicles (without inoculation) (right).
Agronomy 12 00295 g002
Agronomy 12 00295 g003 550
Figure 3. Reduction in the kernels number per panicle after inoculation with F. equiseti compared to control. The values obtained within an individual year for all genotypes, marked with the same letter do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05. The average values obtained for all genotypes over the three years of study (yellow columns), marked with the same letter, do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 3. Reduction in the kernels number per panicle after inoculation with F. equiseti compared to control. The values obtained within an individual year for all genotypes, marked with the same letter do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05. The average values obtained for all genotypes over the three years of study (yellow columns), marked with the same letter, do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Agronomy 12 00295 g003
Agronomy 12 00295 g004 550
Figure 4. Kernels yield reduction after panicle inoculation with F. equiseti compared to control. The values obtained within an individual year for all genotypes, marked with the same letter do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05. The average values obtained for all genotypes over the three years of study (yellow columns), marked with the same letter, do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 4. Kernels yield reduction after panicle inoculation with F. equiseti compared to control. The values obtained within an individual year for all genotypes, marked with the same letter do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05. The average values obtained for all genotypes over the three years of study (yellow columns), marked with the same letter, do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Agronomy 12 00295 g004
Agronomy 12 00295 g005 550
Figure 5. Reduction of 1000 kernels weight after panicle inoculation with F. equiseti, compared to control. The values obtained within an individual year for all genotypes, marked with the same letter do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05. The average values obtained for all genotypes over the three years of study (yellow columns), marked with the same letter, do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 5. Reduction of 1000 kernels weight after panicle inoculation with F. equiseti, compared to control. The values obtained within an individual year for all genotypes, marked with the same letter do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05. The average values obtained for all genotypes over the three years of study (yellow columns), marked with the same letter, do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Agronomy 12 00295 g005
Table
Table 1. Effect of oat panicle inoculation with F. equiseti No O-020 on the number of kernels per panicle 1, kernels yield per 10 panicles and 1000 kernels weight; average over three study years (2015–2017).
Table 1. Effect of oat panicle inoculation with F. equiseti No O-020 on the number of kernels per panicle 1, kernels yield per 10 panicles and 1000 kernels weight; average over three study years (2015–2017).
GenotypesElements of Yield Structure
Number of KernelsKernels Yield (g)1000 Kernels Weight (g)
F. eq.
Inoculated		ControlF. eq.
Inoculated		ControlF. eq.
Inoculated		Control
Agent48.70 *71.5718.31 *27.8937.57 *39.86
Elegant61.4869.1219.42 *25.1430.66 *36.26
Denar45.38 *72.6514.30 *24.3730.84 *35.60
Kozak59.24 *79.5818.21 *29.3833.27 *38.17
Romulus61.95 *74.7519.35 *28.3730.32 *38.24
DC06011-858.62 *91.3018.53 *32.1132.73 *37.02
DC 14-854.21 *73.5015.93 *24.5830.63 *33.99
POB 4109/1035.07 *69.4710.87 *24.7724.60 *33.07
POB 6020/1060.17 *83.6318.71 *27.0925.71 *30.08
POB 961-1344/1348.87 *83.8414.45 *27.9423.99 *34.62
Average53.37 *76.9416.81 *27.1630.03 *35.69
1 Number of kernels per panicle were analyzed in 40 panicles (4 × 10) in each study year; * Values differ significantly compared to control at p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 2. Correlation coefficients between kernels yield reduction (RKY), number of kernels per panicle reduction (RNKP) and 1000 kernels weight reduction (RTKW), on average over 3 years of research (2015–2017).
Table 2. Correlation coefficients between kernels yield reduction (RKY), number of kernels per panicle reduction (RNKP) and 1000 kernels weight reduction (RTKW), on average over 3 years of research (2015–2017).
Variabiles
Analyzed Parametrs		RKYRNKPRTKW
RKY10.821 *0.091
RNKP0.821 *1−0.338 *
RTKW0.091−0.338 *1
* values display a significant relationship, at significance level α = 0.05.
Table
Table 3. Fungi isolated from kernels obtained from panicles inoculated with F. equiseti in 2015–2017.
Table 3. Fungi isolated from kernels obtained from panicles inoculated with F. equiseti in 2015–2017.
Fungus SpeciesNumber of Isolates in Each Study YearTotal Number of Isolates
201520162017
Alternaria alternata (Fr.) Keissler581023
Aspergillus niger Link0202
Cladosporium cladosporioides (Fresen.) G.A. de Vries16411
Drechslera avenae (Edima) Scharif2002
Epicoccum nigrum Link ex Link34291275
Fusarium equiseti (Fr.) Sacc.4333964011230
Fusarium poae (Peck.) Wr.1214
Mucor hiemalis Wehmer2002
Penicillium spp.92516
Stemphylium botryosum Wallr.0213
Total4874474341368
Table
Table 4. Content of type A trichothecenes (T-2/HT-2—toxin, diacetoxyscirpenol—DAS, scirpentriol—STO, T-2 triol, T-2 tetraol) in oat kernels after panicle inoculation with F. equiseti.
Table 4. Content of type A trichothecenes (T-2/HT-2—toxin, diacetoxyscirpenol—DAS, scirpentriol—STO, T-2 triol, T-2 tetraol) in oat kernels after panicle inoculation with F. equiseti.
GenotypesAverage Mycotoxin Content over 3 Years of Research [mg·kg−1]Sum of Group A Trichothecenes
T-2HT-2DASSTOT-2 TriolT-2 Tetraol
Agent0.00000.00430.00230.03340.00230.00200.0442 a
Elegant0.00090.01280.00560.02990.00170.00290.0538 b
Denar0.00500.00830.00140.03080.00100.00820.0547 b
Kozak0.00000.00550.02470.02900.00030.00140.0610 b
Romulus0.00070.02820.01620.03250.00050.01320.0913 c
DC06011-80.00000.00670.00290.02980.00030.00500.0448 a
DC 14-80.00030.01000.00090.02890.00020.00670.0470 a
POB 4109/100.01470.01130.00330.03910.00100.01790.0872 c
POB 6020/100.00200.00750.00100.03050.00070.00910.0507 b
POB 961-1344/130.00030.01560.00150.04290.00100.02130.0827 c
Average mycotoxin content0.00240.01100.00590.03270.00090.00880.0616
Values in columns marked with the same letter do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 5. Content of type A trichothecenes (T-2/HT-2—toxin, diacetoxyscirpenol—DAS, scirpentriol—STO, T-2 triol, T-2 tetraol) in oat kernels after panicle inoculation with F. equiseti.
Table 5. Content of type A trichothecenes (T-2/HT-2—toxin, diacetoxyscirpenol—DAS, scirpentriol—STO, T-2 triol, T-2 tetraol) in oat kernels after panicle inoculation with F. equiseti.
Years Mycotoxin Contents [mg·kg−1], Average for All Genotypes
T-2 toxinHT-2 toxinDASSTOT-2 TriolT-2 TetraolSum of Group A Trichothecenes
20150.00010.01380.00030.07980.00010.00560.0997 c
20160.00030.00750.00220.0050.00020.00580.0210 a
20170.00680.01180.01510.01330.00240.01490.0643 b
Average mycotoxin content0.00240.01100.00590.03270.00090.00880.0616
Values in columns marked with the same letter do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 6. Content of type B trichothecenes (deoxynivalenol—DON, 3-ACDON, 15-AcDON, nivalenol—NIV, fusarenone X—FUS X) in oat kernels after panicle inoculation with F. equiseti.
Table 6. Content of type B trichothecenes (deoxynivalenol—DON, 3-ACDON, 15-AcDON, nivalenol—NIV, fusarenone X—FUS X) in oat kernels after panicle inoculation with F. equiseti.
GenotypesAverage Mycotoxin Contents over 3 Years of Research [mg·kg−1]
DON3-ACDON15-AcDONNIVFUS XSum of Group B Trichothecenes
Agent0.02270.00730.00670.18600.00940.2322 b
Elegant0.01600.00770.01300.17930.01050.2264 b
Denar0.01770.01570.00550.06340.00780.1101 a
Kozak0.04950.01130.00530.28270.00850.3574 c
Romulus0.03650.01730.01980.25640.00840.3384 c
DC06011-80.02770.00870.01050.14560.03010.2226 b
DC 14-80.02090.07700.00700.08590.01060.2014 b
POB 4109/100.01160.01530.00580.05370.00820.0945 a
POB 6020/100.05170.01500.00550.03430.00810.1146 a
POB 961-1344/130.03430.01530.00530.07450.00810.1376 a
Average mycotoxin content0.02870.01910.00840.13620.01100.2034
Values in columns marked with the same letter do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 7. Content of type B trichothecenes (deoxynivalenol—DON, 3-ACDON, 15-AcDON, nivalenol—NIV, fusarenon X—FUS X) in oat kernels after panicle inoculation with F. equiseti.
Table 7. Content of type B trichothecenes (deoxynivalenol—DON, 3-ACDON, 15-AcDON, nivalenol—NIV, fusarenon X—FUS X) in oat kernels after panicle inoculation with F. equiseti.
Years Mycotoxin Contents [mg·kg−1]
DON3-Ac DON15-Ac DONNIVFUS XSum of Group B Trichothecenes
20150.01940.04210.01590.06920.02420.1708 a
20160.01900.00000.00320.09380.00400.1201 a
20170.04770.01510.00620.24550.00470.3192 b
Average0.02870.01910.00840.13620.01100.2034
Values in columns marked with the same letter do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 8. Weather conditions in Zamość, (Lublin region) during 2015–2017 oat growing seasons.
Table 8. Weather conditions in Zamość, (Lublin region) during 2015–2017 oat growing seasons.
MonthAir Temperature [°C]
Average for the Years 1971–2005201520162017
April7.97.59.17.5
May14.113.014.714.31
June16.817.018.517.5
July18.420.019.818.7
August17.821.518.319.5
Rainfall [mm]
Average for the Years 1971–2005201520162017
April44.140.090.035.0
May65.5114.885.054.0
June78.955.048.045.0
July98.464.899.083.0
August54.34.850.036.0
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mielniczuk, E.; Wit, M.; Patkowska, E.; Cegiełko, M.; Wakuliński, W. Reaction of Oat Genotypes to Fusarium equiseti (Corda) Sacc. Infection and Mycotoxin Concentrations in Grain. Agronomy 2022, 12, 295. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020295

AMA Style

Mielniczuk E, Wit M, Patkowska E, Cegiełko M, Wakuliński W. Reaction of Oat Genotypes to Fusarium equiseti (Corda) Sacc. Infection and Mycotoxin Concentrations in Grain. Agronomy. 2022; 12(2):295. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020295

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mielniczuk, Elżbieta, Marcin Wit, Elżbieta Patkowska, Małgorzata Cegiełko, and Wojciech Wakuliński. 2022. "Reaction of Oat Genotypes to Fusarium equiseti (Corda) Sacc. Infection and Mycotoxin Concentrations in Grain" Agronomy 12, no. 2: 295. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020295

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop