Major Management Factors Determining Spring and Winter Canola Yield in North America

By Yared Assefa, P. V. Vara Prasad, C. Foster, Y. Wright, Steven Young, P. Bradley, M. Stamm, Ignacio Antonio Ciampitti. 2018

126 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Canola (Brassica napus L. cv. ‘Canola’) production has both economic and agronomic advantages. The objectives of this review were to summarize the key management factors determining crop productivity and to propose plausible pathways to narrow the gap between actual and potential yield. A synthesis study was conducted on data available from performance trials and by reviewing >100 reports in peerreviewed journals, extension publications, and websites. The main outcomes obtained from this synthesis suggested that canola attainable yield could be 4 Mg ha−1 with a potential maximum yield of 7 Mg ha−1. However, actual average yields in North America region were ~1.7 Mg ha−1 for the period 2000 to 2014. Available inseason water, water distribution at critical stages, and nutrient supply (soil plus fertilizer) all contribute to a significant portion of canola yield. Other management factors such as seeding rate, rotation, and cultivar selection substantially affect plant performance. Tillage might have an economic and environmental effect, but overall, the outcome of the meta-analysis did not show significant effect on yield. The review suggests that water supply, balanced nutrition, early planting (for both winter and spring types) in shallow depth (10–19 mm), high seeding rate (6 kg ha−1), and diverse rotation (canola every 3 or 4 yr) are among the best management practices to increase yields. Future lines of research should focus on improving planting operations that diminish early-season heterogeneity, finetuning optimal seeding rates based on modern varieties at varying yield environments, and searching for compatible hybrids to replant without heterogeneity at harvest. Y. Assefa, P.V.V. Prasad, M. Stamm, and I.A. Ciampitti, Dep. of Agronomy, Kansas State Univ., 2004 Throckmorton Plant Science Center, Manhattan, Kansas 66506; C. Foster, Y. Wright, S. Young, P. Bradley, John Deere, 7100 NW 62nd 18 Ave., Johnston, IA 50131. Received 6 Feb. 2017. Accepted 6 Sept. 2017. *Corresponding author (ciampitti@ksu.edu). Assigned to Associate Editor Roxana Savin. Abbreviations: BMP, best management practice. Published in Crop Sci. 58:1–16 (2018). doi: 10.2135/cropsci2017.02.0079 © Crop Science Society of America | 5585 Guilford Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Published January 15, 2018

Subfields: Molecular Biology, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/90eb9b53d5d08d650cdfa139fefedf0223e68b60

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Molecular Biology

  1. A. von Tiedemann

In Plant Science

  1. A. von Tiedemann

Citations in the corpus