Abstract
ABSTRACT Peanut kernels are susceptible to colonization by some species of Aspergillus which, under conditions of drought and high temperatures, can produce aflatoxins prior to harvest. The objective of this research was to determine the mechanism by which the peanut root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne arenaria) increases aflatoxin contamination in peanut. Research determined 1) the role of nematode infection of roots vs. pods in increased aflatoxin contamination and 2) whether increased aflatoxin production in nematode-infected peanut is due to a greater percentage of small or immature kernels. An additional objective was to determine whether a peanut cultivar with resistance to M. arenaria would reduce the risk of preharvest aflatoxin contamination. In the greenhouse, researchers physically separated root growth from pod set and inoculated each location with M. arenaria or a water control in a 2 × 2 factorial design with 12–15 replications. Of the six trials conducted, data indicated that pod and root infection by M. arenaria was associated with elevated aflatoxin concentrations in one and three trials, respectively. This suggests that root infection by the nematode can increase aflatoxin concentrations in the peanut kernel. Another 2 × 2 factorial experiment was conducted with two peanut genotypes (Tifguard and TifGP-2) and two nematode treatments (with and without M. arenaria) with six replications. The cultivar Tifguard is resistant to M. arenaria and TifGP-2 is susceptible. The experiment was carried out in 24 field microplots equipped with a rainout shelter. The experiment was conducted five times from 2006 to 2010. Infection of TifGP-2 by M. arenaria did not lead to greater percentages of small kernels. In only one year (2007), nematodes appeared to increase the percentage of damaged kernels, though aflatoxin concentrations were not affected by nematodes in that year. In the rainout shelter experiment, 2006 was the only year where nematode infection of peanut increased aflatoxin concentrations. In that year, there were lower aflatoxin concentrations in the nematode-resistant cultivar Tifguard than the susceptible germplasm TifGP-2 (12 vs. 136 ng/g).
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Pod infection by Meloidogyne arenaria was associated with elevated aflatoxin in one of six trials.
- Organ / stage
- pode0
- Interactor
- M. arenaria
.jpg?width=60)
Meloidogyne arenariae0pathogen - Outcome
- aflatoxin concentrationse0
- Direction
- elevatede0
- Qualifier
- onee0
Not reportedTaxon
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“pod and root infection by M. arenaria was associated with elevated aflatoxin concentrations in one and three trials, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Root infection by Meloidogyne arenaria was associated with elevated aflatoxin in three of six trials.
- Organ / stage
- roote0
- Interactor
- M. arenariaMeloidogyne arenariae0pathogen
- Outcome
- aflatoxin concentrationse0
- Direction
- elevatede0
- Qualifier
- three trialse0
Not reportedTaxon
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“pod and root infection by M. arenaria was associated with elevated aflatoxin concentrations in one and three trials, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Nematode infection did not increase the percentage of small kernels in TifGP-2.
- Material
- TifGP-2e0
- Treatment
- Infection of TifGP-2 by M. arenariae0
- Interactor
- M. arenariaMeloidogyne arenariae0pathogen
- Outcome
- percentages of small kernelse0
- Direction
- did not lead to greatere0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Infection of TifGP-2 by M. arenaria did not lead to greater percentages of small kernels”
Claim · model-written summary
Nematodes appeared to increase damaged kernels only in 2007.
- Treatment
- nematodese0
- Outcome
- percentage of damaged kernelse0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Qualifier
- In only one year (2007)e0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“In only one year (2007), nematodes appeared to increase the percentage of damaged kernels”
Claim · model-written summary
Nematodes did not affect aflatoxin concentrations in 2007.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“aflatoxin concentrations were not affected by nematodes in that year”
Claim · model-written summary
Nematode infection increased peanut aflatoxin only in 2006 in the rainout shelter experiment.
- Taxon
- peanut
Arachis hypogaeae0 - Treatment
- nematode infectione0
- Outcome
- aflatoxin concentrationse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- 2006 was the only yeare0
- Setting
- rainout shelter experimente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the rainout shelter experiment, 2006 was the only year where nematode infection of peanut increased aflatoxin concentrations”
Claim · model-written summary
Tifguard had lower aflatoxin concentrations than TifGP-2 in 2006, at 12 versus 136 ng/g.
- Material
- Tifguarde0
- Outcome
- aflatoxin concentrationse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 12e0
- Qualifier
- 136 ng/ge0
- Comparator
- TifGP-2e0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“there were lower aflatoxin concentrations in the nematode-resistant cultivar Tifguard than the susceptible germplasm TifGP-2 (12 vs. 136 ng/g)”
The same questions in other papers
infection · disease · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →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.