Non-Peer ReviewedCanola-quality Brassica juncea has been developed to provide a reliable method of producing
canola in areas prone to heat and drought and where straight-cut combing is desirable.
Conventional varieties have been available since 2002 and have been grown on a limited
acreage. CLEARFIELD varieties have been developed and will provide improved weed control
options for the crop and thereby increase the cultivated acreage. These varieties will be
marketed as XCEED canola by Viterra

McInnis, T.

Potts, D.

Weir, T.

English

University of Saskatchewan Research Archive

 XCEED™ Canola, Introduction of the First Herbicide Tolerant Brassica juncea Canola for Western Canada  Derek Potts, Thom Weir, Troy McInnis  Viterra, Research and Development, 201-407 Downey Road, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 4L8  Key Words: Brassica juncea, herbicide tolerance, canola  Abstract  Canola-quality Brassica juncea has been developed to provide a reliable method of producing canola in areas prone to heat and drought and where straight-cut combing is desirable.  Conventional varieties have been available since 2002 and have been grown on a limited acreage.  CLEARFIELD varieties have been developed and will provide improved weed control options for the crop and thereby increase the cultivated acreage.  These varieties will be marketed as XCEED canola by Viterra.   Introduction  Brassica juncea has been traditionally grown as a mustard crop in Canada and has shown good adaptation to relatively hot and dry areas compared to B. napus canola (Woods et al., 1991; Miller et al., 2003).  In Australia, B. juncea is also known to achieve higher seed yield than B. napus under high soil water deficits (Wright et al., 1995).  Brassica juncea is known to have very good blackleg resistance and has been used as a source of resistance in B. napus breeding programs (Roy, 1984).  Resistance to pod shatter is characteristic of most varieties of B. juncea.  This characteristic provides the potential to straight-combine the crop, reduces harvest losses and reduces the number of volunteer plants in subsequent crops (Wang et al., 2007).    Development of canola-quality B. juncea began with the discovery of low erucic lines in Australia in the 1970s (Kirk and Oram, 1981).  Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) developed low glucosinolate lines by interspecific crossing to B. rapa (Love et al., 1990).  Viterra joined AAFC in a collaborative breeding project in 1991 and developed lines with the same fatty acid profile as canola.  Prior to commercialization of canola-quality juncea, it was necessary to prove to regulatory authorities in Canada and the United States that the oil and meal were equivalent to current canola standards.  When this was accomplished, the first canola-quality juncea varieties, Arid and Amulet, were registered in 2002 (Potts et al., 2003).  Since 2002, three other conventional varieties were registered in Canada and one variety was released in Australia.  Acreage has been limited, primarily due to a lack of herbicide options for the crop.  BASF and Viterra collaborated on a project to introduce the CLEARFIELD® herbicide tolerance system to B. juncea.   This was accomplished in 2008 with the registration of the first two CLEARFIELD B. juncea varieties, XCEED™ 8570 and XCEED 8571.  The imidazolinone herbicides Odyssey and Solo have been registered for use on the crop.    The agronomic performance and quality characteristics of XCEED canola have been assessed since 2006 in yield trials across Western Canada.  To gain more knowledge of the performance of the varieties and to let growers gain some experience with the crop, 54 demonstration plots of approximately 20 acres each were sown on farms in Western Canada in 2008.   Methods  Until May 2008, CLEARFIELD B. juncea was classed as a Plant with Novel Trait (PNT) in Canada and therefore the number of yield trial sites was limited by confined trial regulations.  Yield trials were conducted according to the rules and standards of the Western Canada Canola and Rapeseed Recommending Committee.  In 2006 and 2007, two sets of trials were conducted. Half of the data were collected from trials sprayed with an imidazolinone herbicide and half were from trials sprayed with conventional herbicides.  A B. napus check was included in all of the trials, but it changed between years and between conventional and CLEARFIELD trials.  In 2006, the imidazolinone resistant, open-pollinated variety 46A76 was used as a check for all trials.  In 2007, Invigor 5020 hybrid was the check in the conventional trials and the CLEARFIELD hybrid 45H73 was used in the imidazolinone trials. In 2008, the CLEARFIELD hybrid 45P70 was used in all trials.    In 2008, 54 demonstration plots of XCEED canola of approximately 20 acres each were grown by farmers across Western Canada.  These trials were grown and harvested using farm-scale machinery.  All plots were straight-cut combined.  XCEED 8570 was grown at every location.  Farmers were encouraged to grow B. napus canola nearby for comparison.   Results and Discussion  The three yield trial years (2006 – 2008) had contrasting weather conditions during the growing season.  2006 was a fairly average year, whereas 2007 was very hot during the July flowering period and 2008 was generally cool.  The variation in weather conditions at flowering was reflected in the yield comparisons between XCEED and B. napus checks (Table 1).  In 2006, the XCEED varieties had significantly higher yield than the open-pollinated B. napus check.  In 2007, under hot conditions, the XCEED varieties were approximately equal in yield to high-yielding B. napus hybrids.  With very cool, ideal conditions for B. napus in 2008, the XCEED varieties were lower yielding than the high-yielding B. napus hybrid check.  The approximate yield results from the 54 demonstration fields are presented in Figure 1.  The yield of the plots ranged from a low of four bushels per acre on a field severely damaged by hail, to a high of 41 bushels per acre.  The characteristic of the variety that held the most appeal for growers, was the ability to straight-cut combine.  The variety used stood up very well, and with reduced pod shatter tendency, it is a good candidate for straight cutting.  Many growers have difficulty finding time to swath canola during the busy harvest period and the extra field operation is costly.  In a few cases where there was a hard frost after emergence, growers also noted that there was less frost damage in the XCEED field than in nearby B. napus fields.  Success of the crop was also dependent on field selection.  Best results were obtained in fields that were relatively free of weeds that are not controlled by imidazolinone herbicides, such as Group 2-resistant kochia.  Table 1.  Yield Comparisons Between XCEED Canola Varieties 8570 and 8571 and Various Brassica napus Checks from 2006 to 2008.   Yield (kg/ha) Cultivar 2006 2007A1 2007B 2008 45A76 3620    InVigor 5020  2331   45H73   2426  45P70    3961 XCEED2 4178* 2490 2428 3310* Trials 10 6 7 5 LSD(0.05) 282 301 261 306 1 2007A was a conventional herbicide trial, 2007B utilized an imidazolinone herbicide. 2 Mean of XCEED 8570 and XCEED 8571. * Significantly different from B. napus check.  XCEED canola will be grown on a commercial scale in 2009.  The increased tolerance of B. juncea to stresses such as heat, drought and frost will help to stabilize and increase supply of canola in the future.  The ability to straight-cut combine will also help to increase canola acreage by helping to reduce harvest workload and by making canola a viable option for farmers without swathers.  012345678910<10 11- 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 35Bu. per acreNo. of Sites Figure 1. Distribution of yield of 54 demonstration plots of XCEED canola in 2008.   References  Kirk, J.T.O. and Oram, R.N. 1981. Isolation of erucic acid-free lines of Brassica juncea: Indian mustard now a potential oilseed crop in Australia.  J. Aust. Inst. Ag. Sci. 47:51-52.  Love, H.K., Rakow, G., Raney, J.P. and Downey, R.K. 1990.  Development of low glucosinolate mustard.  Can. J. Plant Sci. 70: 419-424.  Miller, P.R., Angadi, S.V., Androsoff, G.L., McConkey, B.G., McDonald, C.L., Brandt, S.A., Cutforth, H.W., Entz, M.H. and Volkmar, K.M.  2003.  Comparing Brassica oilseed crop productivity under contrasting N fertility regimes in the semiarid northern Great Plains. Can. J. Plant Sci. 83: 489-497.  Potts, D.A., Rakow, G.W., Males, D.R. and Woods, D.L.  2003.  The development of canola-quality Brassica juncea.  Can. J. Plant Sci. 83: 117-118.  Roy, N.N. 1984.  Interspecific transfer of Brassica juncea-type blackleg resistance to Brassica napus. Euphytica 33: 295-303.  Wang, R., Ripley, V.L. and Rakow, G.  2007.  Pod shatter resistance in cultivars and breeding lines of Brassica napus, B. juncea and Sinapis alba.  Plant Breeding 126: 588-595.  Woods, D.L., Capcara, J.J. and Downey, R.K.  1991.  The potential of mustard (Brassica juncea (L.) Coss) as an edible oil crop on the Canadian Prairies.  Can. J. Plant Sci. 71: 195-198.  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 Res. 49: 51-64.   

XCEED™ canola, introduction of the first herbicide tolerant Brassica juncea canola for western Canada

University of Saskatchewan

eCommons@USASK

https://harvest.usask.ca/bitstream/10388/9199/1/D.%20Potts%20et%20al.%2c%202009.pdf

XCEED™ canola, introduction of the first herbicide tolerant Brassica juncea canola for western Canada

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Saskatchewan Research Archive

University of Saskatchewan

eCommons@USASK