Ecological Diversity and Pathogenic Potential of Fungal Communities Mediating Post-Harvest Fruit-Microbe Interactions

Le résumé fourni par la source

Fungal spoilage of fruits remains a major constraint to food security, marketability, and public health, especially in tropical regions where elevated humidity, high temperature, and unhygienic storage conditions favor microbial growth and deterioration.This study was conducted to assess the diversity, frequency, and distribution of fungi associated with the spoilage of selected fruits sold in markets within Katsina metropolis, Nigeria.A total of forty (40) visibly spoiled fruit samples were randomly collected from Kofar Marusa, Sabon Layi, and Central Market.Data were subjected to Chi-square (χ²) statistical analysis at p < 0.05 to determine variation in fungal distribution among fruit types.Seven fungal species were identified: Aspergillus niger, Aspergillus flavus, Rhizopus stolonifer, Fusarium incarnatum, Mucor fragilis, Candida tropicalis, and Alternaria nees.Among these, Rhizopus stolonifer (50%) and Aspergillus niger (35.7%) were the most prevalent across all fruit types, suggesting their strong environmental adaptability and enzymatic ability to degrade fruit tissues.Pawpaw and tomato exhibited the highest rates of fungal infection (40%), followed by banana (33.3%) and orange (26.7%).Mean fungal load was highest at Yar Kutungu market (2.87 × 10⁵ CFU/g), indicating poor sanitary conditions and postharvest handling.Chi-square analysis showed no significant difference in fungal distribution among the fruits (p > 0.05), implying that environmental and handling factors equally influence contamination levels.The predominance of Rhizopus and Aspergillus species highlights the urgent need for improved postharvest handling, better storage facilities, and consumer education to mitigate fungal spoilage and enhance fruit safety.These findings provide baseline data for future research and for designing sustainable fungal control strategies in northern Nigeria.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.