Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
Crop and Pasture Science Crop and Pasture Science Society
Plant sciences, sustainable farming systems and food quality
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > CP > CP08191
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 60(3)

Comparison of the responses of two Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.) genotypes to post-flowering soil water deficit with the response of canola (B. napus L.) cv. Monty

C. P. Gunasekera A B , R. J. French C D G , L. D. Martin A E and K. H. M. Siddique D F
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Muresk Institute, Curtin University of Technology, Northam, WA 6401, Australia.

B Current address: Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Wyamba University, Makandura via Gonawila NWP, Sri Lanka.

C Dryland Research Institute, Department of Agriculture and Food, Merredin, WA 6415, Australia.

D Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia.

E Current address: 62 Riley Road, Riverton, WA 6148, Australia.

F Institute of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia.

G Corresponding author. Email: bfrench@agric.wa.gov.au

Crop and Pasture Science 60(3) 251-261 https://doi.org/10.1071/CP08191
Submitted: 4 June 2008  Accepted: 12 November 2009   Published: 16 March 2009

Abstract

The responses to water stress during the post-flowering period of two mustard breeding lines (887.1.6.1 and Muscon) and a commercial canola cv. Monty were tested in the field at Merredin in the low-rainfall Mediterranean-type environment of Western Australia. Three water-stress treatments were imposed using supplemental irrigation and a rain-exclusion shelter. Increasing water stress in the post-flowering period significantly reduced dry matter production and seed yields. Harvest index was slightly increased by mild stress, but reduced back to control levels by severe stress. Pods/plant, seeds/pod, and 1000-seed weight were all reduced by water stress. Dry matter production was higher in mustard than in canola, due to its greater water use and radiation interception. Water-use efficiency (WUE) for dry matter production and radiation-use efficiency (RUE) were higher in mustard than in canola. WUE for dry matter production and RUE were insensitive to the levels of water stress in mustard in this experiment, but declined significantly in canola. The greater water use in mustard and insensitivity of WUE for dry matter production and RUE to water stress were attributed to significantly higher levels of osmotic adjustment in mustard, although osmotic adjustment was also observed in canola.

Despite this, canola seed yield was not significantly lower than the seed yield of the better mustard genotype, although stress caused a significantly greater percentage yield reduction in canola. This is because canola had a higher harvest index, which also meant it had higher WUE than mustard for grain production under mild stress. Mustard’s poorer harvest index was due to more of the dry matter being invested in stem and, in the case of cv. Muscon, to a short reproductive duration and a low proportion of pod weight allocated to seed.

Canola had significantly higher seed oil concentration than mustard, which meant that it produced higher total oil yield despite sometimes producing lower seed yield. However, its oil concentration was reduced more by stress than mustard’s, so under the most severe stress conditions, both mustard genotypes produced higher total oil yield. Mustard has potential as an oil-producing crop in the low-rainfall Mediterranean-type environments of Western Australia, but improved genotypes, greater harvest index, and greater seed yield are required.


Acknowledgments

This research was funded by GRDC, DAFWA, CLIMA, and Curtin University of Technology. Excellent technical assistance was provided by Ms Tammi Short.


References


Abrecht D , Hilder T (1994) A modular field plot irrigation system. Division of Plant Industries, Technical Report No. 64. Department of Agriculture, South Perth, W. Aust.

Barrs HD, Weatherley PE (1962) A re-examination of the relative water turgidity technique for estimating water deficits in leaves. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 15, 413–428. (accessed 30 May 2008).

Flower DB, Ludlow MM (1987) Variation among accessions of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) in osmotic adjustment and dehydration tolerance of leaves. Field Crops Research 17, 229–243.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Greacen EL (1981) ‘Soil water assessment by the neutron method.’ (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne)

Gunasekera CP, Martin LD, Siddique KHM, Walton GH (2006a) Genotype × 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.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Gunasekera CP, Martin LD, Siddique KHM, Walton GH (2006b) Genotype × 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.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Hocking PJ, Kirkegaard JA, Angus JF, Gibson AH, Koetz EA (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.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Isbell RF (1996) ‘The Australian Soil Classification.’ (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne)

Kirk JTO, Oram RN (1978) Mustards as possible oil and protein crops for Australia. The Journal of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science 44, 143–156.
|  CAS |
open url image1

Kumar A, Singh DP (1998) Use of physiological indices as a screening technique for drought tolerance in oilseed Brassica species. Annals of Botany 81, 413–420.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Kumar A, Singh P, Singh DP, Singh H, Sharma HC (1984) Differences in osmoregulation in Brassica species. Annals of Botany 54, 537–541. open url image1

Loss SP, Siddique KHM (1994) Morphological and physiological traits associated with wheat yield increases in Mediterranean environments. Advances in Agronomy 52, 229–276.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | open url image1

Ludlow MM (1987) Contribution of osmotic adjustment to the maintenance of photosynthesis during water stress. In ‘Progress in photosynthetic research. Vol. 4’. (Ed. J Biggins) pp. 161–168. (Martinus Nijhoff: Dordrecht, The Netherlands)

Ludlow MM, Muchow RC (1990) A critical evaluation of traits for improving crop yields in water-limited environments. Advances in Agronomy 43, 107–153.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Marcroft S (1997) Canola—Indian mustard potential for low rainfall cereal growing zones. In ‘Proceedings of the 11th Australian Research Assembly on Brassicas’. Perth, W. Aust. (Ed. GH Walton) pp. 124–127.

Niknam SR, Ma Q, Turner DW (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.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Parker P (1999) The mustard industry in Australia—opportunities for a new oilseed. In ‘1999 Oilseed Crop Updates’. (Ed. G Shea) pp. 12–13. (Agriculture Western Australia: Northam, W. Aust.)

Potter TD , Ludwig I , Kay JR (1997) Brassica crops for rotations in low rainfall environments of South Australia. In ‘Proceedings of the 11th Australian Research Assembly on Brassicas’. Perth, W. Aust. (Ed. GH Walton)

Scholander PF, Hammel HT, Hemmingsen EA, Bradstreet ED (1964) Hydrostatic pressure and osmotic potential of leaves in mangroves and some other plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 52, 119–125.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed | open url image1

Sinclair TR, Muchow RC (1999) Radiation use efficiency. Advances in Agronomy 65, 215–265.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Turner NC (1986) Adaptation to water deficits: a changing perspective. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 13, 175–190. open url image1

Turner NC (1988) Measurement of plant water status by pressure chamber technique. Irrigation Science 9, 289–308.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Turner NC (1996) Further progress in crop water relations. Advances in Agronomy 58, 293–338.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Turner NC, Wright GC, Siddique KHM (2001) Adaptation of grain legumes (pulses) to water-limited environments. Advances in Agronomy 71, 193–231.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Wright PR , Morgan JM (1998) Drought stressed mustard yields more than canola due to greater leaf turgor. In ‘Proceedings of 9th Australian Agronomy Conference’. Wagga Wagga, NSW.

Wright PR, Morgan JM, Jessop RS, 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.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Wright PR, Morgan JM, Jessop RS (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.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Wright PR, Morgan JM, Jessop RS (1997) Turgor maintenance by osmoregulation in Brassica napus and B. juncea under field conditions. Annals of Botany 80, 313–319.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1