Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

Fusarium head blight (FHB) in Brazil: what have we learned in 15 years?

Fusarium head blight (FHB) in Brazil: what have we learned in 15 years?

Summary of almost 20 of research on Fusarium head blight of wheat that started during my PhD in 2000 year. I provide a historical perspective of the work organized by interests that developed over time during the establishment of my research program on the topic.

Emerson M. Del Ponte

November 17, 2020
Tweet

More Decks by Emerson M. Del Ponte

Other Decks in Science

Transcript

  1. Fusarium head blight (FHB) in Brazil:
    what have we learned in 15 years?
    Emerson M. Del Ponte
    Prof. Plant Pathology/Epidemiology

    View full-size slide

  2. Major disease of wheat and barley

    View full-size slide

  3. FHB
    +rain cool
    +rain warm
    -rain hot
    +rain/dry hot
    Wheat Blast
    90% wheat crops
    (5 million T)
    Re-emergent in Brazil

    View full-size slide

  4. Photo:
    Dr. Flávio Santana
    Embrapa Trigo

    View full-size slide

  5. But also for other crops..

    View full-size slide

  6. Trail (2009)
    Why does FHB matter?
    Trail (2009)

    View full-size slide

  7. My FHB research in 6 episodes
    A new old problem
    Knowing the enemy
    The chief species
    Food in danger
    Man weapons
    Statistical modelling
    Computer simulation
    Disease forecasting
    Field surveys
    Molecular Identification
    Population genetics
    Chemistry
    Immunology
    Pathogen biology and ecology
    Plant-pathogen interaction
    Fungicide efficacy
    Meta-analysis
    Economic analysis
    Failure ahead?
    Fungicide resistance
    Phenotypic and molecular
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6

    View full-size slide

  8. Episode one
    A new old problem

    View full-size slide

  9. Season Yield losses (%)
    1984 - 1994 5.4
    2000 17.5
    2001 13.4
    2002 11.6
    2003 26.2
    2004 12.0
    2005 22.2
    2007 39.8
    2008 23.2
    2009 32.2
    2010 17.8
    A problem is noticed
    E.M. Reis
    R.T. Casa

    View full-size slide

  10. Del Ponte et al. (2005)
    Daily infection risk
    Why here, why now? How to predict it?

    View full-size slide

  11. Cumulative risk
    Model testing

    View full-size slide

  12. Cumulative risk
    Model testing

    View full-size slide

  13. No-till
    Cumulative risk
    Growing season (year) Del Ponte et al. (2009)
    Climate variability effect? no till?

    View full-size slide

  14. 9 years
    11 locations
    37 trials
    Meta-analysis of damage coefficients

    View full-size slide

  15. = 4,419.5 kg ha-1
    = -46.3 kg ha-1
    = 2,883.6 kg ha-1
    = -46.3 kg ha-1
    Damage coefficient = -1.05% pp -1 Damage coefficient = -1.60% pp -1
    Estimation of damage coefficients
    Duffeck et al. (2020)

    View full-size slide

  16. Crop simulation
    (10 dates x 28 years)
    FHB index
    FHB
    risk
    Attainable
    yield
    Yield
    losses
    (FHB)
    Damage
    coefficient (Dc)
    -1.05
    %
    1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2007
    10.3% 10.2%
    5.8%
    Simulations of historical yield losses
    Duffeck et al. (2020)

    View full-size slide

  17. FHB index
    Fungicide spray
    (1x or 2x)
    Probability of
    non-offsetting costs
    $
    Actual yield
    (Treated)
    Actual yield
    (Nontreated)
    Yield diff.
    (kg ha-1)
    Are fungicides profitable?
    Duffeck et al. (2020)

    View full-size slide

  18. Are two sprays worth?
    Duffeck et al. (2020)

    View full-size slide

  19. Episode Two
    Knowing the enemy

    View full-size slide

  20. The rise of a species complex
    Phylogenetic species recognition based on genealogical concordance

    View full-size slide

  21. FGSC species and trichothecene profile

    View full-size slide

  22. (Scoz et al 2009; Astolfi et al. 2012; Del Ponte et al. 2015)
    > 850 FGSC strains (5 years)
    Diverse population of species and toxin types

    View full-size slide

  23. (Del Ponte et al. 2015)
    Region shaping species distribution?

    View full-size slide

  24. South of Paraná: new surveys > 750 isolates
    Pereira et al. (2020)

    View full-size slide

  25. Crop and year effect on FGSC composition?
    Pereira et al. (2020)

    View full-size slide

  26. episode Three
    Food in danger

    View full-size slide

  27. n = 66 samples
    2ppm line
    Del Ponte et al. (2012)
    Trichothecenes in wheat: NIV too!

    View full-size slide

  28. Duffeck et al. (2017)
    DON by state

    View full-size slide

  29. Duffeck et al. (2017)
    Zearalenone by state

    View full-size slide

  30. Duffeck et al. (2017)
    UHPLC vs. Elisa kit

    View full-size slide

  31. episode Four
    The chief species

    View full-size slide

  32. Spolti et al. (2012) Duffeck et al (unpublished)
    Is F. graminearum more aggressive?

    View full-size slide

  33. Is F. graminearum more aggressive?
    F. graminearum F. meridionale

    View full-size slide

  34. Machado et al. (unpublished)
    Is F. graminearum more aggressive?

    View full-size slide

  35. Species x Cultivar = P > 0.05
    highly aggressive isolate
    Mendes et al. (2018)
    Cultivar x species effect?

    View full-size slide

  36. Nicolli et al. (2015)
    Chemical analysis
    Toxigenic potential

    View full-size slide

  37. Sexual fertility 1
    Nicolli et al. (2015)

    View full-size slide

  38. 38
    * *
    Sexual fertility 2
    Machado et al. (Unpublished)

    View full-size slide

  39. Episode four
    Man weapons

    View full-size slide

  40. Machado et al. (2017)
    Fungicides do work, but varies with AI

    View full-size slide

  41. Machado et al. (2017)
    Do they protect yield?

    View full-size slide

  42. + 102 kg/ha
    Efficacy
    (%)
    Yield gain
    (kg/ha)
    Machado et al. (2017)
    Estimates of mean efficacy and yield gain

    View full-size slide

  43. Does a second spray pay off?

    View full-size slide

  44. QoI + DMI mixtures: are they worth?
    Barro et al. (2020)

    View full-size slide

  45. Yield gain from using mixtures?
    Barro et al. (2020)

    View full-size slide

  46. Effect size Yield Return (%)
    Fungicidea kb D SE(D) CI
    L
    c CI
    U
    c P value Y CI
    L
    c CI
    U
    c
    PYRA + METC 70 532.08 46.40 441.14 623.02 <0.0001 17.17 14.30 20.11
    TFLX + PROT 45 494.99 45.09 406.60 583.38 <0.0001 16.21 13.14 19.37
    TEBU 25 448.20 54.04 342.27 554.13 <0.0001 14.68 11.24 18.22
    AZOX + TEBU 25 462.43 48.92 366.53 558.32 <0.0001 14.74 11.54 18.02
    TFLX + TEBU 40 468.24 42.43 385.08 551.41 <0.0001 14.66 11.92 17.46
    PYRA + METC
    1X
    23 413.72 53.66 308.53 518.90 <0.0001 12.97 9.70 16.35
    Estimates of mean efficacy and yield gain
    Barro et al. (2020)

    View full-size slide

  47. Show me the money again
    Barro et al. (2020)

    View full-size slide

  48. episode six
    Failure ahead?

    View full-size slide

  49. EC50 levels for 50 strains from RS
    Spolti et al. (2012)
    Sensitivity to Triazoles (TEBU and METC)

    View full-size slide

  50. EC50 levels for 35 strains
    R2
    R1
    R2
    Machado et al. (unpublished)
    Sensitivity to TEBU and Carbendazim

    View full-size slide

  51. F. graminearum less sensitive to TEBU
    Machado et al. (unpublished)
    R2
    R1
    R2
    F. graminearum others
    F. graminearum others
    15-ADON
    15-ADON
    15-ADON
    Are EC50 dependent on FGSC species?

    View full-size slide

  52. Check
    Check
    Check
    Fungicide
    Fungicide
    Fungicide
    Less sensitive isolates Sensitive isolate
    Does it affect control efficacy?

    View full-size slide

  53. 1. Previous crop not important risk factor in the subtropics (no-till)
    2. At least two important species/chemotypes to concern
    3. DON and NIV should be a target in surveys (only DON now)
    4. One seems more adapted to wheat environments (F. graminearum)
    5. Breeders should use the most aggressive strains
    Lessons learned

    View full-size slide

  54. 6. One spray of tebuconazole is a cost-effective choice (yield)
    7. Premixes (DMI+QoI) likely do not break even on costs
    8. The pathogen may be adapting to fungicides - future concern?
    Lessons learned

    View full-size slide

  55. Open FGSC database

    View full-size slide

  56. Cooperative trial network

    View full-size slide

  57. Key Collaborators
    Dr. J. Maurício Fernandes
    Dr. Gary Bergstrom
    Dr. Willingthon Pavan
    Dr. Dauri Tessmann
    Dr. Todd Ward
    Dr. Eliana Furlong
    Dr. Casiane Tibola
    Dr. Flávio Santana
    Dr. Lisa Vaillancourt
    Graduate Students (2008 - now)
    Paula Astolfi
    Piérri Spolti
    Paulo R. Kuhnem Jr.
    Camila Nicolli
    Gabriela Mendes
    Franklin Machado
    Maíra Duffeck
    Jhonatan Barro
    Acknowledgements

    View full-size slide

  58. Thank you!
    @edelponte

    View full-size slide