Paper · 2019 · World Mycotoxin Journal

Impact of microalgal phenolic extracts on the control of Fusarium graminearum and deoxynivalenol contamination in wheat

P.T. Scaglioni; V. Scarpino; F. Marinaccio; et al.

15
claims
28
verbatim quotes
18
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · other-oa

Abstract

In this study, microalgal phenolic extracts (MPE) of Nannochloropsis sp. and Spirulina sp. were tested in in vitro experiments and, in comparison with synthetic fungicides, in field experiments, for their ability to control Fusarium graminearum development and limit deoxynivalenol (DON) contamination. In in vitro experiments, the Nannochloropsis and Spirulina extracts inhibited fungal biomass by 34 and 25%, respectively, compared with the untreated control. This effect was confirmed by a reduction in ergosterol production (-80% for Nannochloropsis and -75% for Spirulina ) and in DON content (-97% for Nannochloropsis and -62% for Spirulina ). In field experiments, application of the fungicide prothioconazole and prothioconazole + tebuconazole resulted in control of Fusarium head blight (FHB) and foliar disease, leading to a significant increase in grain yield (+13%) and a reduction in DON content (-46%) compared to the untreated control. The application of MPE at wheat flowering reduced the severity of FHB compared with the control (-35% for Spirulina and -39% for Nannochloropsis ). However, the MPE did not significantly control foliar diseases ( Septoria tritici blotch) and therefore did not enhance the grain yield. Moreover, no effect in reducing the DON content in comparison to the control was observed in the field. In view of that, the use of MPE in wheat fields as real alternatives to conventional fungicides requires the discovery of solutions to empower their persistence and efficacy.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed other-oa. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 15

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nannochloropsis extract inhibited fungal biomass by 34% in vitro.

Treatment
Nannochloropsise0
Interactor
Fusarium graminearumFusarium graminearumt0pathogene0
Outcome
fungal biomasse0
Direction
inhibitede0
Value
34e0
Comparator
untreated controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium graminearum
Fusarium graminearum · InteractorScot Nelson from Honolulu, USA · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the Nannochloropsis and Spirulina extracts inhibited fungal biomass by 34 and 25%, respectively, compared with the untreated control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 328–461 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fusarium graminearum and deoxynivalenol contamination in wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–119 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spirulina extract inhibited fungal biomass by 25% in vitro.

Treatment
Spirulina extractse0
Interactor
Fusarium graminearumFusarium graminearumt0pathogene0
Outcome
fungal biomasse0
Direction
inhibitede0
Value
25%e0
Comparator
untreated controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium graminearum
Fusarium graminearum · InteractorScot Nelson from Honolulu, USA · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the Nannochloropsis and Spirulina extracts inhibited fungal biomass by 34 and 25%, respectively, compared with the untreated control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 328–461 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fusarium graminearum and deoxynivalenol contamination in wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–119 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nannochloropsis extract reduced ergosterol production by 80%.

Treatment
Nannochloropsise0
Interactor
Fusarium graminearumFusarium graminearumt0pathogene0
Outcome
ergosterol productione0
Direction
reductione0
Value
-80%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium graminearum
Fusarium graminearum · InteractorScot Nelson from Honolulu, USA · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“a reduction in ergosterol production (-80% for Nannochloropsis and -75% for Spirulina )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 491–578 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fusarium graminearum and deoxynivalenol contamination in wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–119 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spirulina extract reduced ergosterol production by 75%.

Treatment
Spirulinae0
Interactor
Fusarium graminearumFusarium graminearumt0pathogene0
Outcome
ergosterol productione0
Direction
reductione0
Value
-75%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium graminearum
Fusarium graminearum · InteractorScot Nelson from Honolulu, USA · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“a reduction in ergosterol production (-80% for Nannochloropsis and -75% for Spirulina )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 491–578 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fusarium graminearum and deoxynivalenol contamination in wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–119 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nannochloropsis extract reduced DON content by 97% in vitro.

Treatment
Nannochloropsise0
Outcome
DON contente0
Direction
reductione0
Value
-97%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“This effect was confirmed by a reduction in ergosterol production (-80% for Nannochloropsis and -75% for Spirulina ) and in DON content (-97% for Nannochloropsis and -62% for Spirulina ).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 462–649 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fusarium graminearum and deoxynivalenol contamination in wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–119 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spirulina extract reduced DON content by 62% in vitro.

Treatment
Spirulinae0
Outcome
DON contente0
Direction
decreaseinferrede0
Value
-62%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in DON content (-97% for Nannochloropsis and -62% for Spirulina )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 583–648 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fusarium graminearum and deoxynivalenol contamination in wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–119 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fungicide application controlled FHB and foliar disease in the field.

Treatment
prothioconazole and prothioconazole + tebuconazolee0
Interactor
Fusarium graminearumFusarium graminearumt0pathogene0
Outcome
Fusarium head blight (FHB) and foliar diseasee0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium graminearum
Fusarium graminearum · InteractorScot Nelson from Honolulu, USA · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“application of the fungicide prothioconazole and prothioconazole + tebuconazole resulted in control of Fusarium head blight (FHB) and foliar disease”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 672–820 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fusarium graminearum and deoxynivalenol contamination in wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–119 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Field fungicide use increased grain yield by 13%.

Treatment
prothioconazole and prothioconazole + tebuconazolee0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Value
+13%e0
Comparator
untreated controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“application of the fungicide prothioconazole and prothioconazole + tebuconazole resulted in control of Fusarium head blight (FHB) and foliar disease, leading to a significant increase in grain yield (+13%) and a reduction in DON content (-46%) compared to the untreated control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 672–950 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fusarium graminearum and deoxynivalenol contamination in wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–119 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Field fungicide use reduced DON content by 46%.

Treatment
prothioconazole and prothioconazole + tebuconazolee0
Outcome
DON contente0
Direction
reductione0
Value
-46%e0
Comparator
untreated controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“application of the fungicide prothioconazole and prothioconazole + tebuconazole resulted in control of Fusarium head blight (FHB) and foliar disease, leading to a significant increase in grain yield (+13%) and a reduction in DON content (-46%) compared to the untreated control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 672–950 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fusarium graminearum and deoxynivalenol contamination in wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–119 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spirulina extract at flowering reduced FHB severity by 35%.

Treatment
Spirulinae0
Interactor
Fusarium graminearumFusarium graminearumt0pathogene0
Outcome
severity of FHBe0
Direction
reducede0
Value
-35%e0
Comparator
the controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium graminearum
Fusarium graminearum · InteractorScot Nelson from Honolulu, USA · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The application of MPE at wheat flowering reduced the severity of FHB compared with the control (-35% for Spirulina and -39% for Nannochloropsis ).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 951–1098 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fusarium graminearum and deoxynivalenol contamination in wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–119 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nannochloropsis extract at flowering reduced FHB severity by 39%.

Treatment
Nannochloropsise0
Interactor
Fusarium graminearumFusarium graminearumt0pathogene0
Outcome
severity of FHBe0
Direction
reducede0
Value
-39%e0
Comparator
the controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium graminearum
Fusarium graminearum · InteractorScot Nelson from Honolulu, USA · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The application of MPE at wheat flowering reduced the severity of FHB compared with the control (-35% for Spirulina and -39% for Nannochloropsis ).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 951–1098 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fusarium graminearum and deoxynivalenol contamination in wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–119 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Microalgal extracts did not significantly control Septoria tritici blotch.

Treatment
MPEe0
Interactor
Septoria triticiZymoseptoria triticie0pathogen
Outcome
foliar diseases ( Septoria tritici blotch)e0
Direction
did not significantly controle0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zymoseptoria tritici
Zymoseptoria tritici · InteractorMaccheek · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the MPE did not significantly control foliar diseases ( Septoria tritici blotch)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1108–1188 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fusarium graminearum and deoxynivalenol contamination in wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–119 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Microalgal extracts did not increase grain yield.

Treatment
MPEe0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
did not enhancee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the MPE did not significantly control foliar diseases ( Septoria tritici blotch) and therefore did not enhance the grain yield.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1108–1235 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fusarium graminearum and deoxynivalenol contamination in wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–119 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Microalgal extracts did not reduce field DON content versus control.

Treatment
MPEe0
Outcome
DON contente0
Direction
no effecte0
Comparator
the controle0
Setting
fielde0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The application of MPE at wheat flowering reduced the severity of FHB compared with the control (-35% for Spirulina and -39% for Nannochloropsis ). However, the MPE did not significantly control foliar diseases ( Septoria tritici blotch) and therefore did not enhance the grain yield. Moreover, no effect in reducing the DON content in comparison to the control was observed in the field.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 951–1339 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors call for better persistence and efficacy before field substitution for fungicides.

Treatment
MPEe0
Outcome
requires the discovery of solutions to empower their persistence and efficacye0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the use of MPE in wheat fields as real alternatives to conventional fungicides requires the discovery of solutions to empower their persistence and efficacy.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1357–1514 · show in text ↑

prothioconazole · Fusarium graminearum · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

6 papers: 4 positive, 2 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

tebuconazole · Fusarium graminearum · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

13 papers: 11 positive, 2 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 papers →

prothioconazole · disease · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

17 papers: 16 positive, 1 negative or no effect

15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. no effect

13 papers more in this group

See all 17 papers →

tebuconazole · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

38 papers: 36 positive, 2 negative or no effect

35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

34 papers more in this group

See all 38 papers →

prothioconazole · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

6 papers: 6 positive, 0 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

tebuconazole · disease · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

36 papers: 36 positive, 0 negative or no effect

35 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

32 papers more in this group

See all 36 papers →

botanical · Fusarium graminearum · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

14 papers: 11 positive, 3 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

botanical · disease · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

73 papers: 56 positive, 17 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 56 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

69 papers more in this group

See all 73 papers →

8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.