Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:12:51.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RESPONSE OF CANOLA (Brassica napus L.) AND MUSTARD (B. juncea L.) TO DIFFERENT WATERING REGIMES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2014

K. T. ZELEKE ,
D. J. LUCKETT  and
R. B. COWLEY
K. T. ZELEKE*
Affiliation:
Graham Centre for Agricultural Innovation (an alliance between NSW Department of Primary Industries and Charles Sturt University), School of Agricultural & Wine Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Boorooma Street, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia
D. J. LUCKETT
Affiliation:
Graham Centre for Agricultural Innovation, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Agricultural Institute, Pine Gully Road, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia
R. B. COWLEY
Affiliation:
Graham Centre for Agricultural Innovation, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Agricultural Institute, Pine Gully Road, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia
*
‡Corresponding author. Email: kzeleke@csu.edu.au; School of Agricultural & Wine Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Boorooma Street, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In arid and semiarid winter crop growing regions of southern Australia, low rainfall, high evaporation, and low soil moisture storage are the limiting factors for crop production. In this region canola (Brassica napus L.) is principally grown in rotation with wheat and pasture species. Some field studies have indicated Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.) to be more drought tolerant than canola and therefore considered to be better adapted than canola to short season environments. A field experiment was conducted at Wagga Wagga in NSW to determine the effect of two soil moisture regimes on water use efficiency, harvest index, seed and oil quality of cv. Oasis of Indian mustard and cv. Skipton of canola. Significant year × stress and species × stress interaction effects were observed for grain yield, harvest index, seed weight, biomass water productivity, and grain water productivity. Irrigation during the post flowering period resulted in 50% and 200% increases in canola grain yield in the first year (year with higher in-crop water) and the second year (year with low in-crop water), respectively. For mustard, these values were 7% and 45%, respectively. Stressed mustard resulted in higher grain yield than stressed canola while irrigated canola performed better than irrigated mustard. High mustard biomass production resulted in lowering its harvest index. Generally, the biomass water productivity of mustard was higher than that of canola. Grain yield-based water productivity of stressed mustard was higher than that of stressed canola while irrigated canola had higher water productivity than irrigated mustard. When rainfall and actual evapotranspiration drop below some thresholds, mustard becomes a favourable crop. Generally, effects due to the water treatments (stressed v irrigated) were much larger than the differences due to species.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 573 - 590
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

Ali, M. A., Ohlsson, I. and Svensk, H. (1988). Drought stress responses in rapeseed (Brassica juncea L. and Brassica napus L.). Growth, yield, and yield components. Agricultural and Horticultural Genetics 46:16–48.Google Scholar
Angus, J. F., van Herwaarden, A. F. (1989). Comparative productivity of oilseeds and cereals. In Proceedings of the 5th Australian Agronomy Conference. (Ed. GP Ayling). Parkville, Victoria: The Australian Society of Agronomy, 525 pp.Google Scholar
Champolivier, L. and Merrin, A. (1996). Effects of water stress applied at different growth stages to Brassica napus L. Var. Oleifera on yield, yield components and seed quality. European Journal of Agronomy 5:153–160.Google Scholar
Clandinin, D. R. and Robblee, A. R. (1978). Evaluation of rapeseed meal and protein for feed use. In Proceedings of the 5th International Rapeseed Conference, pp. 204–212. Malmo, Sweden: Organizing Committee of the 5th International Rapeseed Conference.Google Scholar
Decagon Devices, Inc. (2008). Leaf Porometer. Pullman, WA, USA.Google Scholar
Faraji, A., Lattifi, N., Soltani, A. and Shirani-rad, A. H. (2009). Seed yield and water use efficiency of canola (Brassica napus L.) as affected by high temperature stress and supplemental irrigation. Agricultural Water Management 96:132–140.Google Scholar
Flower, D. B. and Ludlow, M. M. (1987) Variation among accessions of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) in osmotic adjustment and dehydration tolerance of leaves. Field Crops Research 17:229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gan, Y., Angadi, S. V., Cutforth, H., Angadi, V. V. and McDonald, C. L. (2004). Canola and mustard response to short periods of temperature and water stress at different developmental stages. Canadian Journal of Plant Sciences 84:697–704.Google Scholar
Gunasakera, C. P., French, R. J., Martin, L. D. and Siddique, K. H. M. (2009). Comparison of the response of two Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.) genotypes to post-flowering soil water deficit with the response of canola (B. napus L.) cv. Monty. Crop & Pasture Science, 60:251–261.Google Scholar
Gunasekera, C. P. (2003). Adaptation of Indian Mustard (Brassica juncea L.) to Short Season Dryland Mediterranean-type Environments. PhD Thesis, Muresk Institute, Curtin University of Technology, 168 pp.Google Scholar
Gunasekera, C. P., Martin, L. D., Siddique, K. H. M. and Walton, G. H. (2006a) Genotype by environment interactions of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.) and canola (B. napus L.) in Mediterranean type environments 1. Crop growth and seed yield. European Journal of Agronomy 25:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunasekera, C. P., Martin, L. D., Siddique, K. H. M. and Walton, G. H. (2006b) Genotype by environment interactions of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.) and canola (B. napus L.) in Mediterranean type environments 2. Oil and protein concentrations in seed. European Journal of Agronomy 25:13–21.Google Scholar
Hall, A. E. (1992). Breeding for heat tolerance. Plant Breeding Review 10:129–168.Google Scholar
Heaney, R. K. and Fenwick, G. P. (1981). A micro-column method for the rapid determination of total glucosinolate content of cruciferous material. Zeitschrij fur Pflanzenzuchtung 87:89–95.Google Scholar
Henry, J. L. and McDonald, K. B. (1978). The effects of soil and fertiliser nitrogen and moisture stress on yield, oil, and protein content of rape. Canadian Journal of Plant Sciences 58:303–310.Google Scholar
Hocking, P. J., Kirkegaard, J. A., Angus, J. F., Gibson, A. H. and Koetz, E. A. (1997) Comparison of canola, Indian mustard and Linola in two contrasting environments. 1. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer on dry-matter production, seed yield and seed quality. Field Crops Research 49:107–125.Google Scholar
Krogman, K. K. and Hobbs, E. H. (1975). Yield and morphological response of rape (Brassica campestris L., cv. Span) to irrigation and fertiliser treatments. Canadian Journal of Plant Sciences 55:903–909.Google Scholar
Kumar, A., Singh, D. P. and Singh, P. (1987). Genotypic variation in the responses of Brassica species to water deficit. Journal of Agricultural Sciences Cambridge 109:615–618.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. J. and Thurling, N. (1994) Growth, development, and yield of three oil seed Brassica species in a water-limited environment. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 34:93–103.Google Scholar
Loss, S. P. and Siddique, K. H. M. (1994) Morphological and physiological traits associated with wheat yield increases in Mediterranean environments. Advances in Agronomy 52:229–276.Google Scholar
Ludlow, M. M. (1987) Contribution of osmotic adjustment to the maintenance of photosynthesis during water stress. In: Progress in Photosynthetic Research, Vol. 4, pp. 161–168 (Ed. Biggins, J). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Ludlow, M. M. and Muchow, R. C. (1990) A critical evaluation of traits for improving crop yields in water-limited environments. Advances in Agronomy 43:107–153.Google Scholar
Mailer, R. J. and Cornish, P. S. (1987). Effect of water stress on glucosinolate and oil concentrations in the seeds of rape (Brassica napus L.) and turnip rape (B. rapa L.). Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 27:707–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masoud Sinaki, M. J., Majidi Heravan, E., Shirani Rad, H., Noormohammadi, G. and Zarei, G. H. (2007). The effects of water deficit during growth stages of canola (Brassica napus L.). American-Europe-Asia Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences 2:417–422.Google Scholar
McCaffery, D., Bambach, R. and Haskins, B. (2009). Brassica Juncea in north-western NSW. Primefacts, 2nd edn.DPI, NSW.Google Scholar
McGregor, D. I. (1987). Effect of plant density on development and yield of rapeseed and its significance to recovery from hail injury. Canadian Journal of Plant Sciences 67:43–51.Google Scholar
Mendham, N. J. and Salisbury, P. A. (1995). Physiology, crop development and yield. In Brassica, pp. 11–64 (Eds. Kimber, D. D. and McGregor, D. I.). Oilseeds: Production and Utilisation. London: CAB International.Google Scholar
Niknam, S. R., Ma, Q. and Turner, D. W. (2003) Osmotic adjustment and seed yield of Brassica napus and B. juncea genotypes in a water-limited environment in south-western Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 43:1127–1135.Google Scholar
Oram, R. N. (1987). Adapting Brassica juncea to southern Australia. In Proceedings of the 4th Australian Agronomy Conference. (Ed. TG Reeves). Parkvilel, Victoria: The Australian Society of Agronomy, 227 pp.Google Scholar
Parker, P. (1999) The mustard industry in Australia—opportunities for a new oilseed. In 1999 Oilseed Crop Updates, pp. 12–13 (Ed. Shea, G). Agriculture Western Australia: Northam, W. Aust.Google Scholar
Potter, T. D., Ludwig, I. and Kay, J. R. (1997) Brassica crops for rotations in low rainfall environments of South Australia. In Proceedings of the 11th Australian Research Assembly on Brassicas. (Ed. Walton, G. H.). Perth, Western Australia: Agriculture Western Australia.Google Scholar
Pritchard, F. M., Eagles, H. A., Norton, R. M., Salisbury, P. A. and Nicolas, M. (2000) Environmental effects on seed composition of Victorian canola. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 40:679–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team (2009). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Available at: http://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Richards, R. A. and Thurling, N. (1978). Variation between and within species of rapeseed (Brassica campestris and B. napus) in response to drought stress. II Growth and development under natural drought stresses. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 29:479–490.Google Scholar
Sharma, D. K. and Singh, K. N. (1993). Effect of irrigation on growth, yield and evapotranspiration of mustard (Brassica juncea L.) in partially reclaimed sodic soils. Agricultural Water Management 23:225–232.Google Scholar
Singh, D. P., Singh, P., Sharma, H. C. and Turner, N. C. (1987). Influence of water deficits on the water relations, canopy gas exchange, and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Field Crops Research 16:231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, H., de Hoedt, G. and Ernst, J. (2000). Objective Classification of Australian Climates. Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Stoker, R. and Carter, K. E. (1984). Effect of irrigation and nitrogen on yield and quality of oilseed rape. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 12:219–224.Google Scholar
Turner, N. C. (1996) Further progress in crop water relations. Advances in Agronomy 58:293–338.Google Scholar
Turner, N. C., Wright, G. C. and Siddique, K. H. M. (2001) Adaptation of grain legumes (pulses) to water-limited environments. Advances in Agronomy 71:193–231.Google Scholar
Walton, G. H. (1999) Cultural practices and their effects on canola yield and oil in Western Australia. In Oilseeds Crop Updates. Available at: www.agric.gov.au/cropupdates/1999/oilseeds/Walton.htm.Google Scholar
Wright, P. R., Morgan, J. M. and Jessop, R. S. (1996) Comparative adaptation of canola (Brassica napus) and Indian mustard (B. juncea) to soil water deficits: plant water relations and growth. Field Crops Research 49:51–64.Google Scholar
Wright, P. R., Morgan, J. M., Jessop, R. S. and Cass, A. (1995) Comparative adaptation of canola (Brassica napus) and Indian mustard (B. juncea) to soil water deficits: yield and yield components. Field Crops Research 42:1–13.Google Scholar
Zeleke, K., Luckett, D. and Cowley, R. (2011). Calibration and testing of the FAO AquaCrop model for canola. Agronomy Journal 103 (6):1610–1618.Google Scholar