Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:49:10.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soil–plant–water relations of oilseed rape (Brassica napus and B. campestris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. S. S. Rao  and
N. J. Mendham
M. S. S. Rao
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Science, University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252C, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
N. J. Mendham
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Science, University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252C, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Chinoli (Brassica campestris subsp. oleifera × subsp. chinensis), Marnoo and Apetalous (B. napus), with contrasting morphological characters, were compared over four seasons in Tasmania in 1985/86 and 1986/87. The total water use estimated from a depth of 70 cm increased in proportion to irrigations. Before irrigation all the crops had a similar pattern of moisture extraction but differences between the lines, and due to irrigations, emerged after the irrigation treatments. The genotypic differences were clearer in the winter sowing of 1986/87, when the growing season was longer. Apetalous, when unirrigated, extracted a greater amount of water from the lower, wetter regions of the soil profile, particularly in the longer winter sowing when its water use was the same as in the treatment receiving one irrigation. With consistently higher stomatal conductance, Apetalous used more water than chinoli or Marnoo. It also maintained a higher turgor at lower osmotic potentials, suggesting a greater degree of drought tolerance than found in the short duration chinoli which, although it had a lower water use, also gave lower seed yields.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 117 , Issue 2 , October 1991 , pp. 197 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

Barrs, H. D. & Weatherly, P. E. (1962). A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficits in leaves. Australian Journal of Biological Science 15, 413–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, J. M. & McCaig, N. T. (1982). Leaf diffusive resistance, surface temperature, osmotic potential and 14CO2-assimilation capability as indicators of drought intensity in rape. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 62, 785–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greacen, E. L., Correll, R. L., Cunningham, R. B., Johns, G. C. & Nicolls, K. D. (1981). Calibration. In Soil Moisture Assessment by the Neutron Method (Ed. Greacen, E. L.), pp. 50–81. East Melbourne: CSIRO.Google Scholar
Jones, M. M. & Turner, N. C. (1978). Osmotic adjustment in leaves of sorghum in response to water deficits. Plant Physiology 61, 122–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Major, D. J. (1975). Stomatal frequency and distribution in rape. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 55, 1077–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendham, N. J., Shipway, P. A. & Scott, R. K. (1981). The effects of delayed sowing and weather on growth, development and yield of winter oil-seed rape (Brassica napus). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96, 389–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millar, A. A., Duysen, M. E. & Wilkinson, G. E. (1968). Internal water balance of barley under soil moisture stress. Plant Physiology 43, 968–972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Proffitt, A. P. B., Berliner, P. R. & Oosterhuis, D. M. (1985). A comparative study of root distribution and water extraction efficiency by wheat grown under highand low-frequency irrigation. Agronomy Journal 65, 965–968.Google Scholar
Rao, M. S. S. & Mendham, N. J. (1991). Comparison of chinoli (Brassica campestris subsp. oleifera × subsp. cliinensis) and B. napus oilseed rape using different growth regulators, plant population densities and irrigation treatments. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 117, 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, M. S. S., Mendham, N. J. & Buzza, G. C. (1991). Effect of the apetalous flower character on the radiation distribution in the crop canopy, yield and its components of oilseed rape (Brassica napus). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 117, 189–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, R. A. & Thurling, N. (1978). Variation between and within species of rapeseed (Brassica campestris and B. napus), in response to drought stress. I. Sensitivity at different stages of development. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 29, 469–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobrado, M. A. & Turner, N. C. (1983). Influence of water deficits on the water relation characteristics and productivity of wild and cultivated sunflowers. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 10, 195–203.Google Scholar
Turner, N. C. (1974). Stomatal behaviour and water status of maize, sorghum and tobacco under field conditions. Plant Physiology 53, 360–365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, N. C. (1977). Drought resistance and adaptation to water deficits in crop plants. In Stress Physiology in Crop Plants (Eds Mussell, H. & Staples, R. C.), pp. 343–372. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Wright, G. C., Smith, R. C. G. & Morgan, J. M. (1983). Differences between two grain sorghum genotypes in adaptation to drought stress. III. Physiological responses. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 34, 637–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar