research paper on seed borne fungi

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Microbiol
• v.2021; 2021

Identification and Characterisation of Seed-Borne Fungal Pathogens Associated with Maize ( Zea mays L.)

Department of Plant Production Sciences and Technologies, Faculty of Agriculture, Environment and Food Systems, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP167, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe

J. C. Murimwa

J. t. rugare, associated data.

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

A research study was conducted to identify and characterise seed-borne fungal pathogens associated with maize ( Zea mays L.) in storage. Seed-borne fungal pathogenic infections of maize were studied using seed samples collected from Gokwe South District in Zimbabwe. The agar plating method using PDA medium was used to detect fungal pathogens on the maize seeds. A total of 150 treatments were used for this experiment, which were replicated three times in a randomised complete block design (RCBD). Analysis of the grain showed the presence of Fusarium moniliforme , Rhizopus stolonifer , Penicillium citrinum , and mostly Aspergillus species, namely, Aspergillus flavus , Aspergillus parasiticus , Aspergillus niger , and Aspergillus tamarii . Significant differences ( p  < 0.05) between treatments were detected for the pathogens. A total of ten samples were used for mycotoxin determination, and all of them were 100% positive with aflatoxin total, zearalenone, fumonisin, and deoxynivalenol (DON) having an average of 0.255 ppb, 2.425 ppb, 2.65 ppb, and 0.07 ppb, respectively. The present study showed that most grain samples are contaminated with different species of fungi with mycotoxigenic potential. The data on the diversity and magnitude of pathogen infection by fungal species will have a significant effect even at the regional level for predicting the extent of pre- and postinfections. Measures to reduce mycotoxin contamination are needed for maize grains.

1. Introduction

Fungal pathogens cause contamination of grain crops including maize ( Zea mays L.) prior to harvesting or after harvesting. This contamination gives rise to several fungal seed-borne pathogens that can be identified on seeds or cause a number of diseases [ 1 ]. Certain seed-borne fungal pathogens produce mycotoxins, which are substances that cause the deterioration of grain quality, poor germination capacity, and reduced vigour [ 2 ]. Mycotoxins are secondary metabolites that degrade a variety of substrates mostly composed of carbon such as plants. Fungal pathogens that produce mycotoxins that were detected on maize include Aspergillus , Fusarium , Penicillium , and Rhizopus species. Hussain et al. [ 3 ] reported a number of mycotoxins such as aflatoxins and sterigmatocystin, which are produced by Aspergillus species. Fusarium species produce a broad spectrum of mycotoxins that are of notable importance, such as trichothecenes of A and B types. Deoxynivalenol (DON) and nevalenol are the most important B-type mycotoxins. The other mycotoxins also produced by this genus are fumonisins, zearalenones, moniliformins, fusaproliferins, diacetoxyscirpenol, beauvericin, and fusarenone [ 4 ]. Reference [ 5 ] reported that Penicillium species also produce mycotoxins known as vomitoxins and zearalenones. Based on the research done by Jennessen et al. [ 6 ], Rhizopus species were reported to produce mycotoxins known as rhizonins.

According to [ 7 ], mycotoxins cause a reduction in the quality of the harvested crops and cause health problems in humans and animals. Mycotoxins vary in their structures, hence resulting in a great variation of their effects [ 4 ]. Seed-borne fungal pathogens have been found to affect the growth and productivity of crop plants. They result in seed necrosis, seed abortion, rotting of seed, reduction, or elimination of germination capacity as well as seedling damage resulting in the development of disease at later stages of plant growth by systemic or local infection [ 3 ]. The resulting phytotoxic characteristics are dose-related and differ from one mycotoxin to another. Mycotoxins also pose economic impacts including loss of human as well as animal life. They increase health and veterinary care costs due to investments in research and applications to reduce their problems. Moreover, aflatoxins cause losses in livestock and poultry production from aflatoxin-contaminated feeds that cause death, immune system suppression, reduced rates of growth, and reduction in feed efficiency. Hydroxylated derivatives of aflatoxins are formed by lactating animals and excreted in milk after mycotoxin consumption. This makes contaminated milk unsafe for human consumption.

Identification and characterisation of seed-borne fungal pathogens associated with maize are important in ensuring effective control of pathogens that produce mycotoxins [ 8 ]. Atanda et al. [ 9 ] reported that fungal pathogens are ubiquitous; therefore, there is a need to avoid improper storage as well as poor agronomic practices leading to mycotoxin production. The characterisation also helps note the appropriate choice of variety, harvest and storage, moisture, and aeration considerations to limit mycotoxin biosynthesis. This is important because small numbers can rapidly multiply under favourable conditions causing contamination [ 10 ]. The fungal seed-borne pathogens thrive in various conditions. Mycotoxin production during pre- or postharvest handling of agricultural commodities depends on several intrinsic factors such as moisture content, water activity, substrate type, plant type, and nutrient composition [ 11 ]. Extrinsic factors such as climate, temperature, and oxygen level also play a role together with processing factors such as drying, blending, adding preservatives, and handling of grains. Moreover, implicit factors such as insect interactions, fungal strain and its specificity, and microbiological ecosystem are also involved. Atanda et al. [ 9 ] showed that the growth of fungi in storage depends on the composition of nutrients in the grain, moisture, and temperature conditions as well as biotic factors such as competition or the presence of stored product insects.

Hussain et al. [ 3 ] reported a number of mycotoxins produced by Aspergillus species such as aflatoxins and sterigmatocystin. Aspergillus flavus causes Aspergillus ear roots, which is a serious problem when infected ears are stored at high moisture content. A number of these Aspergillus species can infect maize prior to harvesting. Aspergillus niger is the most common, and it produces powder-like black masses of spores that surround the kernels and the cob. In contrast, Aspergillus glaucus , A . flavus , and Aspergillus ochraceus normally form yellow-green masses of spores. On the other hand, Aspergillus parasiticus is ivy green and less common in maize. A . flavus and A . parasiticus produce mycotoxins known as aflatoxins that are harmful to animals as well as to human beings [ 12 ].

Reference [ 5 ] stated that mycotoxins produced by Penicillium species result in Penicillium ear roots. Penicillium oxalicum is known to cause damage, and there are other species that may also be pathogenic producing mycotoxins. In a number of cases, infection by such fungal pathogens will be a result of ear damage caused by insects. A powder that appears light blue-green develops between the kernels and on the cob surface. Those kernels with fungal colonies normally become bleached and streaked [ 13 ].

Fusarium species produce a number of mycotoxins that are of notable importance. Deoxynivalenol (DON) as well nevalenol are the most important B types produced by Fusarium species. Other mycotoxins common to this genus are fumonisins, zearalenones, moniliformins, fusaproliferins, diacetoxyscirpenol, beauvericin, and fusarenone [ 4 ]. Fusarium cob rot or ear rot is a result of Fusarium species. It is a seed-borne infection caused by many Fusarium species such as Fusarium verticillioides . The development of Fusarium cob rot is caused by warm, dry weather prior to harvesting, for example, at or after flowering. Danielsen et al. [ 14 ] regarded F . verticillioides as the major producer of the mycotoxin fumonisin. A number of kernels can be affected on the whole cob. The infection will be noticed by the formation of a fungal growth that is whitish pink-lavender. This usually appears at the tip of the ear and is mostly facilitated by ear damage. Fusarium spp overwinter on infested maize stalks, and the asexual spores maybe dispersed to the unifected plants by wind or irrigation water. During the growing season, spores may infect the silks, which are formed during flowering as they move in the air or are systemically transferred. Management of insects and good storage practices reduce the risk of mycotoxin contamination [ 15 ]. The use of resistant hybrids can also help reduce pathogen infection.

Fusarium graminearum and F. verticillioides species cause cob rot, ear rot, or pink ear rot. Gibberella cob rot is favoured by cool, moist conditions before harvesting, especially at flowering. It is therefore more prominent in wetter, cooler growing regions [ 13 ]. There are several mycotoxins that are produced by F . graminearum , such as zearalenone and trichothecene mycotoxin groups. The disease is mainly caused by monoculture cropping of maize, rotation of maize winter cereal as well as plant stress at the stage of grain filling. An infected plant shows the development of fungal growth that is reddish pink or whitish pink at the tip of the cob. The husks tend to bind to the kernels with or without some black fruiting bodies on the outer leaves. Contamination is brought about by airborne spores. The use of appropriate agronomic practices, resistant hybrids, prompt harvesting, and proper storage can minimise the risk.

The practice of retaining seeds and poor certification procedures provide avenues for infection of seeds by a number of diseases [ 12 ]. Seeds carrying such pathogens are detrimental to the production of crops because they reduce seed viability and seedling vigour. This would result in a decrease in the population of established seedlings and hence reduced yield. Residues or seeds can act as sources of inoculums resulting in further infection. Chemical control cannot fully suppress fungi on the seeds, so further disease development may result [ 16 ]. The pathogens may completely result in the deformation of seeds and the concomitant erosion of grain quality [ 2 ]. Therefore, seed-borne fungal pathogen identification and characterisation are important components of integrated disease management in order to reduce contamination of grain with mycotoxins. Although chemical control can be effective to some extent, full reliance on it has not been fully advised, but rather cultural and biological control methods [ 17 ]. Above all, suitable agronomic management practices have to be done, and suitable storage facilities are needed to limit contamination, development, and growth of such seed-borne pathogens [ 18 ].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. study area.

The experimental work for the isolation and identification of seed-borne fungal pathogens of maize grain samples obtained from Gokwe South District was carried out at the University of Zimbabwe Pathology laboratory in the Department of Plant Production Sciences and Technologies.

2.2. Experimental Design

One hundred and fifty treatments used in this experiment were replicated three times in a randomised complete block design (RCBD). The blocks were three benches on which treatments (Petri dishes with ten seeds from one storage facility per treatment) were placed for incubation at room temperature at 25 °C for seven days.

2.3. Isolation Using the Agar Plating Method

Infected maize grains were surface sterilised in sodium hypochlorite (NaClO 2 ) for three minutes [ 3 ]. Thereafter, the seeds were rinsed three times using sterile distilled water and dried on a sterile blotter paper for two minutes. Potato dextrose agar (PDA) was used in the fungal isolation procedure [ 19 ]. A maximum number of ten seeds were plated on the sterile PDA poured into each Petri dish. The ten seeds placed in each Petri dish had three replicates and were incubated at 25°C at room temperature. The seeds were arranged uniformly making sure that they were equidistant from each other. Subculturing was done using PDA to obtain pure cultures. All these procedures were done under sterile working environments.

2.4. Identification Using Microscopy

The process of identifying fungal seed-borne pathogens that formed an overgrowth on maize grains was done using a compound microscope (model AusJena Laboval 4 and Leits Laboraux K) as described by Krnjaja et al. [ 20 ]. Visual assessment of the presence and characteristics of the fruiting structures was done using spore colour and colonisation. Resolution of light appearing structures was aided by placing the Petri dishes on a black surface.

The isolated fungi fruiting structures were examined after slide preparation. The seed-borne fungal pathogens were also identified through the use of taxonomic features such as conidia and hyphae [ 3 ]. This was made possible through the use of identification manuals and slides that were preserved and kept in the Plant Pathology laboratory.

2.5. Mycotoxin Detection

Samples showing high infection for each pathogen were selected for the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test. These are shown in Table 1 .

Samples selected for mycotoxin concentration determination.

The mycotoxin identification procedure was done according to the method described by Krnjaja et al. [ 21 ], with a few modifications of the procedures involved. The ELISA method was used in the detection of aflatoxin, total deoxynivalenol (DON), fumonisins, and zearalenone in a total of ten samples. Samples were ground using an analytical mill (IKA A11, Germany), and the powder was kept in a refrigerator at 4°C awaiting analyses. One gram of NaCl was mixed with 5 g of each sample and then homogenised in 25 ml of 70% methanol. The mixture was placed in a 250 ml Erlenmeyer flask, and shaking was done manually. Following this procedure, the homogenate was filtered using Whatman filter paper no. 1. Analysis of filtrate was done using ELISA kits (R-Biopharm AG). Absorbance was measured at a wavelength of 450 nm on an ELISA reader model (Biotek EL × 800 TM, USA). The procedure involved the insertion of a sufficient number of microtiter wells into the microtiter holder for all standards, and the samples were run in duplicate. The standard and sample positions were recorded. Fifty microlitres of standard or prepared samples to separate wells were pipetted using a new pipette tip for each standard sample. Fifty microlitres of enzyme conjugate were added to the bottom of each well. Thereafter, fifty microlitres of anti-deoxynivalenol, anti-fumonisin, anti-aflatoxin total, or anti-zearalenone antibodies were added as a solution to each well separately. Mixing by shaking the plate manually was done gently and incubated for 30 minutes at room temperature (20–25°C/68–77°C).

The liquid was removed from the wells and placed on an absorbent paper for the complete removal of the liquid contained in the wells. A total of 250 μ L washing buffer was added, and the liquid was poured out again from the wells. The washing procedure was repeated two times. One hundred microlitres of substrate/chromagen were added to each well. Mixing was then done gently by shaking the plate manually and incubating for 15 minutes at room temperature (20–25°C) in the dark. One hundred ul of stop solution was added to each well. Mixing was done by gently shaking the plate manually, and the absorbance was measured at 450 nm. This was read within 30 minutes after the addition of the stop solution.

2.6. Data Collection

Counts of seeds infected with fungal pathogens were recorded based on the type of fungal growth on the seeds. The fungal pathogens were distinguished through a visual assessment, where the colours of the colonies were identified by naked eyes. Microscopy was used in the conformation of the fungal genera identified by visual assessment. This showed the disease incidence of seed-borne fungal pathogens for each sample. Furthermore, the ELISA method was used in the detection of the mycotoxins, aflatoxin total deoxynivalenol (DON), fumonisin, and zearalenone (ZON) in a total of ten samples.

2.7. Data analysis

Fungal pathogen count data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the means were obtained using Minitab 16. Further analysis was done using GenStat 14 th edition and nonparametric tests using Minitab 16 th edition. All significant mean differences were separated using Tukey's test at a 5% significant level. The quantities of mycotoxins were determined using the values calculated for each particular mycotoxin standard entered in a system of semilogarithmic graph paper with the concentration in ppb. The concentration of each mycotoxin was then read from the calibration curve.

3.1. Identification of Seed-Borne Fungal Pathogens from Different Storage Facilities

Storage facility had a significant ( p  <0.05) effect on the mean seed infection. Containers recorded the highest Fusarium moniliforme infection, while kitchen recorded the lowest ( Table 2 ). The highest Rhizopus stolonifer infection was noted in cotton bags, and none was detected in the container. The highest Penicillium citrinum infection was recorded in house sacks, and the container recorded no infection ( Table 2 ).

Mean seed infections of fungal pathogens detected on maize grain stored in different storage environments.

Means followed by different letters in superscript in the column denote significant differences as determined by Tukey's test.

Traditional granary and house sacks recorded significantly ( p  < 0.05) the highest levels of A . flavus infection, and none was detected in the container. A significantly ( p  < 0.05) high level of A . parasiticus infection was noted in the kitchen as there was no significant difference in the amount of infection recorded in the other environments ( Table 3 ). Seeds stored in the traditional granary recorded significantly ( p  < 0.05) the highest level of A . niger infection ( Table 3 ).

Mean seed infections by Aspergillus species (fungal pathogens) detected on stored maize grain samples.

Storage facility had a significant ( p  < 0.05) effect on the mean seed infection. Data from Figure 1 show that cotton bags recorded the highest A . tamarii , while container crib and kitchen recorded the lowest level of infection. House sacks and traditional granary represented the intermediate infection ( Figure 1 ).

Boxplot of Aspergillus tamarii detection in different storage facilities.

3.2. Identification of Seed-Borne Fungal Pathogens in Different Stored Maize Varieties

Variety type had statistically significant ( p  < 0.05) differences in F . moniliforme infection. The eight line/yellow maize varieties recorded the highest F . moniliforme infection while Pan 513/403 recorded the lowest ( Figure 2 ). The other varieties showed significantly ( p  < 0.05) intermediate infection of F . moniliforme .

Percentage of mean seed infection for each variety of Fusarium moniliforme .

There were statistically significant differences ( p  < 0.05) in A . tamarii infection between the varieties. The eight line/yellow maize had the highest infection of A . tamarii ( Figure 3 ). The eight LINE, Kenya YELLOW MAIZE, OPV RED COB, PAN 413, PAN 413/3253, PAN 413/SC513 PAN 43, PAN 513/403, PAN 513, PAN 53/8 LINE, PAN 61, PAN 53/SC 637/PIO2859, PIO 2859, PIO 2859/3253, PIO 3253/2859, PIO 3253/513, PIO 3253/SC 513, PIO 3553, PIO 413, PIO 413/3253, PIO 513, PIO W2859, QPM, RED COB, R201, SC 513/3253, SC 533, SC 637, W2859/PAN 513, REDCOB, YELLOW MAIZE, ZIM 401, and ZM 521 varieties had the lowest A . tamarii infection, and none was detected in the other varieties ( Figure 3 ).

Percentage of the mean seed infection for each variety of A . tamarii .

Variety type had a significant ( p  < 0.05) effect on pathogen infection. RED COB recorded the highest A . flavus , whereas 8 LINE/YELLOW MAIZE, PAN 413/3253, PAN 43, PIO 3253/2859, PIO 413, PIO 413/3253, R201 SC 533, SC 637, and ZIM varieties recorded the lowest ( Figure 4 ).

Percentage of mean seed infection for each variety of A . flavus .

Variety type had a significant ( p  < 0.05) effect on the level of R . stolonifer infection. Pan 413 showed the highest R . stolonifer infection ( Figure 5 ). PIO 3253 recorded the average pathogen infection, while none was detected in the other varieties.

Percentage of the mean seed infection for each variety of R . stolonifer .

The level of infection for the various varieties of the seed-borne fungal pathogen A . tamarii showed statistically significant differences ( p  < 0.05). The varieties OPV/REDCOB recorded the highest A . niger infection, while 8 LINE/YELLOW MAIZE, PAN 43, RED COB, SC 533, and ZIM 401 recorded the lowest ( Figure 6 ).

Percentage of the mean seed infection for each variety of Aspergillus niger .

Variety type had a significant ( p  < 0.05) effect on A . parasiticus infection ( Figure 7 ). PAN 43 recorded the highest pathogen infection. 8 LINE/YELLOW MAIZE, Kenya YELLOW MAIZE, OPV, OPV/REDCOB, PAN 3253, PAN 413, PAN 413/3253, PAN 413/SC513, PAN 513/403, PAN 53/8 LINE, PAN 53/SC 637/PIO2859, PAN 61, PIO 2859, PIO 2859/3253, PIO 3253/2859, PIO 3253/SC 513, PIO 3553, PIO 413/3253, PIO 513, PIO W2859, QPM, R201, RED COB, SC 513, SC 513/3253, SC 513/PIO 3253, SC 533, SC 637, W2859/PAN 513 REDCOB, YELLOW MAIZE, ZIM 401, and ZM 521 varieties showed the lowest pathogen infection ( Figure 7 ).

Percentage of the mean seed infection for each variety of A . parasiticus .

The level of infection for the various varieties of the seed-borne fungal pathogen P . citrinum had statistically significant differences ( p  < 0.05). RED COB recorded the highest P . citrinum ( Figure 8 ). 8 LINE/YELLOW MAIZE, Kenya YELLOW MAIZE, OPV REDCOB, PAN 413/3253, PAN 413/SC513, PAN 513/403, PAN 53/8 LINE, PAN 53/SC 637/PIO2859, PAN 61, PIO 2859, PIO 3253/2859, PIO 3253/SC 513, PIO 3553, PIO 413, PIO 413/3253, SC 513, SC 513/PIO 3253, SC 533, YELLOW MAIZE, ZIM 401, and ZM 52 varieties recorded the lowest pathogen infection ( Figure 8 ).

Percentage of the mean seed infection for each variety of P . citrinum .

3.3. Mycotoxin Identification

A total of 10 samples selected as representative among the samples were 100% positive with aflatoxin total, zearelenone, deoxynivalenol (DON), and fumonisin with an average of 0.255 ppb, 2.425 ppb, 2.65 ppb, and 0.07 ppb, respectively ( Table 4 ).

Mycotoxin levels detected in 10 maize samples in ppb.

4. Discussion

The study was designed to identify and characterise seed-borne fungal genera present in stored maize grain and quantify the amount of mycotoxins, which they produce. The isolation and identification procedures using the agar plating method and microscopy revealed a diverse nature of fungal seed-borne pathogens in maize samples collected from Gokwe South. The fungal pathogenic isolates, namely, F . moniliforme , A . tamarii , A . parasiticus , A . niger , A . flavus , R . stolonifer , and P . citrinum were identified. Four types of mycotoxins, namely, fumonisins, zearalenone (ZON), deoxynivalenol (DON), and aflatoxin total were detected in the maize samples collected from smallholder farmers in Gokwe South District. F. moniliforme , A . tamarii , A . parasiticus , A . niger , A . flavus , R . stolonifer , and P . citrinum were detected in maize grain stored in cotton bags, kitchen, traditional granaries, house sacks, crib, and containers. Research findings of this study depict that pathogenic fungal isolates occurred in diverse infection incidence among different storage facilities. The possible causes for such results are abiotic factors, which can directly affect the relative frequency of fungal populations in stored grain [ 22 ]. Moreover, there were significant differences in pathogen infection in relation to the storage facilities for all species identified. The results for the isolation and identification of seed-borne fungal pathogens associated with stored maize grain were in agreement with the findings of Krinjaja et al. [ 21 ] and Amadi and Adeniyi [ 10 ].

Our findings show that Aspergillus species were the most predominant species in stored maize grain. These findings concur with the literature that Aspergillus moulds can be attributed to factors such as warmth and high relative humidity with low temperatures, which may result in improper drying of the maize as well as high temperatures with drier conditions, which predispose maize to moulds in the field or in storage [ 23 ]. Srivastava et al. [ 13 ] also reported that there are weather conditions, which favour the fungal establishment in maize, hence threatening its safety during storage as well. Studies done by [ 24 ] also support the findings from this study that seed-borne fungal pathogens can infect maize preharvest and increase mycotoxin levels under different storage facilities if conditions are poorly managed. Some of the other favourable conditions resulting in infection involve stress due to drought, poor nutrition of plants, plant diseases, plant pests, weeds, and high plant populations. Reference [ 25 ] showed that varying conditions such as water and temperature in various storage facilities determine the fungal growth. However, the differing conditions in each storage facility facilitate the growth of particular fungal pathogen as they differ in their requirements for development as well as mycotoxin production.

Variety influenced the level and type of infection detected on the seed as different pathogens were detected on different varieties. A number of factors contribute to the differential pathogen infection of different varieties. The presence of storage insects in the grain could also be regarded as a contributing factor to the level and type of infection detected as some varieties are more susceptible to insect damage than others. However, studies done by Hell [ 26 ] indicated that husk cover plays a role in the protection of kernels against insect pests, which create openings for pathogen entry. According to the study done by Cardwell et al. [ 27 ], varieties with a tighter husk cover store better than some improved varieties. Husk cover was regarded as one of the variables that differentiates maize variety susceptibility to seed-borne fungal isolates. Bakan (2002) [ 23 ] reported the need to genetically modify maize for resistance to insect damage in order to reduce pathogenic fungal infection in stored maize grains. Moreover, attention should be paid to avoid pathogens in both certified and farmer-saved seed maize as these can be major sources of infection as well as continuous cropping [ 12 ].

The results of mycotoxin detection demonstrated that fungal isolates from the cereal crops studied produced secondary metabolites regarded as deleterious [ 2 ]. This is also indicated by the studies carried out by [ 4 ]. The mycotoxin types present and their amounts could be attributed to period, grain stored, and various management practices at the farm level. Sinha and Sinha [ 28 ] carried out a study that showed aflatoxin levels in relation to the storage period in stored maize and rice. The results from this study support the findings by Franzolin et al. [ 22 ] who showed that management practices play a role in the development of fungi and aflatoxins. The factors can be intercropping effects and laying maize plants on the soil and collecting the cobs later.

Orsi et al. [ 5 , 29 ] reported similar mycotoxin-producing pathogens identified in this study. The mycoflora in postharvest and stored maize was analysed, and similar results were also found on mycotoxin-forming ability of seed-borne fungal pathogens by Pozzi et al. [ 30 ]. Aldred and Magan [ 31 ] showed that the incidence of A. flavus as well as the level of aflatoxins were comparatively more in maize samples having insect damage than the undamaged ones, which is in line with the findings of this research.

Aldred and Magan [ 31 ] found out that mycotoxins can be produced by fungi in maize prior to harvest, but their quantities generally increase after harvest, particularly during the storage period. Drying of maize is a preventative way for medium- and long-term storage in clean facilities, with no insect infestations and microorganisms. Moreover, regulation of grain moisture levels will significantly cause a reduction of mycotoxins in maize [ 17 ]. However, according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation [ 32 ] and Food and Drug Administration regulations, the mycotoxins that were detected in the samples tested in this study were within the safe limits. Therefore, the grain is rendered safe for human or animal consumption.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

5.1. conclusion.

The fungal genera identified were F . moniliforme , A . niger , A . flavus , A . tamarii , A. parasiticus , R . stolonifer , and P . citrinum . Storage facilities as well as varietal types were the factors to be noted in the contribution of fungal contamination. Maize varieties showed differences in susceptibility to seed-borne fungal contamination. This study confirmed that storage facilities affect the type and level of fungal infection in stored grain. The results of this investigation show that some of the fungal species isolated from the seed have mycotoxigenic potential. Four types of mycotoxins, namely, zearelenone, aflatoxin total, deoxynivalenol (DON), and fumonisins, were detected in the maize samples. The evidence from this study thus suggests that knowledge of the fungal species and mycotoxins identified help develop effective control strategies.

Acknowledgments

Funding for this work was provided by the Welt Hunger Hilfe (WHH) under the Sustainable Intensification of Market-Based Agriculture (SIMBA) Project (project number: ZWE1074).

Data Availability

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Management of Seed-Borne Diseases: An Integrated Approach

• First Online: 19 May 2020

Cite this chapter

• Anuja Gupta 3 &
• Ravindra Kumar 3  

1141 Accesses

10 Citations

Productivity and sustainability in agriculture can be achieved either by increasing crop production through the use of high-yielding crop varieties or by avoiding crop failures mainly due to pests and diseases. High-yielding cultivars are often susceptible to one or more diseases. The basic need therefore is availability of good quality healthy seed/planting materials. Seeds are known to be carriers of a large number of microorganisms. Since about 90% of the crops are grown through seeds, they are also a potent source for dissemination of various diseases and survival of pathogens from season to season. Healthy seed can be obtained through appropriate certification schemes or by effective seed treatments, but it is difficult to restrict seed-transmitted diseases, which are also soil-borne, or perpetuate on plant residues. In order to reduce yield losses caused by diseases, farmers adopt calendar-based chemical spraying schedules rather than need-based sprayings, which lead to chemical residues in the produce and development of resistance in the pathogens and disturb the natural fauna. Losses due to plant diseases are expected to have more critical influence on human being in the coming years than they have had in bygone years. An integrated approach is needed for the effective control of the diseases and production and maintenance of pathogen-free seed in the field and during storage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Agarwal VK, Sinclair JB (1997) Principles of seed pathology, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 539

Google Scholar  

Atwal SS (2013) Successful entrepreneurship through seed production. In: Kumar A, Kumar R, Gupta A et al (eds) Entrepreneurship development through seed production (TB ICN: 109/2013). ICAR-IARI, RS, Karnal, p 1

Bacon CW, Yates IE, Hinton DM et al (2001) Biological control of Fusarium moniliforme in maize. Environ Health Perspect 109(S 2):325–332. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.01109s2325

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bedi KS (1957) Control of loose smut of barley with solar heat in the Punjab plains. Indian Phytopathol 10:138–141

Bhatia VS, Yadav S, Jumrani K et al (2010) Field deterioration of soybean seed: role of oxidative stress and antioxidant defense mechanism. J Plant Biol 32(2):179–190

Biabani A, Boggs LC, Katozi M et al (2011) Effects of seed deterioration and inoculation with Mesorhizobium cicerion yield and plant performance of chickpea. Aust J Crop Sci 5(1):66–70

Birewar BR (1984) Post harvest technology of pulses, pulse production – constraints and opportunities. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co, New Delhi, pp 425–438

Borrero C, Trillas MI, Delgado A et al (2012) Effect of ammonium/nitrate ratio in nutrient solution on control of Fusarium wilt of tomato by Trichoderma asperellum T34. Plant Pathol 61(1):132–139

CAS   Google Scholar  

Chaube HS, Singh US (1990) Plant disease management: principles and practices. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 319

D’Ercole N, Nipoti P, Finessi LE et al (1988) Review of several years of research in Italy on the biological control of soil fungi with Trichoderma spp. Bull OEPP 18:95–102

Deka B, Ali MS, Chandra KC (1996) Management of grain discoloration of rice. Indian J Mycol Plant Pathol 26:105–106

Dordas C (2008) Role of nutrients in controlling plant diseases in sustainable agriculture. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 28(1):33–46

Fourest E, Rehms LD, Sands DC et al (1990) Eradication of Xanthomonas campestris pv . translucens from barley seed with dry heat treatments. Plant Dis 74:816–818

Govindrajan K, Kannaiyan S (1982) Fungicidal control of grain infection. Int Rice Res Newsl 7:1

Graves AS, Alexander SA (2002) Managing bacterial speck and spot of tomato with acibenzolar-S-methyl in Virginia. Online Plant Health Prog. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHP-2002-0220-01-RS

Grondeau C, Ladone F, Fourmond A et al (1992) Attempt to eradicate Xanthomonas syringae pv. pisi from pea seeds with heat treatments. Seed Sci Technol 20:515–525

Gupta A (2006) Efficacy of bioagents vs. fungicides on disease incidence in chickpea. Ann Plant Prot Sci 14:496–497

Gupta A, Aneja KR (2001) Mycofloral spectrum during storage and its effect on seed viability of soybean ( Glycine max (L.) Merrill) seeds under ambient conditions. Proc Natl Acad Sci India Sect B 71(Part III & IV):245–253

Gupta A, Maheshwari VK (2007) Integrated management of loose smut disease of wheat caused by Ustilago segatum . In: Arya A, Monaco C (eds) Seed borne diseases: ecofriendly management. Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur, pp 163–170

Gupta A, Kumar R, Maheshwari VK (2015) Integration of seed treatments, seedling dip treatments and soil amendments for the management of Bakanae disease in paddy variety Pusa Basmati 1121. Plant Pathol J 14(4):207–211. https://doi.org/10.3923/ppj.2015.207.211

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Hewett PD (1979) Regulating seed borne diseases by certification in plant health. In: Ebbels EL, King JE (eds) The scientific basis for administrative control of plant diseases and pests. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, p 163

Indira K, Rao JG (1968) Storage fungi in rice in India. Kavaka 14:67–76

Ipsita D, Kumar G, Shah NG (2013) Microwave heating as an alternative quarantine method for disinfestation of stored food grains. Int J Food Sci 13:926468. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/926468

Article   Google Scholar  

ISTA (2018) The International Seed Testing Association (ISTA). http://www.seedtest.org . Accessed 15 Nov 2018

Jensen JL (1888) The propagation and prevention of smut in oats and barley. J R Agric Soc Ser 2(24):397–415

Kapoor R, Arya A, Siddiqui MA et al (2010) Seed deterioration in chickpea ( Cicer arietinum L.) under accelerated ageing. Asian J Plant Sci 9(3):158–162

Khatun A, Kabir G, Bhuiyan MHA (2009) Effect of harvesting stages on the seed quality of lentil ( Lens culinaris L.) during storage. Bangladesh J Agric Res 34(4):565–576

Koch E, Schmitt A, Stephan D et al (2010) Evaluation of non-chemical seed treatment methods for the control of Alternaria dauci and A. radicina on carrot seeds. Eur J Plant Pathol 127:99–112

Kulkarni S, Ramakrishna K (1979) Antagonistic action of soil microbes on Drechslera oryzae . Int Rice Res Newsl 4:11

Kumar R (2010) Studies on decomposing mycoflora of Sesbania aculeata L. in soil and its effects on soil-borne plant pathogens. PhD thesis, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India

Kumar R, Srivastava S, Srivastava M et al (2010) Effect of organic amendments on soil mycoflora. Asian J Plant Pathol 4(2):73–81. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajppaj.2010.73.81

Kumar G, Saxena RP, Yadav SK et al (2014a) Effect of temperature on the efficacy of fungicide and biocontrol agent with incidence of stem gall disease of coriander. Trends Biosci 7(19):3038–3046

Kumar G, Yadav SK, Patel JS et al (2014b) Management of stem gall disease in coriander using Pseudomonas and Trichoderma (bioagents) and fungicides. J Pure Appl Microbiol 8(6):4975–4978

Kumar R, Gupta A, Maheshwari VK et al (2014c) Health status of farmers’ saved seed of various paddy varieties in Haryana, India. Plant Pathol J 13(3):186–192

Kumar A, Gupta A, Atwal SS et al (2015) Post harvest management of Karnal bunt, a quarantine disease, in wheat. Plant Pathol J 14(1):23–30

Kumar G, Maharshi A, Patel JS et al (2017a) Trichoderma : a potential fungal antagonist to control plant diseases. SATSA Mukhapatra Ann Tech Issue 21:206–218

Kumar R, Sinha A, Srivastava S et al (2017b) Evaluation of biocontrol potential of some fungal decomposers of Sesbania aculeata L. green manure against some soil-borne plant pathogens. J Environ Biol 38(1):37–45

Lambat AK, Siddiqui MR, Nath R et al (1974) Seed borne fungi of sugar beet in India with special reference to Phoma betae Frank, and its control. Seed Res 2:33–40

Lauden L (1953) Decision on the control of the stunting disease. Sugar Bull 31:382–384

Leeman M, van Pelt JA, Hendrickx MJ et al (1995) Biocontrol of Fusarium wilt of radish in commercial greenhouse trials by seed treatment with Pseudomonas fluorescens and WCS 374. Phytopathology 85:1301–1305

Luthra JC, Sattar A (1934) Some experiments on the control of loose smut, Ustilago tritici (Pers.) Jens. of wheat. Indian J Agric Sci 4:177–199

Maloy OC (2005) Plant disease management. Plant Health Instr. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHI-I-2005-0202-01

Marshall DS (1982) Effect of Trichoderma harzianum seed treatment and Rhizoctonia solani inoculum concentration on damping-off of snap bean in acidic soils. Plant Dis 66:788–789. https://doi.org/10.1094/PD-66-788

Mathre DE (1982) Compendium of barley diseases. The American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, p 78

Misra AK, Dharam Vir (1992) Effect of different agronomic practices in incidence of seed discolouartion of paddy. Indian J Plant Pathol 22:44–48

Misra RR, Kanaujia RS (1973) Studies on certain aspects of seed borne fungi II. Seed borne fungi of certain oilseeds. Indian Phytopathol 26:284–294

Montesano FF, Serio F, Mininni C et al (2015) Tensiometer-based irrigation management of subirrigated soilless tomato: effects of substrate matric potential control on crop performance. Front Plant Sci 6:1150. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.01150

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Mukherji KG (1983) Biocontrol of plant diseases. In: Hussain A, Singh K, Singh BP et al (eds) Recent advances in plant pathology. Print House, Lucknow, pp 1–19

Nair LN (1982) Studies on mycoflora of seeds of some cucurbitaceous vegetables. J Indian Bot Soc 61:343–345

Nega E, Ulrich R, Werner S et al (2003) Hot water treatment of vegetable seed – an alternative seed treatment method to control seed borne pathogens in organic farming. J Plant Dis Prot 110(3):220–234

Pradeep K, Anuja A, Kumud K (2000) Biocontrol of seed borne fungal pathogens of pigeon pea ( Cajanus cajan ). Ann Plant Prot Sci 8(1):30–32

Prasad KSK, Kulkarni S, Siddaramaiah AL (1978) Antagonistic action of Trichoderma spp. and Streptomyces sp. on Drechslera sativum ( Helminthosporium sativum Pam. King and Bakke) Subram. and Jain. Curr Res 12:202–203

Raj MH, Niranjana SR, Nayaka SC et al (2007) Health status of famers’ saved paddy, sorghum, sunflower and cowpea seeds in Karnataka, India. World J Agric Sci 3(2):167–177

Raju NS, Niranjana SR, Janardhana GR et al (1999) Improvement of seed quality and field emergence of Fusarium moniliforme infected sorghum seeds using biocontrol agents. J Sci Food Agric 79:206–212

Rana RS, Nath R, Khetarpal RK et al (1993) Plant quarantine: principles and concepts. NBPGR, New Delhi

Razdan VK, Gupta S (2009) Integrated disease management: concepts and practices. In: Peshin R, Dhawan AK (eds) Integrated pest management: innovation development process. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 369–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8992-3_15

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Rennie WJ, Richardson MJ, Noble M (1983) Seed borne pathogens and production of quality cereal seed in Scotland. Seed Sci Technol 11:1115–1127

Sansford CE, Baker RHA, Brennan JP et al (2008) The new pest risk analysis for Tilletia indica , the cause of Karnal bunt of wheat, continues to support the quarantine status of the pathogen in Europe. Plant Pathol 57(4):603–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2008.01825.x

Shahriary D, Okhovat M, Rouhani H (1996) Biological control of Pythium ultimum , Trow, the causal agent of chickpea seed rot and damping off disease by antagonistic fungi. Iran J Agric Sci 27:1–7

Sheeba T, Ahmed R (1994) Variation in seed borne mycoflora of paddy in Mangalore taluk of Karnataka. In: Singh T, Trivedi PC (eds) Vistas in seed biology. Printwell, Jaipur, pp 220–228

Shelar VR (2008) Role of mechanical damage in deterioration of soybean seed quality during storage – a review. Agric Rev 29(3):177–184

Singh K (1968) Grassy shoot disease of sugarcane. II. Hot air therapy. Curr Sci 37:592–594

Singh K (1973) Hot air therapy against red rot of sugarcane. Plant Dis Rep 57:220–222

Singh PK (2010) A decentralized and holistic approach for grain management in India. Curr Sci 99(9):1179–1180

Singh S, Sinha A, Yadav SM et al (2017) Antagonistic behavior of different bioagents against dominant seed borne fungi of mungbean seeds under in vitro condition. Proc Natl Acad Sci India Sect B Biol Sci 87(2):599–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40011-015-0604-z

Srivastava S, Kumar R, Sinha A (2012) Antifungal activity of Jatropha curcas oil against some seed-borne fungi. Plant Pathol J 11:120–123. https://doi.org/10.3923/ppj.2012.120.123

Tamiethi G, Garabaldi A (1984) Eradication of Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola in bean seeds in Italy. In: Quaecuarelli A, Casano F (eds) Phytobacteriology and plant bacterial diseases of quarantine significance. Institute Experimentate per la Patologia Vegetale, Rome, pp 69–76

Thakur RP, King SB (1988) Ergot disease of pearl millet, Information bulletin no. 24. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, p 25

Tunwar NS, Singh SV (1988) Indian minimum seed certification standards. The Central Seed Certification Board, Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi, p 388

Tveit M, Moore MB (1954) Isolates of Chaetomium that protects oats from Helminthosporium victoirae . Phytopathology 44:686–689

Ykema RE, Floyd JP, Palm ME et al (1996) First report of Karnal bunt of wheat in the United States. Plant Dis 80:1207

Zemanek J, Bartos P (1964) Anaerobic treatment of wheat against loose smut ( Ustilago tritici (Pers.) Jens.). Rostl Vyroba 14:415–421

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Regional Station, Karnal, Haryana, India

Anuja Gupta & Ravindra Kumar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Ravindra Kumar

Anuja Gupta

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Gupta, A., Kumar, R. (2020). Management of Seed-Borne Diseases: An Integrated Approach. In: Kumar, R., Gupta, A. (eds) Seed-Borne Diseases of Agricultural Crops: Detection, Diagnosis & Management. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9046-4_25

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9046-4_25

Published : 19 May 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-32-9045-7

Online ISBN : 978-981-32-9046-4

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Editorial article, editorial: integrated pest management of tropical crops.

• 1 Center for International Research, Education and Development, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, United States
• 2 Regional Office, World Vegetable Center (Benin), Cotonou, Benin
• 3 Center for Biological Control, College of Agriculture and Food Sciences, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, FL, United States

Editorial on the Research Topic Integrated Pest Management of tropical crops

Over half a century ago, the concept of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) was developed by entomologists at the University of California at Berkeley. The idea centered around the economic, social, and environmental ramifications of the indiscriminate use of chemical pesticides – including pest resistance, resurgence of pests, and adverse impacts on non-target species, humans, wildlife, and the environment ( Stern et al., 1959 ). FAO (1994) has defined the concept as “the careful integration of several available pest control techniques that discourage pest population development and keep pesticide and other interventions to levels that are economically justified and safe for human health and the environment.” IPM is a dynamic program specific to crop, location, season, and economic conditions, including political, that combines all available tactics to help grow healthy plants ( Muniappan et al., 2016 ). It combines cultural control, mechanical control, host plant resistance, biological control, and chemical control with safe insecticides, while involving the disciplines of entomology, plant pathology, nematology, weed science, economics, sociology, computer sciences, statistics, and others.

IPM is targeted for a crop or a weed (especially for alien invasive ones) and not for addressing a single insect pest, disease, or nematode. Even though IPM began to reduce reliance on chemical pesticides by involving biological control and host plant resistance, it is an agroecological approach to pest and disease management ( Pretty et al., 2010 ). In some cases, a single component of IPM, classical biological control, has suppressed pests such as papaya mealybug, Paracoccus marginatus Williams and Granara de Willink (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) ( Myrick et al., 2014 ), cassava mealybug, Phenococcus manihoti Matile-Ferrero (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) ( Neuenschwander, 2003 ), and cassava green mite, Mononychellus tanajoa Bondar (Acari: Tetranychidae) ( Yaninek and Hanna, 2003 ), but such a solution needs to be integrated with the IPM packages of the crops these pests are associated with. While IPM does not represent the management of a single group of arthropods or diseases, IPM research has been dominated by an insect bias, followed by diseases, then weeds ( Pretty et al., 2010 , Muniappan et al., 2016 ).

Since IPM tactics vary from location to location and season to season, they cannot be proposed as a blanket recommendation ( Dilts and Hale, 1996 ) and they need to be modified and adjusted accordingly. The popular extension program of the 1960s, “Training and Visit (T&V),” did not prove effective in transferring IPM technologies to developing countries ( Matteson, 2000 ). The attempted transfer of IPM technologies – similar to the technology packages developed amid the “green revolution” paradigm, with input-intensive, high-yielding varieties, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides – in developing countries needed modification to be adopted ( Shepard et al., 2009 ). However, in the late 1980s, FAO introduced the Farmer Field School program based on participatory learning introduced in Indonesia and other Asian and African countries ( Braun et al., 2000 ) but it proved not to be cost-effective ( Feder et al., 2004 ).

Technologies produced in developed countries require modification and validation before widespread introduction in developing countries, as there are marked differences in climate, farm holdings, farming practices, knowledge level, economics, policies, and biodiversity. Educating scientists, extension agents, NGOs, and value chain actors in developing countries is essential for training farmers ( Parsa et al., 2014 ). Often, the recommended technology fails to be adopted when the product involved is not available or readily accessible to a farmer’s dwelling. For example, when the IPM Innovation Lab, a USAID-funded project, introduced to Nepal Trichoderma sp., a technology that controls soil-borne fungal diseases, it became apparent that information dissemination about the technology to farmers alone did not result in transformation. Adoption of the technology required collaborating with local entrepreneurs in the production of Trichoderma , educating agricultural input dealers on its benefits, and making the product available in the nearby markets ( Muniappan et al., 2016 ).

Hokkanen (2015) described the initial development of IPM by a model, placing IPM principles of landscape management, cultural control, host plant resistance, conservation of natural enemies, and biological control at the bottom of the pyramid, and pesticide resistance management at the top. However, developments in the past half a century have inverted this model by placing pesticide resistance management at the base and other IPM principles on the top in developed countries. Developing countries are still in the initial pyramidal model stage, which is important to maintain, so as not to let these regions fall to the fate of developed countries.

The IPM Innovation Lab has developed IPM packages for several tropical crops ( Muniappan et al., 2021 ) with an emphasis on tackling pest problems encountered from the time of planting to the harvest of the crop. However, the components in these packages need to be modified to the local conditions, needs, and accessibility. Some of the components include incorporating Trichoderma sp. in compost or treating seeds with Trichoderma sp., which protects the seedlings from soil-borne fungal diseases; using cocopith, a biproduct of the coconut, which can be used in the tropics for raising seedlings as an alternate product for peat moss; culling diseased seedlings in the nursery stage before transplanting; use of pheromone traps for monitoring pests and taking timely interventions; augmentative release of biocontrol agents; observing conservation biological control; incorporation of microbial and botanical pesticides; and judicious use of chemical pesticides when needed.

As Ricker-Gilbert et al. (2008) pointed out, simpler practices may be adopted faster than more complex ones. It is common that not all the components recommended in an IPM package for a crop are adopted by all farmers, especially in the early stages. The adoption rate increases over time. There are probably only a few crop ecosystems and pest complexes that can justify or would require the application of the total spectrum of pest management strategies and tactics ( Apple and Smith, 1976 ). Partial adoption of IPM does not make it a poor investment ( Norton et al., 2019 ).

The articles included in this Research Topic focus on tropical crops, including cowpea ( Vigna unguiculata ) in West Africa, African eggplant ( Solanum aethiopicum ) in Uganda and Tanzania, and Cacao ( Theobroma cacao ) in the Philippines. Included articles are reviews and research articles. Research articles have focused on cultural (pheromone) and biological control strategies (entomopathogenic fungus).

Togola et al. review the progress made in managing cowpea insect pests in Africa, Xu et al. report identification of the causative organism of wilt disease of the African eggplant, and the following three articles cover management of cacao pest in the Philippines. Amalin et al. present their field study on evaluation of sex pheromone of cacao pod borer, Conophomorpha cramerella Snellen (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae), Tavera et al. on identification of β-Caryophyllene as an attractant for the cacao mirid bug, Helopeltis bakeri Poppius (Hemiptera: Miridae), and clay particles as carrier of entomopathogenic agents of H. bakeri . These articles contribute to growing information around IPM components of these three valuable tropical crops.

Author contributions

RM: Writing – original draft. MB: Writing – review & editing. AS: Writing – review & editing. SH: Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This research benefited from USAID Cooperative Agreement No. AID-OAA-L-15-00001 Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Integrated Pest Management (IPM IL), and the USAID Bangladesh Mission Associate Award No. 72038821LA00001.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Apple J. L., Smith R. F. (1976). “Progress, problems, and prospects for integrated pest management,” in Integrated Pest Management . Eds. Apple L. A., Smith R. F. (Integrated Pest Management. Plenum Press, New York), 179–196. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-7269-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Braun A. R., Thiele G., Fernández M. (2000). Farmers field schools and local agricultural research committees: complementary platforms for integrated decision-making in sustainable agriculture. Agricultural Research & Extension Network (AgREN) . Network Paper No. 105, 1–21.

Google Scholar

Dilts D., Hale S. (1996). Farmer field school: Changing paradigms and scaling up. AgREN Network Paper 59b (London: Overseas Development Institute).

FAO. (1994). Sustainable agriculture through integrated pest management . Manila, Philippines: Twenty-Second Regional Conference for Asia and the Pacific.

Feder G., Murgai R., Quizon J. B. (2004). The acquisition and diffusion of knowledge: the case of pest management training in farmer field schools, Indonesia. J. Agric. Econ. 55, 221–243. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2004.tb00094.x

Hokkanen H. M. T. (2015). Integrated pest management at the crossroads: science, politics, or business (as usual)? Arthropod-Plant Interact . 9, 543–545.

Matteson P. C. (2000). Insect pest management in tropical Asian irrigated rice? Annu. Rev. Entomol. . 45, 549–74.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Muniappan R., Heinrichs E. A., Fayad A. (2016). “IPM packages for tropical crops,” in Integrated Pest Management of Tropical Crops . Eds. Muniappan R., Heinrichs E. A. (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer), 33–40.

Muniappan R., Sharma A., Hendery S., Sidhu J., Fayad A., Ba M., et al. (2021). IPM Packages for Tropical Crops (Virginia, USA: Center for International Research, Education, and Development, Virginia Tech), 72.

Myrick S., Norton G. W., Selvaraj K. N., Natarajan K., Muniappan R. (2014). Economic impact of classical biological control of papaya mealybug in India. Crop Prot. 56, 82–86. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2013.10.023

Neuenschwander P. (2003). “Biological control of cassava and mango mealybugs in Africa,” in Biological Control in IPM Systems in Africa . Eds. Neuenschwander P., Borgemeister C., Langewald J. (CABI, Oxon), 45–59.

Norton G. W., Alwang J., Kassie M., Muniappan R. (2019). “Economic impacts of integrated pest management practices in developing countries,” in The Economics of Integrated Pest Management of Insects . Eds. Onstad D. W., Crain P. R. (Boston, MA, USA: CABI), 140–154.

Parsa S., Morse S., Bonifacio A., Chancellor T. C., Condori B., Crespo-Perez V., et al. (2014). Obstacles to integrated pest management adoption in developing countries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 3889–3894. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1312693111

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pretty J., Sutherland W. J., Ashby J., Auburn J., Baulcombe D., Bell M., et al. (2010). The top 100 questions of importance to the future of global agriculture. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 8, 219–236. doi: 10.3763/ijas.2010.0534

Ricker-Gilbert J., Norton G. W., Alwang J., Miah M., Feder G. (2008). Cost effectiveness of alternative IPM extension methods: and example from Bangladesh. Rev. Agric. Economics 30, 252–269. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9353.2008.00403.x

Shepard B. M., Hammig M. D., Carner G. R., Ooi P. A. C., Smith J. P., Dilts R., et al. (2009). “Implementing integrated pest management in developing and developed countries,” in Integrated Pest Management: Dissemination and Impact , vol. 2 . Eds. Peshin R., Dhawan A. K. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany).

Stern Y. M., Smith R. F., van den Bosch R., Hagen K. S. (1959). The integrated control concept Vol. 29 (Berkeley, California: Hilgardia), 81–101.

Yaninek S., Hanna R. (2003). “Cassava green mite in Africa – a unique example of successful classical biological control of a mite pest on a continental scale,” in Biological Control in IPM Systems in Africa . Eds. Neuenschwander P., Borgemeister C., Langewald J. (CABI, Oxon), 61–75.

Keywords: Integrated Pest Management (IPM), cacao, insect pests, plant pathogens, tropical crops

Citation: Muniappan R, Ba M, Sharma A and Hendery S (2024) Editorial: Integrated Pest Management of tropical crops. Front. Agron. 6:1407495. doi: 10.3389/fagro.2024.1407495

Received: 26 March 2024; Accepted: 01 April 2024; Published: 10 April 2024.

Edited and Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Muniappan, Ba, Sharma and Hendery. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Anamika Sharma, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Integrated Pest Management of Tropical Crops