Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T12:12:44.059Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Application of a model to assess aflatoxin risk in peanuts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2010

Y. S. CHAUHAN ,
G. C. WRIGHT ,
R. C. N. RACHAPUTI ,
D. HOLZWORTH ,
A. BROOME ,
S. KROSCH  and
M. J. ROBERTSON
Y. S. CHAUHAN*
Affiliation:
Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI), P.O. Box 23, Kingaroy, Queensland4610, Australia
G. C. WRIGHT
Affiliation:
Peanut Company of Australia, P.O. Box 26, Kingaroy, Queensland4610, Australia
R. C. N. RACHAPUTI
Affiliation:
Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI), P.O. Box 23, Kingaroy, Queensland4610, Australia
D. HOLZWORTH
Affiliation:
CSIRO, P.O. Box 102, Toowoomba, Queensland4350, Australia
A. BROOME
Affiliation:
Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI), P.O. Box 23, Kingaroy, Queensland4610, Australia
S. KROSCH
Affiliation:
Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI), P.O. Box 23, Kingaroy, Queensland4610, Australia
M. J. ROBERTSON
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Private Bag 5, P.O.Wembley, WA6913, Australia
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: yashvir.chauhan@deedi.qld.gov.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

When exposed to hot (22–35°C) and dry climatic conditions in the field during the final 4–6 weeks of pod filling, peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) can accumulate highly carcinogenic and immuno-suppressing aflatoxins. Forecasting of the risk posed by these conditions can assist in minimizing pre-harvest contamination. A model was therefore developed as part of the Agricultural Production Systems Simulator (APSIM) peanut module, which calculated an aflatoxin risk index (ARI) using four temperature response functions when fractional available soil water was <0·20 and the crop was in the last 0·40 of the pod-filling phase. ARI explained 0·95 (P⩽0·05) of the variation in aflatoxin contamination, which varied from 0 to c. 800 μg/kg in 17 large-scale sowings in tropical and four sowings in sub-tropical environments carried out in Australia between 13 November and 16 December 2007. ARI also explained 0·96 (P⩽0·01) of the variation in the proportion of aflatoxin-contaminated loads (>15 μg/kg) of peanuts in the Kingaroy region of Australia during the period between the 1998/99 and 2007/08 seasons. Simulation of ARI using historical climatic data from 1890 to 2007 indicated a three-fold increase in its value since 1980 compared to the entire previous period. The increase was associated with increases in ambient temperature and decreases in rainfall. To facilitate routine monitoring of aflatoxin risk by growers in near real time, a web interface of the model was also developed. The ARI predicted using this interface for eight growers correlated significantly with the level of contamination in crops (r=0·95, P⩽0·01). These results suggest that ARI simulated by the model is a reliable indicator of aflatoxin contamination that can be used in aflatoxin research as well as a decision-support tool to monitor pre-harvest aflatoxin risk in peanuts.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 148 , Issue 3 , June 2010 , pp. 341 - 351
Copyright
Copyright © The State of Queensland, Australia 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Achar, P. N. & Sanchez, A. (2006). Effects of substrate and temperature on growth of Aspergillus flavus in peanuts from Georgia. Georgia Journal of Science 64, 76–80.Google Scholar
Blankenship, P. D., Cole, R. J., Sanders, T. H. & Hill, R. A. (1984). Effect of geocarposphere temperature on pre-harvest colonization of drought-stressed peanuts by Aspergillus flavus and subsequent aflatoxin contamination. Mycopathologia 85, 69–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burke, J. J. & Dunne, B. (2008). Field testing of six decision support systems for scheduling fungicide applications to control Mycosphaerella graminicola on winter wheat crops in Ireland. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 146, 415–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, Y. S., Wright, G., Rachaputi, N. R., Krosch, S., Robertson, M., Hargreaves, J. & Broome, A. (2007). Using APSIM-soiltemp to simulate soil temperature in the podding zone of peanut. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 47, 992–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, R. J., Sanders, T. H., Hill, R. A. & Blankenship, P. D. (1985). Mean geocarposphere temperatures that induce preharvest aflatoxin contamination of peanuts under drought stress. Mycopathologia 91, 41–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cole, R. J., Sanders, T. H., Dorner, J. W. & Blankenship, P. D. (1989). Environmental conditions required to induce preharvest aflatoxin contamination of groundnuts: summary of six years' research. In Aflatoxin Contamination of Groundnut: Proceedings of the International Workshop, 6–9 October 1987. Patancheru, AP (Ed. Hall, S. D.), pp. 279–287. Patancheru, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-arid Tropics.Google Scholar
Cotty, P. J. & Jaime-Garcia, R. (2007). Influences of climate on aflatoxin producing fungi and aflatoxin contamination. International Journal of Food Microbiology 119, 109–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craufurd, P. Q., Prasad, P. V. V., Waliyar, F. & Taheri, A. (2006). Drought, pod yield, pre-harvest Aspergillus infection and aflatoxin contamination on peanut in Niger. Field Crops Research 98, 20–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diener, U. L. & Davis, N. D. (1970). Limiting temperature and relative humidity for aflatoxin production by Aspergillus flavus in stored peanuts. Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society 47, 347–351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dorner, J. W. (2008). Management and prevention of mycotoxins in peanuts. Food Additives and Contaminants A: Chemistry, Analysis, Control, Exposure and Risk Assessment 25, 203–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dorner, J. W., Cole, R. J., Sanders, T. H. & Blakenship, P. D. (1989). Interrelationship of kernel water activity, soil temperature, maturity, and phytoalexin production in preharvest aflatoxin contamination of drought-stressed peanuts. Mycopathologia 105, 117–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gqaleni, N., Smith, J. E., Lacey, J. & Gettinby, G. (1997). Effects of temperature, water activity, and incubation time on production of aflatoxins and cyclopiazonic acid by an isolate of Aspergillus flavus in surface agar culture. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 63, 1048–1053.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammer, G. L., Sinclair, T. R., Boote, K. J., Wright, G. C., Meinke, H. & Bell, M. J. (1996). A peanut simulation model. 1. Model development and testing. Agronomy Journal 87, 1085–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, C. E., Potter, W. D., McClendon, R. W. & Hoogenboom, G. (2000). Predicting aflatoxin contamination in peanuts: a genetic algorithm/neural network approach. Applied Intelligence 12, 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, R. A., Blankenship, P. D., Cole, R. J. & Sanders, T. H. (1983). Effects of soil moisture and temperature on preharvest invasion of peanuts by the Aspergillus flavus group and subsequent aflatoxin development. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 45, 628–633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holaday, C. E. & Lansden, J. (1975). Rapid screening method for aflatoxin in a number of products. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 23, 1134–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, B. A., Carberry, P. S., Hammer, G. L., Probert, M. E., Robertson, M. J., Holzworth, D., Huth, N. I., Hargreaves, J. N. G., Meinke, H., Hochman, Z., McLean, G., Verburg, K., Snow, V., Dimes, J. P., Silburn, M., Wang, E., Brown, S., Bristow, K. L., Asseng, S., Chapman, S., McCown, R. L., Freebairn, D. M. & Smith, C. J. (2003). An overview of APSIM, a model designed for farming systems simulation. European Journal of Agronomy 18, 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klich, M. A. (2007). Aspergillus flavus: the major producer of aflatoxin. Molecular Plant Pathology 8, 713–722.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackson, J., Wright, G. C., Rachaputi, N. R., Krosch, S. & Tonks, J. (2001). Assessing Maturity in Dryland Peanuts: Tips to Decide the Best Time to Cut Peanuts to Minimize Aflatoxin Risk and Maximize Profits. Agdex No 141/637. Croplink Information Series Disease Update, QI01046. Dalby, Australia: Department of Primary Industries.Google Scholar
Naab, J. B., Boote, K. J., Prasad, P. V. V., Seini, S. S. & Jones, J. W. (2009). Influence of fungicide and sowing density on the growth and yield of two groundnut cultivars. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 147, 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NACMA. (2003). Agricultural Commodity Standards Manual: A Project of the National Agricultural Commodities Marketing Association (NACMA). Wilberforce, NSW, Australia: NACMA.Google Scholar
Parmar, R. S., McClendon, R. W., Hoogenboom, G., Blankenship, P. D., Cole, R. J. & Dorner, J. W. (1997). Estimation of aflatoxin contamination in preharvest peanuts using neural networks. Transactions of the ASAE 40, 809–813.Google Scholar
Rachaputi, N. R., Wright, G. C. & Krosch, S. (2002). Management of practices to minimise pre-harvest aflatoxin contamination in Australian peanuts. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 42, 595–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, M. J., Carberry, P. S., Huth, N. I., Turpin, J. E., Probert, M. E., Poulton, P. L., Bell, M., Wright, G. C., Yeates, S. J. & Brinsmead, R. B. (2002). Simulation of growth and development of diverse legume species in APSIM. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 53, 429–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SILO. (2009). Enhanced Meteorological Data [Online]. Available at: www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/silo (verified 13 October 2009).Google Scholar
Soil Survey Staff (1975). Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. USDA-NRCS Agriculture Handbook no. 436. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Thai, C. N., Blankenship, P. D., Cole, R. J., Sanders, T. H. & Dorner, J. W. (1990). Relationship between aflatoxin production and soil temperature for peanuts under drought stress. Transactions of the ASAE 33, 324–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, D. R. & Fountaine, J. M. (2009). Practical application of induced resistance to plant diseases: an appraisal of effectiveness under field conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 147, 525–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, T. B., Dorner, J. W., Giesbrecht, F. G. & Slate, A. B. (2004). Variability among aflatoxin test results on runner peanuts harvested from small field plots. Peanut Science 31, 59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, G. C. & Hansen, R. B. (1997). Climatic effects on aflatoxin incidence and management in peanuts. In Proceedings of the 2nd Australian Peanut Conference, Gold Coast, Queensland. 1997, pp. 62–65, Australia: Queensland Department of Primary Industries.Google Scholar
Wright, G., Rachaputi, N., Chauhan, Y. & Robson, A. (2005). Increasing productivity and quality of peanuts using novel crop modelling and remote sensing technologies. In Prospects and Emerging Opportunities for Peanut Quality and Utilisation Technology. International Peanut Conference, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand. 9–12 January 2005, pp. 14–17, Bangkok, Thailand: Kasetsart University.Google Scholar