Canola-quality white mustard: Agronomic management and seed yield

Industrial Crops & Products 145 (2020) 112138

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Crops & Products journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/indcrop

Canola-quality white mustard: Agronomic management and seed yield a,

b

Krzysztof J. Jankowski *, Dariusz Załuski , Mateusz Sokólski

T

a

a

University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Department of Agrotechnology, Agricultural Production Management and Agribusiness, Oczapowskiego 8, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Department of Plant Breeding and Seed Production, Plac Łódzki 3, 10-724 Olsztyn, Poland

b

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Sinapis alba L. Fractional experiment Cultivar Sowing date Fertilization

Modern white mustard (Sinapis alba L.) cultivars have high concentrations of erucic acid and glucosinolates. The progress in the breeding and cultivation of oilseed crops has contributed to the development of canola-quality white mustard, a variety without erucic acid and with low glucosinolate content, which was released for commercial production in 2012. The introduction of a new variety of white mustard could require partial or complete modification of the relevant production technology. The agricultural requirements of new crop cultivars can be rapidly assessed in experiments with fractional factorial design. In 2016–2018, a field experiment with mixed 2m3k−1 factorial design, where five factors were tested at two and three levels, was carried out in the Agricultural Experiment Station in Bałcyny in north-eastern Poland. Two white mustard cultivars, including the traditional cultivar Radena and the canola-quality cultivar Warta, were sown on three dates: the optimal date (4–10 April), as well as 7 and 14 days past the optimal date. White mustard cultivars were grown at three levels of agricultural inputs (0, 1, 2) with different rates of nitrogen (80, 120 and 160 kg ha-1), sulfur (0, 20 and 40 kg ha-1) and boron fertilizers (0, 150 and 300 g ha-1). The yields of the traditional cultivar exceeded those of the canola-quality cultivar by 0.53 Mg ha-1 on average. Both cultivars produced the highest yields when sown on the optimal date. Delayed sowing (by 7 and 14 days) contributed to the greatest decrease in yield (32 % and 42 %, respectively) in a dry year (2018). The traditional cultivar was more sensitive to delayed sowing than the canolaquality cultivar. In both analyzed cultivars, nitrogen fertilizer delivered yield-forming effects up to the rate of 80 kg ha-1 (in the dry year) or 120 kg ha-1 (in the year with above-average precipitation, 2016–2017). In both cultivars, a significant increase in seed yield was observed in response to 20 kg S ha-1. Foliar application of boron fertilizer did not increase white mustard yields.

1. Introduction In the last five cropping seasons, sunflowers (Helianthus annuus L.) and oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) were the leading oilseed crops with a 40 % and 29 % share of the European market, respectively (Faostat, 2019). Sunflower has high temperature requirements, and its production is limited to selected regions of the world, mainly Southern Europe and Russia, i.e. mostly outside the European Union (EU). Sunflower yields remain low in Northern, Central and Eastern Europe (Harrison et al., 1995). In these regions, oilseed rape (in particular winter cultivars) is the leading oilseed crop. In the EU, oilseed rape production was more than twice higher than sunflower seed output in 2013–2017 (21.8 vs. 9.1 million Mg year−1, respectively) (Faostat, 2019). In Poland, oilseed rape has an even higher share of the oilseed crop production sector. In 2013–2017, oilseed rape accounted for 97–99 % of all oilseed

crops cultivated in Poland (Statistics Poland, 2016, 2019). The global production of oilseed rape began to increase dynamically in the 1960s following the development of new production technologies, the discovery of genetic determinants associated with low content of eruic acid (EA) and glucosinolates (GLS), and genetic research into the heritability of these traits (Przybylski, 2011). In the EU, the production of oilseed rape is also highly regionalized due to variations in soil quality, structure of agricultural holdings, climate risks, and traditional cultivation systems. Winter cultivars of oilseed rape are not widely grown in north-eastern (NE) Poland, Scandinavia and the Baltic countries due to a high risk of freezing damage. In these regions, spring oilseed rape poses a viable alternative on account of similar applicability in various industrial segments (Jankowski and Budzyński, 2003a). However, in the European climate, the yield of winter rapeseed is 20 % (Broniarz and Paczocha, 2014) or

⁎ Corresponding author at: University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Department of Agrotechnology, Agricultural Production Management and Agribusiness, Oczapowskiego 8, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland. E-mail address: [email protected] (K.J. Jankowski).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.112138 Received 30 September 2019; Received in revised form 13 January 2020; Accepted 14 January 2020 0926-6690/ © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).

Industrial Crops & Products 145 (2020) 112138

K.J. Jankowski, et al.

branches, produce more siliques (78 %), heavier seeds (6 %) and are characterized by higher yields (75 %) (Zielonka and Szczebiot, 2001). Brassica crops rapidly metabolize carbohydrates (Ruiz et al., 1998) and, therefore, have a high demand for nitrogen and boron (Gan et al., 2008; Karthikeyan and Shukla, 2008; Jankowski et al., 2016b). They also have a high demand for sulfur which directly participates in the biosynthesis of GLS (Verkerk et al., 2009). The introduction of new crop cultivars for commercial production should be preceded by extensive agronomic research to develop production technologies that are best adapted to the crops’ requirements. New cultivars’ responses to the main agricultural inputs are usually analyzed in field experiments with two or three factors and a randomized block, split-plot or strip-plot (split-block) design. However, experiments with a small number of factors do not support a detailed evaluation of the interaction effects which can substantially influence specific traits in the complex process of agricultural production. The agricultural requirements of new crop cultivars should be tested in experiments with an sk factorial design, where k factors are evaluated at s levels, usually two or three. However, the main limitation of such designs is that the number of combinations that have to be tested increases substantially with a rise in the number of experimental factors, in particular when s > 2. Therefore, the number of combinations should be reduced while maintaining the system's ability to detect significant treatment effects. The above goal can be achieved with the use of sk−p fractional factorial designs, where k factors at s levels are tested based on 1/s p (where p is fraction size) of the set of sk experimental units. The use of the appropriate fractional design generators supports an evaluation of all main effects and the effects of two-factor interactions (Jankowski et al., 2016a; Załuski et al., 2016; Szempliński et al., 2018). The aim of this study was to evaluate the responses of a traditional cultivar (Radena) and a canola-quality cultivar (Warta) of white mustard to different sowing dates and different rates of nitrogen, sulfur and boron fertilizers in a field experiment with a mixed 21 × 34−1 fractional factorial design in NE Poland.

even 60 % higher (Jankowski et al., 2015a) in comparison with spring oilseed rape. White mustard (Sinapis alba L.) is a spring oilseed crop that is better suited for production in Europe (Jankowski and Budzyński, 2003a). In NE Poland, the yield of white mustard is only 35 % lower relative to winter oilseed rape (Jankowski and Budzyński, 2003b), and it is 100 % higher in comparison with spring oilseed rape, 85–130 % higher in comparison with Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L. Czern.), 25–76 % higher in comparison with spring camelina (Camelina sativa L. Crantz), and 36–144 % higher in comparison with crambe (Crambe abyssinica Hochst ex R.E. Fries) (Toboła and Muśnicki, 1999; Jankowski and Budzyński, 2003a). White mustard is native to the Mediterranean Region (Sawicka and Kotiuk, 2007), but due to its phenotypic plasticity, it is presently grown on all continents (Faostat, 2019). This oilseed crop has numerous agronomic advantages over oilseed rape, including greater tolerance to drought, moisture, heat, frost and pests (Meher et al., 2006; Ciubota-Rosie et al., 2013). Traditional white mustard cultivars (S. alba mustard) are not widely used in the production of foodstuffs and feedstuffs on account of high concentrations of EA (55 %) in oil and a high content of GLS in fat-free seed residues (51−93 μmol g−1 dry matter, DM), mainly sinalbin (97–98 % of total GLS content) (Jankowski et al., 2015a). The seeds of traditional white mustard are relatively deficient in nutritionally important fatty acids and contain only 12 % of oleic acid, 12 % of linoleic acid, and 9 % of linolenic acid (Ciubota-Rosie et al., 2013). Double-low cultivars (zero EA content and low GLS content) of white mustard (S. alba canola) are the last Brassica crops to have been introduced to agricultural practice. The first canola-quality cultivar of white mustard (cv. Warta) was developed in Poland and introduced to commercial production only in 2012, i.e. 38 years after the first rapeseed canola cultivar, and 35 and 10 years after the development of the first turnip rape (Brassica rapa L.) and Indian mustard canola varieties, respectively (Ropelewska et al., 2018). The oil from the seeds of canola-quality white mustard contains around 62–68 % of oleic acid, 12–15 % of linoleic acid, and 11–14 % of linolenic acid. It is also more abundant in desirable omega-3 fatty acids and is characterized by a more favorable omega-6 to omega-3 ratio (1:1) than oilseed rape, which contributes to its high nutritional value (Piętka et al., 2014). The seeds of traditional white mustard also differ from the seeds of canola-quality white mustard in thermal properties (specific heat capacity), physical and geometric properties (bulk density, length, surface area, profile specific parameter, folding factor, roundness), chemical properties (crude protein and crude fat content) (Ropelewska et al., 2018), and textural properties (Ropelewska and Jankowski, 2019). Differences in the fatty acid profile and the biosynthesis of biologically active compounds, including GLS, can significantly influence the agricultural requirements of crops. Spring cultivars of Brassica crops develop shallow roots and are less damage-hardy than winter cultivars (such as winter rape); therefore, they are more sensitive to biotic (pests and pathogens) and abiotic (drought and mineral deficiency) stresses (Sieling and Kage, 2010). Optimal sowing and balanced fertilization decrease crops’ sensitivity to stressors (Angadi et al., 2004). White mustard plants sown on optimal dates develop a higher number of side

2. Materials and methods 2.1. Field experiment Two cultivars of white mustard (Sinapis alba L.) were analyzed in a field experiment in the Agricultural Experiment Station in Bałcyny in NE Poland (53°35′46.4′' N, 19°51′19.5′' E, elevation 137 m) in 20162018. The station belongs to the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn. The experiment had mixed 21 × 34−1 fractional factorial design, where five factors (A, B, C, D, E) were tested simultaneously. Factor A was tested at two levels (0, 1), and the remaining four factors (B, C, D, E) were tested at three levels of agricultural inputs (0, 1, 2) (Table 1). In each replicate, 54 treatments (combinations of the tested factors) were randomly assigned to six incomplete blocks of nine combinations each. The seeds of the traditional cultivar of white mustard with a high content of EA and GLS (cv. Radena, treatment A0) and the canola-quality cultivar with a low content of EA and GLS (cv. Warta,

Table 1 Agronomic factors and their levels in the experiment with a mixed 21 × 34−1 fractional factorial design. Factor

Cultivar Sowing date Nitrogen fertilizer (kg ha−1) Sulfur fertilizer (kg ha−1) Foliar boron fertilizer (g ha−1)

Symbol

A B C D E

Level 0

1

2

Radena (traditional) sowing delayed by 14 days 80a 0 0

Warta (canola-quality) sowing delayed by 7 days 120 (80a+40b) 20a 150b

― optimal sowing date (4 April 2016; 8 April 2017, 10 April 2018) 160 (80a+80b) 40a 300 (150b + 150c)

a before sowing (00 BBCH); bbeginning of inflorescence emergence (51–53 BBCH); cinflorescence emergence (55 BBCH); BBCH - Biologische Bundesanstalt, Bundessortenamt und Chemische Industrie (Meier, 2018).

2

Industrial Crops & Products 145 (2020) 112138

K.J. Jankowski, et al.

Table 2 F-test statistics in ANOVA. Source of variation

Effect

Seed yield (Mg ha−1)

Plants m−2

Siliques plant−1

Seeds silique−1

1000-seed weight (g)

Growing season (Y) Cultivar (A) Sowing date (B) Nitrogen fertilizer (C) Sulfur fertilizer (D) Boron fertilizer (E) Y×A Y×B A×B Y×C A×C B×C Y×D A×D B×D C×D Y×E A×E B×E C×E D×E Y×A×B Y×A×C Y×B×C Y×A×D Y×B×D Y×C×D Y×A×E Y×B×E Y×C×E Y×D×E

random fixed fixed fixed fixed fixed random random fixed random fixed fixed random fixed fixed fixed random fixed fixed fixed fixed random random random random random random random random random random

408.03** 572.75** 18.67** 8.59** 26.31** 0.29ns 14.06** 7.26** 10.4** 2.93* 1.02ns 0.42ns 2.13ns 2.53ns 0.56ns 0.64ns 0.20ns 0.41ns 0.50ns 0.97ns 0.30ns 2.92* 3.34* 0.29ns 2.12ns 0.71ns 0.35ns 1.38ns 0.96ns 0.18ns 0.21ns

15.75** 154.75** 6.85** 0.13ns 0.53ns 0.42ns 40.46** 6.28** 0.29ns 0.76ns 0.03ns 0.63ns 0.43ns 2.09ns 0.41ns 0.29ns 0.66ns 0.55ns 0.10ns 0.55ns 0.42ns 0.63ns 0.05ns 0.32ns 0.52ns 0.38ns 0.57ns 0.35ns 2.08* 0.55ns 0.50ns

219.65** 0.81ns 9.31** 0.26ns 6.88** 1.38ns 6.45** 3.23* 1.91ns 3.24* 0.04ns 0.92ns 0.85ns 1.84ns 0.06ns 0.34ns 0.22ns 0.43ns 0.22ns 0.43ns 0.66ns 1.30ns 1.82ns 0.56ns 0.36ns 0.84ns 0.22ns 0.27ns 1.06ns 0.38ns 0.66ns

23.74** 1.10ns 0.01ns 2.18ns 0.49ns 1.3ns 14.55** 1.45ns 1.78ns 0.39ns 0.26ns 2.12ns 0.79ns 0.16ns 0.55ns 0.64ns 0.41ns 0.76ns 1.11ns 0.22ns 0.40ns 3.11* 0.77ns 0.62ns 1.68ns 0.32ns 0.60ns 0.17ns 0.74ns 0.41ns 1.50ns

218.05** 419.65** 10.01** 3.94* 0.73ns 0.05ns 4.91** 2.81* 1.32ns 0.39ns 0.31ns 2.07ns 2.34ns 4.94** 1.88ns 0.28ns 0.44ns 2.33ns 2.37ns 0.85ns 1.43ns 0.82ns 0.78ns 0.69ns 0.18ns 0.46ns 0.34ns 1.57ns 0.37ns 0.42ns 0.13ns

*significant P < 0.05; **significant P < 0.01; ns – not significant.

fertilization and sowing) from each plot to a depth of 20 cm to determine the chemical properties of soil. Soil pH ranged from 5.8 to 6.3, and soil nutrient levels ranged from 1.08 to 1.66 % Corg, 39.2–53.6 mg P kg−1, 103.8–174.3 mg K kg−1, 36.0–40.0 mg Mg kg−1; 0.24–0.38 mg B kg−1, 10.0–16.7 mg SO24− kg−1, 2.5–3.4 mg Cu kg−1, 3.8–6.8 mg Zn kg−1, and 127.0–137.0 mg Mn kg−1. Soil organic C was determined using the modified Kurmies’ method (UV-1201 V spectrophotometer, Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan). Soil pH was measured using a digital pH meter with temperature compensation (20 °C) in deionized water and 1 mol dm-3 KCl, at a 5:1 ratio. Plant-available P and K were measured by the Egner-Riehm method (using 3.5 mol ammonium lactate acetic acid buffered to pH = 3.75 as the extracting solution). Phosphorus was determined by the vanadium molybdate yellow colorimetric method (UV-1201 V spectrophotometer, Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan), and K was determined by atomic emission spectrometry (AES) (BWB Technologies UK Ltd. Flame Photometers). Magnesium was extracted with 0.01 M CaCl2 and determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS) (AAS1N, Carl Zeiss Jena, Germany). Boron content was determined in a colorimetric assay (UV1201 V spectrophotometer, Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan), and the concentrations of the remaining micronutrients (Cu, Zn and Mn) were determined by AAS (AA-6800, Shimadzu Corporation Kyoto, Japan) after extraction in 1 mol dm-3 HCl. The content of SO24− was determined by nephelometry after extraction in acetate buffer (UV1201 V spectrophotometer, Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan). The seed yield of white mustard in each treatment was determined by weight after threshing and conversion to 87 % dry matter (DM). Yield components (plants m−2, siliques plant−1, seeds silique−1) were determined immediately before harvest. Plants were counted along a 1 m section of each of the two middle rows, the number of siliques plant−1 was counted in ten plants in each experimental treatment, and a sample of 20 siliques was collected from the two middle rows to determine the number of seeds silique−1. Thousand-seed weight was determined after harvest and expressed on an 87 % DM basis.

treatment A1) were sown on three dates: the optimal date (4–10 April, treatment B2), and 7 and 14 days past the optimal date (treatments B1 and B0, respectively). Nitrogen was applied before sowing at 80 kg ha-1 (treatment C0). Higher nitrogen fertilizer rates (treatments C1 and C2) were applied in two doses: before sowing (80 kg ha-1) and at the beginning of inflorescence emergence (40 and 80 kg ha-1). Nitrogen was applied as ammonium nitrate (34 % N) in all treatments (C0, C1, and C2). Sulfur was applied at 20 or 40 kg ha-1 (treatments D1 and D2) as ammonium sulfate (21 % N and 24 % S) before sowing. Boron was applied to white mustard leaves as an aqueous solution of sodium borate (Solubor® DF) at the beginning of inflorescence emergence (150 g ha-1) or at the beginning and in the middle of inflorescence emergence (150 + 150 g ha-1). Plot size was 15 m2 (10 by 1.5 m). In each year of the study, the preceding crop was winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Agricultural inputs that did not constitute experimental variables were applied according to the best agricultural practices. The applied tillage treatments were: skimming, winter plowing and soil loosening before sowing. Both white mustard cultivars were sown with a plot seeder at a density of 120 pure live seeds m−2, with row spacing of 19 cm, to a depth of 2.0–2.5 cm, on the dates indicated in Table 1. Immediately before sowing, phosphorus (enriched superphosphate, 40 % P2O5) was applied at 60 kg ha-1 P2O5, and potassium (potassium sulfate, 50 % K2O, and/or potash salt, 60 % K2O) was applied at 120 kg ha-1 K2O. Segetal vegetation was controlled with 93.45 g ha-1 of clopyralid and 23.45 g ha-1 of picloram at the four leaves unfolded stage. Pesticides were applied three times during inflorescence emergence: (i) 6 g ha-1 of lambda-cyhalothrin, (ii) 6 g ha-1 of deltamethrin, and (iii) 60 g ha-1 of thiacloprid and 6 g ha-1 of deltamethrin. White mustard was harvested at physiological maturity (27–30 July) with a small-plot harvester. Each year, the experiment was established on Haplic Luvisol originating from boulder clay (IUSS Working Group WRB, 2006). Composite soil samples of 8–10 cores each were collected annually (before

3

Industrial Crops & Products 145 (2020) 112138

K.J. Jankowski, et al.

Fig. 1. Total monthly rainfall (mm) and mean monthly temperature (°C) during the growing seasons of white mustard in 2016–2018 and the long-term average (1981–2015) at the experimental site.

2.2. Statistical analysis

Table 3 Significance of differences between the mean values of the main effects: experimental year (Y) and five agronomic factors (A, B, C, D, E) in an evaluation of the yield components and seed yield of white mustard.

Data were processed statistically by mixed ANOVA for the mixed 21 × 34−1 fractional factorial design, where 5 experimental factors exerted fixed effects, and the growing seasons, blocks nested within years and replications exerted random effects. The significance of differences between treatment means was evaluated in Tukey’s test at P < 0.05. All analyses were performed in the Statistica 13.3 program (TIBCO Software Inc, 2016). The F‐values in ANOVA are presented in Table 2. 3. Results 3.1. Weather conditions Variations in spring temperatures and precipitation levels were noted during the experiment (Fig. 1). Total rainfall during the growing season of white mustard ranged from 209 (years 2 and 3) to 292 mm (year 1). Long-term average precipitation (1981–2015) in the experimental site was 245 mm. In the first year of the study, rainfall exceeded the long-term average by 19 %, and mean daily temperature exceeded the long-term average by 0.2–1.0 to 1.6–2.2 °C. High total precipitation in the first year of the study resulted from very high rainfall levels during the ripening of white mustard plants (July) which exceeded the long-term average (1981–2015) nearly two-fold. Precipitation was below the long-term average in early stages of white mustard development (22 % in April, 24 % in May and 37 % in June). In the second year of the study, precipitation was more than four times lower than the long-term average during white mustard ripening (July). In May, rainfall levels were also 40 % below the long-term average for the region. In the remaining spring and summer months (April-June), precipitation approximated the long-term average. It should be noted, however, that in the second year of the study, low precipitation levels were accompanied by relatively low mean daily temperature which alleviated the adverse effects of rainfall deficiency. In the third year of the study, precipitation was below the long-term average in each month of the spring and summer growing season. In the relatively dry third year of the experiment, mean daily temperature was high in April and May (between sowing and inflorescence emergence), and it exacerbated the negative effects of low precipitation (Fig. 1).

Factor/ Level†

Seed yield (Mg ha−1)

Plants m−2

Siliques plant−1

Seeds silique−1

1000-seed weight (g)

2016 2017 2018 A0 A1 B0 B1 B2 C0 C1 C2 D0 D1 D2 E0 E1 E2

1.77a†† 1.68b 1.10c 1.78a 1.25b 1.33c 1.57b 1.65a 1.46b 1.54a 1.55a 1.33b 1.59a 1.63a 1.53 1.51 1.51

83.20b 89.28a 91.89a 96.91a 79.34b 87.00a 94.08a 83.30b 87.52 89.21 87.65 86.61 88.51 89.25 87.83 88.56 87.99

61.42a 65.39a 32.12b 53.52 52.44 44.65c 53.77b 60.52a 52.14 52.70 54.09 46.51b 55.20a 57.22a 54.07 51.85 53.01

4.60a 4.21b 4.33b 4.35 4.41 4.44 4.34 4.37 4.31 4.42 4.41 4.39 4.43 4.32 4.35 4.40 4.40

7.79b 7.79b 8.81a 8.64a 7.61b 8.33a 8.08b 7.97b 8.09b 8.09b 8.21a 8.16 8.13 8.09 8.12 8.14 8.12

† A – Cultivar (level 0 – traditional cv. ‘Radena’, level 1 – canola-quality cv. ‘Warta’); B – Sowing date (level 0 – sowing delayed by 14 days, level 1 – sowing delayed by 7 days, level 2 – optimal sowing date); C – Nitrogen fertilizer (level 0 – 80 kg ha−1, level 1 – 120 kg ha−1, level 2 – 160 kg ha−1); D – Sulfur fertilizer (level 0 – 0 kg S ha−1, level 1 – 20 kg S ha−1, level 2 – 40 kg S ha−1); D – Foliar boron fertilizer (level 0 – 0 g B ha−1, level 1 – 150 g B ha−1, level 2 – 300 g B ha−1). †† Means with the same letter do not differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s HSD test. The absence of letters denotes non-significant differences.

cv. Warta by 55 % and 51 %, respectively. In the year with aboveaverage precipitation (year 1), the seed yield of the traditional white mustard cultivar was 28 % higher relative to that of the canola-quality cultivar (Table 4). The higher seed yield of the traditional white mustard cultivar can be attributed to a higher number of plants m−2 and higher 1000-seed weight which exceeded the corresponding values in the canola-quality cultivar by 22 % and 14 %, respectively (Table 3). The traditional cultivar was characterized by higher seed yields due to a higher number of seeds silique−1 (by 5 %) and higher 1000-seed weight (by 15 %) only in the third year of the study when seed yields were low in both cultivars (Table 4).

3.2. Cultivar The average seed yield of both white mustard cultivars during the three-year experiment ranged from 1.1 (year 3) to 1.68-1.77 Mg ha−1 (years 1 and 2) (Table 3). In 2016–2018, the seed yield of cv. Radena (1.78 Mg ha−1) exceeded that of cv. Warta by 42 % (Table 3). Canolaquality white mustard was characterized by particularly low performance in years with unfavorable weather conditions (years 2 and 3). In dry years (years 2 and 3), the seed yield of cv. Radena exceeded that of

3.3. Sowing date During the experiment, the highest average seed yield (1.65 Mg ha−1) was noted when white mustard was sown on the optimal date (early April). Delayed sowing decreased seed yield by 0.08 (7 days past 4

Industrial Crops & Products 145 (2020) 112138

K.J. Jankowski, et al.

Table 4 Significance of differences between the mean values of interaction effects (Y × A, Y × B, Y × C, Y × D, and Y × E) in an evaluation of the yield components and seed yield of white mustard. Growing season

Factor/ level†

Seed yield (Mg ha−1)

Plants m−2

Siliques plant−1

Seeds silique−1

1000seed weight (g)

2016

A0

1.98a †† 1.55b 2.04a 1.32c 1.33c 0.88d 1.56c 1.99a 1.75b 1.58c 1.72b 1.75b 0.84e 1.00d 1.46c 1.71ab 1.84a 1.76a 1.58b 1.69ab 1.77a 1.08c 1.10c 1.12c 1.61 1.86 1.84 1.37 1.79 1.89 1.02 1.12 1.17 1.77 1.77 1.76 1.70 1.66 1.68 1.11 1.10 1.10

90.59b

63.14ab

4.40bc

8.26b

75.81c 106.37a 72.20c 93.77b 90.02b 85.51d 84.46d 79.63f 94.30b 92.37b 81.19e 81.19e 105.41a 89.08c 82.67 82.67 84.27 88.70 92.74 86.41 91.18 92.23 92.27 82.89 81.66 85.05 85.96 90.59 91.30 90.99 93.28 91.40 84.50 84.55 80.55 87.96 89.00 90.89 91.03 92.12 92.53

59.70b 62.42ab 68.37a 35.00c 29.24c 51.13bc 68.78a 64.35a 57.40b 67.77a 71.00a 25.40d 24.75d 46.20c 61.44 63.89 58.93 61.91 62.44 71.83 33.08 31.75 31.52 54.60 65.73 63.93 55.21 68.36 72.61 29.72 31.52 35.13 62.42 59.93 61.91 66.50 64.43 65.25 33.30 31.18 31.88

4.80a 4.21c 4.22c 4.45b 4.22c 4.82 4.57 4.42 4.20 4.12 4.32 4.30 4.31 4.39 4.49 4.69 4.63 4.21 4.20 4.23 4.24 4.38 4.39 4.67 4.58 4.56 4.15 4.31 4.18 4.35 4.41 4.24 4.59 4.59 4.62 4.21 4.22 4.21 4.24 4.40 4.37

7.32c 8.26b 7.32c 9.42a 8.21b 7.78d 7.68d 7.90cd 7.78d 7.68d 7.90cd 9.43a 8.88b 8.13c 7.77 7.76 7.84 7.77 7.76 7.84 8.74 8.76 8.95 7.86 7.80 7.70 7.86 7.80 7.70 8.77 8.80 8.88 7.78 7.78 7.81 7.78 7.78 7.81 8.82 8.87 8.75

2017 2018 2016

2017

2018

2016

2017

2018

2016

2017

2018

2016

2017

2018

A1 A0 A1 A0 A1 B0 B1 B2 B0 B1 B2 B0 B1 B2 C0 C1 C2 C0 C1 C2 C0 C1 C2 D0 D1 D2 D0 D1 D2 D0 D1 D2 E0 E1 E2 E0 E1 E2 E0 E1 E2

Table 5 Significance of differences between the mean values of interaction effects (A × B, A × C, A × D, A × E, B × C, B × D, and B × E) in an evaluation of the yield components and seed yield of white mustard. Factor/level†

Seed yield (Mg ha−1)

Plants m−2

Siliques plant−1

Seeds silique−1

1000-seed weight (g)

A0

1.53c†† 1.83b 1.99a 1.12e 1.31d 1.32d 1.71 1.80 1.84 1.20 1.29 1.27 1.58 1.83 1.93 1.08 1.35 1.33 1.79 1.78 1.78 1.26 1.24 1.25 1.27 1.37 1.34 1.49 1.60 1.63 1.60 1.66 1.69 1.15 1.39 1.44 1.35 1.67 1.70 1.49 1.71 1.75 1.33 1.32 1.33 1.58 1.59 1.55 1.66 1.64 1.66

95.00 103.10 92.63 79.00 85.06 73.96 95.96 98.49 96.28 79.07 79.94 79.02 97.22 96.52 96.99 76.01 80.50 81.51 96.71 98.56 95.46 78.96 78.55 80.52 85.74 89.07 86.19 95.76 93.38 93.09 81.05 85.19 83.66 85.35 86.63 89.02 90.87 96.12 95.25 83.62 82.79 83.48 86.95 88.04 86.02 94.01 95.04 93.19 82.53 82.59 84.77

45.84 52.63 62.09 46.50 54.91 58.95 53.38 52.65 54.52 50.90 52.75 53.66 45.92 54.81 59.83 47.10 55.59 54.61 54.93 51.77 53.85 53.22 51.92 52.17 43.65 46.52 43.77 49.84 54.22 57.24 62.94 57.35 61.27 39.18 46.61 48.14 46.70 56.16 58.44 53.65 62.83 65.09 45.32 44.52 44.10 55.01 51.51 54.78 61.89 59.51 60.16

4.30 4.36 4.40 4.28 4.31 4.35 4.26 4.40 4.40 4.36 4.45 4.43 4.37 4.40 4.29 4.41 4.47 4.35 4.28 4.40 4.38 4.41 4.41 4.42 4.44 4.35 4.53 4.26 4.46 4.29 4.23 4.46 4.43 4.45 4.44 4.43 4.35 4.39 4.27 4.37 4.48 4.28 4.45 4.36 4.51 4.25 4.38 4.37 4.33 4.46 4.33

8.87 8.62 8.44 7.79 7.54 7.51 8.62 8.62 8.69 7.56 7.56 7.72 8.75a 8.66ab 8.52b 7.57c 7.60c 7.66c 8.62 8.65 8.67 7.63 7.64 7.57 8.34 8.22 8.44 8.05 8.10 8.10 7.88 7.95 8.09 8.26 8.43 8.30 8.12 8.09 8.03 8.10 7.88 7.94 8.25 8.32 8.42 8.08 8.15 8.01 8.04 7.96 7.93

A1

A0

A1

A0

A1

A0

A1

B0

B1

B2

B0

B1

B2

B0

†

A – Cultivar (level 0 – traditional cv. ‘Radena’, level 1 – canola-quality cv. ‘Warta’); B – Sowing date (level 0 – sowing delayed by 14 days, level 1 – sowing delayed by 7 days, level 2 – optimal sowing date); C – Nitrogen fertilizer (level 0–80 kg N ha−1, level 1–120 kg N ha−1, level 2–160 kg N ha−1); D – Sulfur fertilizer (level 0 – 0 kg S ha−1, level 1–20 kg S ha−1, level 2–40 kg S ha−1); D – Foliar boron fertilizer (level 0 – 0 g B ha−1, level 1–150 g B ha−1, level 2–300 g B ha−1). †† Means with the same letter do not differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s HSD test. The absence of letters denotes non-significant differences.

B1

B2

B0 B1 B2 B0 B1 B2 C0 C1 C2 C0 C1 C2 D0 D1 D2 D0 D1 D2 E0 E1 E2 E0 E1 E2 C0 C1 C2 C0 C1 C2 C0 C1 C2 D0 D1 D2 D0 D1 D2 D0 D1 D2 E0 E1 E2 E0 E1 E2 E0 E1 E2

† A – Cultivar (level 0 – traditional cv. ‘Radena’, level 1 – canola-quality cv. ‘Warta’); B – Sowing date (level 0 – sowing delayed by 14 days, level 1 – sowing delayed by 7 days, level 2 – optimal sowing date); C – Nitrogen fertilizer (level 0–80 kg N ha−1, level 1–120 kg N ha−1, level 2–160 kg N ha−1); D – Sulfur fertilizer (level 0 – 0 kg S ha−1, level 1–20 kg S ha−1, level 2–40 kg S ha−1); D – Foliar boron fertilizer (level 0 – 0 g B ha−1, level 1–150 g B ha−1, level 2–300 g B ha−1). †† Means with the same letter do not differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s HSD test. The absence of letters denotes non-significant differences.

the optimal date) to 0.32 Mg ha−1 (14 days past the optimal date) (Table 3). The decrease in seed yield resulting from delayed sowing can be attributed to an 11–26 % drop in the number of siliques plant−1. The increase in the number of plants m−2 (by 8–13 %) and 1000-seed weight (by 3–5 %) in late-sown treatments (7 and 14 days past the optimal date) did not compensate for the drop in the number of siliques plant−1 (Table 3). It should be noted that the plants’ responses to delayed sowing were significantly differentiated by agroecological conditions across years (Y × B interaction) and cultivar (A × B interaction) (Table 2). Delayed sowing had particularly adverse consequences in the third year of the study when precipitation levels were low. In year 3, seed yield

decreased by 32 % and 42 % in treatments where sowing was delayed by 7 and 14 days, respectively, mainly due to a decrease in the number of siliques plant−1. In years 1 and 2, seed yield decreased by 9–17 % only in response to a 14 day delay in sowing (Table 4). The above decrease resulted from a low number of siliques plant−1 and low 1000seed weight (Table 4). 5

Industrial Crops & Products 145 (2020) 112138

K.J. Jankowski, et al.

ha−1 in both white mustard cultivars in year 3 (Table 4) characterized by low precipitation levels and relatively high mean daily temperatures (Fig. 1). In years 1 and 2, the application of 20 kg S ha−1 increased seed yield by 0.25 and 0.42 Mg ha−1 (16 % and 31 %, respectively) (Table 4). The yield-forming effects of sulfur fertilization were not significantly affected by the remaining agricultural factors (sowing date, nitrogen and boron fertilization) (Tables 2, 5 and 6).

Table 6 Significance of differences between the mean values of interaction effects (C × D, C × E, and D × E) in an evaluation of the yield components and seed yield of white mustard. Factor/level†

Seed yield (Mg ha−1)

Plants m−2

Siliques plant−1

Seeds silique−1

1000-seed weight (g)

C0

1.31†† 1.49 1.57 1.34 1.63 1.66 1.34 1.65 1.66 1.50 1.44 1.43 1.54 1.55 1.54 1.54 1.55 1.57 1.36 1.32 1.31 1.60 1.59 1.57 1.61 1.63 1.66

85.11 88.43 89.01 87.60 88.54 91.49 87.14 88.56 87.25 88.26 87.14 87.15 89.50 89.03 89.11 85.74 89.49 87.71 85.01 88.46 86.38 87.34 88.67 89.52 91.14 88.54 88.08

47.89 53.03 55.51 46.45 55.40 56.23 45.19 57.16 59.93 53.65 51.97 50.80 52.61 52.35 53.13 55.95 51.21 55.11 48.87 44.82 45.84 57.75 53.94 53.91 55.60 56.78 59.29

4.26 4.40 4.28 4.42 4.46 4.40 4.49 4.45 4.29 4.29 4.28 4.37 4.38 4.47 4.42 4.37 4.46 4.41 4.38 4.37 4.42 4.39 4.43 4.48 4.27 4.41 4.29

8.05 8.12 8.10 8.16 8.09 8.02 8.28 8.19 8.15 8.09 8.10 8.08 8.12 8.03 8.11 8.15 8.30 8.17 8.19 8.19 8.11 8.08 8.15 8.17 8.10 8.09 8.08

C1

C2

C0

C1

C2

D0

D1

D2

D0 D1 D2 D0 D1 D2 D0 D1 D2 E0 E1 E2 E0 E1 E2 E0 E1 E2 E0 E1 E2 E0 E1 E2 E0 E1 E2

3.6. Boron rate Foliar application of boron at 150 or 300 g ha−1 did not influence white mustard yields in NE Poland. The yield-forming effects of boron fertilization were not significantly affected by the remaining agricultural factors (sowing date, nitrogen and sulfur fertilization) (Tables 2–6). 4. Discussion 4.1. Cultivar Canola-type cultivars of Brassica crops are characterized by lower yields than traditional cultivars (Burton et al., 2004; Malhi et al., 2007; Gan et al., 2007). Long-term breeding efforts and many years of agronomic research are required to develop highly effective production technologies and increase the yields of alternative cultivars of oilseed crops. In Poland, the yields of canola-quality winter oilseed rape reached the levels noted in traditional cultivars only around 10 years after the first canola-type cultivar had been introduced for commercial production (Arseniuk and Oleksiak, 2004). In central Canada, the yields of B. juncea mustard exceeded those of canola-quality cultivars by 16–23 % to 53 % (Malhi et al., 2007; Gan et al., 2007). In Australia, the average seed yield of B. juncea mustard was 10 % and 14 % higher than that of erucic acid-free and canolaquality cultivars, respectively (Burton et al., 2004). In the present study, the seed yield of the traditional white mustard cultivar exceeded that of the canola-quality cultivar by 51–55 %. The differences in the seed yield of the tested white mustard cultivars were less pronounced in years with above-average precipitation and were higher in dry years.

†

A – Cultivar (level 0 – traditional cv. ‘Radena’, level 1 – canola-quality cv. ‘Warta’); B – Sowing date (level 0 – sowing delayed by 14 days, level 1 – sowing delayed by 7 days, level 2 – optimal sowing date); C – Nitrogen fertilizer (level 0–80 kg N ha−1, level 1–120 kg N ha−1, level 2–160 kg N ha−1); D – Sulfur fertilizer (level 0 – 0 kg S ha−1, level 1–20 kg S ha−1, level 2–40 kg S ha−1); D – Foliar boron fertilizer (level 0 – 0 g B ha−1, level 1–150 g B ha−1, level 2–300 g B ha−1). †† Means with the same letter do not differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s HSD test. The absence of letters denotes non-significant differences.

4.2. Sowing date

The traditional cultivar of white mustard (Radena) was more sensitive to delayed sowing than the canola-quality cultivar (Warta). In cv. Radena, a significant reduction in seed yield (8 %) was observed already in response to a 7-day sowing delay. The seed yield of canolaquality white mustard was not significantly influenced by a 7-day delay in sowing date. When sowing was delayed by 14 days, the decrease in seed yield reached 15 % in cv. Warta and 23 % in cv. Radena (Table 5).

White mustard seeds are capable of germinating in soil at a temperature of 4−5 °C (Oplinger et al., 1997; Wysocki and Corp, 2002). Seedlings do not tolerate temperatures below -3.3 °C; therefore, white mustard should be sown as early as possible, but late enough to avoid freezing conditions (Wysocki and Corp, 2002). In Poland, optimal yields are achieved when white mustard is sown on dates that are optimal for spring barley (early April) (Toboła, 2010). In white mustard, delayed sowing decreases early spring vigor, increases sensitivity to environmental stressors, decreases the number of side branches, contributes to lodging (lower stem diameter at base, higher plant density), and decreases seed yield by lowering the number of siliques plant−1 and 1000-seed weight (Brandt, 1992; Zielonka and Szczebiot, 2001; Angadi et al., 2004). Early sowing also improves the availability of melt water for plants (Angadi et al., 2004). In Canada, the highest seed yield (1.23 Mg ha−1) was noted when Brassica crops were sown in early spring, and yield decreased to 0.90 Mg ha−1 when sowing was delayed until late spring (Angadi et al., 2004). In a study by Zielonka and Szczebiot (2001), white mustard plants sown in early spring (on the optimal dates for spring barley) were characterized by lower density (by approx. 7 %), a higher number of siliques plant−1 (by 78 %), a similar number of seeds per silique (4.3–4.4 seeds) and higher 1000seed weight (by 6 %) relative to plants sown with a three week delay. In the current study, delayed sowing also decreased the number of siliques plant−1 (by 11–26 %) in both white mustard cultivars. Delayed sowing increased plant density (by 8–13 %) and 1000-seed weight (by 3–5 %).

3.4. Nitrogen rate Both white mustard cultivars responded similarly to nitrogen fertilization (Table 2). Nitrogen exerted yield-forming effects in both cultivars up to the rate of 120 kg ha−1. Nitrogen fertilization had the most beneficial influence on 1000-seed weight (Table 3). Nitrogen fertilizer rates higher than 80 kg ha−1 did not exert yield-forming effects only in the dry year (year 3) (Table 4). The yield-forming effects of nitrogen fertilization were not significantly affected by the remaining agricultural factors (sowing date, sulfur and boron fertilization) (Table 2, Tables 5 and 6). 3.5. Sulfur rate The seed yield of both white mustard cultivars increased by 0.26 Mg ha−1 (20 %) in response to the sulfur fertilization rate of 20 kg ha−1. The application of 20 kg S ha−1 increased seed yield by only 0.10 Mg 6

Industrial Crops & Products 145 (2020) 112138

K.J. Jankowski, et al.

(B. juncea canola). The seed yield of both B. juncea cultivars remained unchanged in response to nitrogen fertilizer rates higher than 100 kg N ha−1 (Gan et al., 2008). In the current study, nitrogen fertilization induced similar responses in traditional and canola-quality white mustard. In both tested cultivars (Radena and Warta), seed yield continued to increase up to the nitrogen fertilizer rate of 80−120 kg N ha−1, subject to weather conditions.

However, an improvement in the above yield components did not fully compensate for the lower number of siliques plant−1 in late-sown mustard. The influence of delayed sowing on the seed yield of white mustard is largely determined by agroecological conditions. In a study by Zielonka and Szczebiot (2001), the decrease in the seed yield of traditional white mustard sown with a three-week delay ranged from 0.37 Mg ha−1 (in a wet year) to 0.73 Mg ha−1 (in a dry year). In a fiveyear study conducted in Canada, delayed sowing of traditional white mustard decreased the average seed yield by 2 % (9-day delay), 4 % (18-day delay), 14 % (27-day delay) and 32 % (36-day delay) (Brandt, 1992). In the above study, a sowing delay of only 7 days decreased seed yield by as much as 0.68 Mg ha-1 (45 %) in the hot and dry months of July and August. In southern Alberta (Canada), the average decrease in the seed yield of traditional white mustard sown three to four weeks past the optimal date reached 37 % relative to the seed yield of plants sown at the turn of April and May (McKenzie et al., 2005). Under adverse weather conditions, a sowing delay of only 7–10 days decreased seed yield by up to 60 % (McKenzie et al., 2005). In the present study, delayed sowing exerted particularly adverse effects in a dry year when the yields of both white mustard cultivars decreased by 32 % (7-day delay) and 42 % (14-day delay). In years with above-average precipitation and temperature, yields decreased by 9–17 % only when sowing was delayed by 14 days. The traditional cultivar was more sensitive to delayed sowing. In cv. Radena (traditional white mustard), delayed sowing decreased seed yield by 8 % (7-day delay) and 23 % (14-day delay). In cv. Warta (canola-quality white mustard), yield decreased (by 15 %) only when sowing was delayed by two weeks.

4.4. Sulfur rate Brassica species have a higher demand for sulfur than other agricultural crops (Jankowski et al., 2014, 2015b). In white mustard, the above can be attributed to high total protein concentrations (270−314 g kg−1 DM) (Nowak-Polakowska et al., 2005; Jankowski et al., 2015a) and high GLS levels in seeds (51−155 μmol g−1 DM) (Barczak, 2010; Jankowski et al., 2015a). White mustard plants with adequate sulfur supply produce more siliques (Jankowski and Budzyński, 2003a; Ryant, 2009; Barczak et al., 2011; own study, Table 4) and larger (heavier) seeds (Ryant, 2009; Barczak et al., 2011). In soils with medium sulfur content, the seed yield of Indian mustard (traditional and canola quality cultivars) was maximized in response to 20–30 kg S ha−1 (Malhi et al., 2007), the yield of spring oilseed rape (canola quality cultivars) – in response to 40 kg S ha−1 (Budzyński and Jankowski, 2001; Sattar et al., 2011), and the yield of white mustard (traditional cultivars) – in response to 40 kg S ha−1 (Barczak et al., 2011). In the present study, the application of sulfur at 20 kg S ha−1 led to the greatest increase in white mustard yields. The sulfur-induced increase in seed yield was correlated with weather conditions. The yield-forming effects of sulfur fertilizer were less pronounced in a dry year (increase of only 10 %). In years with above-average precipitation, the sulfur fertilizer rate of 20 kg S ha−1 increased seed yield by 16–31 %. According to Malhi et al. (2007), Brassica species respond differently to sulfur fertilization due to differences in growth rate, root depth, yield potential, and the chemical composition of seeds. In their study, seed yield increased 2.4-fold in B. juncea mustard and 3.2-fold in B. juncea canola when the sulfur fertilizer rate was increased from 0 to 40 kg ha−1. In the current experiment, a similar increase (22–25 %) in the seed yield of traditional and canola-quality white mustard was noted up to the sulfur fertilizer rate of 20 kg S ha−1. Higher rates (40 kg S ha−1) failed to produce yield-forming effects in the tested cultivars.

4.3. Nitrogen rate Brassica crops require approximately 50−55 kg N to produce 1 Mg of seeds and the corresponding amount of straw (Toboła, 2010). The optimal nitrogen fertilizer rate is determined by environmental factors and the yield potential of a given Brassica species (Gan et al., 2007; Jankowski et al., 2019). In a study evaluating different Brassica crops (S. alba mustard, B. juncea canola, B. juncea mustard, B. rapa canola and B. napus canola), Gan et al. (2008) reported the highest nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) and nitrogen fertilizer use efficiency (NFUE) when nitrogen rates were below 100 kg N ha−1. The seed yield of Brassica crops peaked in response to a nitrogen fertilizer rate of around 130 kg N ha−1 (Gan et al., 2008). In the cited study, white mustard was characterized by the least favorable value of NUE (9.9 kg seed ha−1/kg N ha−1) among the analyzed Brassica species. The above parameter was higher in B. juncea canola (11.2 kg seed ha−1/kg N ha−1), B. rapa canola (12.3 kg seed ha−1/kg N ha−1), and B. napus canola (14.2 kg seed ha−1/kg N ha−1). In the current study, the yield-forming effects of nitrogen in the cultivation of white mustard were apparent up to 120 kg N ha−1. Nitrogen fertilizer rates higher than 80 kg ha−1 did not produce yield-forming effects only in the dry year. Kessel et al. (2012) demonstrated differences in nitrogen utilization among different cultivars of B. napus. The cultivation of varieties that effectively utilize nitrogen can be helpful in developing a fertilizing regime for Brassica crops in both low-input (to increase seed yield) and high-input (to minimize the adverse effects of environmental stressors, mainly by limiting nitrogen leaching) production technologies (Kessel et al., 2012). The responses of various white mustard cultivars to nitrogen fertilization have not been thoroughly investigated to date. Different nitrogen requirements can result from variations in the chemical composition of seeds. Canola-quality white mustard is characterized by a higher (by 33 %) content of crude fat and a lower (by 8 %) content of crude protein than traditional white mustard (Ropelewska et al., 2018). In a study by Gan et al. (2008), nitrogen fertilization induced a higher increase in the seed yield of B. juncea canola relative to B. juncea mustard. The nitrogen fertilizer rate of 100 kg N ha−1 increased seed yield by 28 % (B. juncea mustard) to 43 %

4.5. Boron rate Brassica crops have high boron requirements due to the relatively high uptake of this micronutrient (Jankowski et al., 2016b). According to estimates, 80–90 % of Polish soils are deficient in boron (Sienkiewicz-Cholewa and Kieloch, 2015). Poland is characterized by a predominance of Luvisols with very low boron levels (Grzebisz, 2008). Luvisols are also encountered in Scandinavia (Finland, Sweden, Denmark), Germany and Central-Eastern European countries (Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia) (Shorrocks, 1997). In these regions, boron fertilization can have significant yield-forming effects, in particular in boron-loving species of the families Brassicaceae and Chenopodiaceae. Boron fertilization of Luvisols containing 0.1-0.8 mg kg−1 can increase seed yield by up to 10–15 % in B. napus and by up to 7 % in B. rapa (Malhi et al., 2003; Jankowski et al., 2016b). In soils deficient in boron (0.10-0.14 mg kg−1), boron fertilization increased B. juncea yields by 36 % (Karthikeyan and Shukla, 2008) to even 70 % (Rashid et al., 2012). In soils characterized by higher boron levels (0.390.45 mg kg−1), the boron-induced increase in seed yield ranged from 23 % (Jaiswal et al., 2015) to 30 % (Yadaw et al., 2016). In Brassica crops, boron fertilization improves seed yield by increasing the number of siliques plant−1 (from 4 to 7% in B. juncea to 37–45 % in B. napus), the number of seeds per silique (from 4 to 10% in B. juncea to even 33 % in B. napus) and 1000-seed weight (from 3 to 8% in B. juncea to 15–21 % 7

Industrial Crops & Products 145 (2020) 112138

K.J. Jankowski, et al.

References

in B. rapa and 20–24 % in B. napus) (Hossain et al., 2012). The amount of plant-available boron is determined by soil parameters, including pH, moisture, temperature, organic matter content and carbonate content (Goldberg et al., 2000). In general, boron is less available in loamy soils, and its availability increases with a rise in temperature (Fleming, 1980). An increase in soil pH decreases boron’s availability for plants (Hu and Brown, 1997; Sharma et al., 2006). In a study by Hossain et al. (2012), boron fertilization increased the seed yield of B. juncea by 2–9 % in soil with a high pH (8.1) and low boron content (0.18 mg kg−1). Boron fertilization induced a much higher increase in the yield of B. rapa (19–23 %) and B. napus (25–30 %). In the present study, white mustard was grown on slightly acidic Luvisol (pH 5.8–6.3) with medium boron content (0.24 to 0.38 mg kg−1), and boron fertilizer rates of 150 and 300 g B ha−1 exerted no yield-forming effects, regardless of white mustard cultivar.

Angadi, S.V., Cutforth, H.W., McConkey, B.G., Gan, Y., 2004. Early seeding improves the sustainability of canola and mustard production on the Canadian semiarid prairie. Can. J. Plant Sci. 84, 705–711. Arseniuk, E., Oleksiak, T., 2004. Polish oilseed rape – progress in research and breeding. Oilseed rape – a guidebook for producers. Agro Serwis 13, 10–16 [in Polish]. Barczak, B., 2010. Sulphur As a Nutrient Determining the Yield Size and Quality of Selected Crop Species. Univ. of Technol. Life Sci., Bydgoszcz, Poland [in Polish]. Barczak, B., Kozera, W., Knapowski, T., Ralcewicz, M., 2011. Selected yield components in white mustard (Sinapis alba) versus sulfur fertilization. J. Centr. Eur. Agric. 12 (2), 380–389. Brandt, S.A., 1992. Depths, rates and dates of seeding and yield of yellow mustard (Sinapis alba L.) in west-central Saskatchewan. Can. J. Plant Sci. 72 (2), 351–359. Broniarz, J., Paczocha, J., 2014. Oliseed and fibre crops. In: Gacek, E.S. (Ed.), Descriptive List of Agricultural Plant Varieties. Research Center for Cultivar Testing, Słupia Wielka, pp. 67–103 [in Polish]. Budzyński, W.S., Jankowski, K.J., 2001. Effect of fertilization with sulphur, magnesium and nitrogen on growing and yield of white and Indian mustard seeds. Rośliny Oleiste-Oilseed Crops 22 (1), 45–58 [in Polish]. Burton, W.A., Ripley, V.L., Potts, D.A., Salisbury, P.A., 2004. Assessment of genetic diversity in selected breeding lines and cultivars of canola quality Brassica juncea and their implications for canola breeding. Euphytica 136, 181–192. Ciubota-Rosie, C., Macoveanu, M., Fernández, C.M., Ramos, M.J., Pérez, A., Moreno, A., 2013. Sinapis alba seed as a prospective biodiesel source. Biomass Bioenergy 51, 83–90. Faostat, 2019. Food and Agriculture Data. Available from http:fao.org./ faostat. (Accessed 10 June 19). . Fleming, G.A., 1980. Essential micronutrients: I. Boron and molybdenum. In: Davies, B.E. (Ed.), Applied Soil Trace Elements. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 155–197. Gan, Y., Malhi, S.S., Brandt, S., Katepa-Mupondwa, F., Kutcher, H.R., 2007. Brassica juncea canola in the Northern Great Plains. Agron. J. 99 (5), 1208–1218. Gan, Y., Malhi, S.S., Brandt, S., Katepa-Mupondwa, F., Stevenson, C., 2008. Nitrogen use efficiency and nitrogen uptake of juncea canola under diverse environments. Agron. J. 100 (2), 285–295. Goldberg, S., Scott, M.L., Suarez, D.L., 2000. Predicting boron adsorption by soils using soil chemical parameters in the constant capacitance model. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64, 1356–1363. Grzebisz, W., 2008. Micronutrients in plant nutrition. In: Grzebisz, W. (Ed.), Crop Fertilization. Part 1. Base Fertilization. PWRiL, Poznań, pp. 261–292 [in Polish]. Harrison, P.A., Butterfield, R., Downing, T., 1995. Climate Change and Agriculture in Europe: Assessment of Impacts and Adaptations. Research Report No. 9, Environmental Change Unit. University of Oxford. Hossain, M.A., Jahiruddin, M., Khatun, F., 2012. Response of mustard (Brassica) varieties to boron application. Bangladesh J. Agric. Res. 37 (1), 137–148. Hu, H., Brown, P.H., 1997. Absorption of boron by plant roots. Plant Soil 193, 49–58. IUSS Working Group WRB, 2006. World reference base for soil resources. World Soil Resources Reports No. 103 132, 2nd ed. FAO, Rome. Jaiswal, A.D., Singh, S.K., Singh, Y.K., Singh, S., Yadav, S.N., 2015. Effect of sulphur and boron on yield and quality of mustard (Brassica juncea L.) grown on Vindhyan red soil. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 63 (3), 362–364. Jankowski, K.J., Budzyński, W.S., 2003a. Role of the yield structure components in determining the yield in selected spring oilseed crops. Rośliny Oleiste-Oilseed Crops 24 (2), 443–454 [in Polish]. Jankowski, K.J., Budzyński, W.S., 2003b. Energy potential of oilseed crops. EJPAU 6, 2. Available fromhttp://www.ejpau.media.pl/volume6/issue2/agronomy/art-03.html (Accessed 10 June 19). Jankowski, K.J., Budzyński, W.S., Kijewski, Ł, Klasa, A., 2014. Concentrations of copper, zinc and manganese in the roots, straw and oil cake of white mustard (Sinapis alba L.) and Indian mustard (Brassica juncea(L.) Czern. et Coss.) depending on sulfur fertilization. Plant Soil Environ. 60 (8), 364–371. Jankowski, K.J., Budzyński, W.S., Kijewski, Ł, Zając, T., 2015a. Biomass quality of Brassica oilseed crops in response to sulfur fertilization. Agron. J. 107 (4), 1377–1391. Jankowski, K.J., Budzyński, W.S., Załuski, D., Hulanicki, P.S., Dubis, B., 2016a. Using a fractional factorial design to evaluate the effect of the intensity of agronomic practices on the yield of different winter oilseed rape morphotypes. Field Crops Res. 188, 50–61. Jankowski, K.J., Kijewski, Ł, Krzebietke, S., Budzyński, W.S., 2015b. The effect of sulphur fertilization on macronutrient concentrations in the post-harvest biomass of mustard. Plant Soil Environ. 61 (6), 266–272. Jankowski, K.J., Sokólski, M., Dubis, B., Krzebietke, S., Żarczyński, P., Hulanicki, P., Hulanicki, P.S., 2016b. Yield and quality of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) seeds in response to foliar application of boron. Agric. Food Sci. 25, 164–176. Jankowski, K.J., Sokólski, M., Kordan, B., 2019. Camelina: Yield and quality response to nitrogen and sulfur fertilization in Poland. Ind. Crops Prod. 141, 111776. Karthikeyan, K., Shukla, L.M., 2008. Effect of boron-sulphur interaction on their uptake and quality parameters of mustard (Brassica juncea L.) and sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 56 (2), 225–230. Kessel, B., Schierholt, A., Becker, H.C., 2012. Nitrogen use efficiency in a genetically diverse set of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). Crop Sci. 52 (6), 2546–2554. Malhi, S.S., Gan, Y., Raney, J.P., 2007. Yield, seed quality, and sulfur uptake of Brassica oilseed crops in response to sulfur fertilization. Agron. J. 99 (2), 570–577. Malhi, S.S., Raza, M., Schoenau, J.J., Mermut, A.R., Kutcher, R., Johnston, A.M., Gill, K.S., 2003. Feasibility of boron fertilization for yield, seed quality and B uptake of

5. Conclusions The seed yield of the traditional white mustard cultivar (Radena) was 28%–55% higher than the yield of the canola-quality cultivar (Warta). The differences in the yield of the compared white mustard cultivars were smaller in years with above-average precipitation and greater in dry years. Both cultivars should be sown in early spring (on the optimal sowing dates for spring cereals). Delayed sowing had a particularly adverse effect on white mustard yields in the dry year. The traditional cultivar (Radena) was more sensitive to delayed sowing. In cv. Radena, seed yield decreased by 8 % and 23 % when sowing was delayed by 7 and 14 days, respectively. In the canola-quality cultivar (Warta), a significant decrease in seed yield (15 %) was noted only in response to a 14-day sowing delay. Nitrogen fertilizer induced yieldforming effects up to a rate of 120 kg ha−1. Nitrogen fertilizer rates higher than 80 kg ha−1 failed to improve productivity only in the dry year. The sulfur fertilizer rate of 20 kg ha−1 led to a similar increase (22–25 %) in the seed yield of both white mustard cultivars. Sulfur fertilization induced a greater increase in seed yield in years with above-average precipitation. Boron fertilizer exerted no yield-forming effects in the tested white mustard cultivars. Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. CRediT authorship contribution statement Krzysztof J. Jankowski: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Investigation, Resources, Writing - original draft, Writing review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Dariusz Załuski: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Mateusz Sokólski: Validation, Investigation, Resources, Writing - original draft, Funding acquisition. Acknowledgments The results presented in this paper were obtained as part of a comprehensive study financed by the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn (grant Nos. 20.610.020-110 and 20.610.008-110). Project financially supported by Minister of Science and Higher Education in the range of the program entitled ‘Regional Initiative of Excellence’ for the years 2019–2022, project No. 010/RID/2018/19, amount of funding 12.000.000 PLN. We would also like to thank the staff of the Agricultural Experiment Station in Bałcyny for technical support during the performance of the experiment. 8

Industrial Crops & Products 145 (2020) 112138

K.J. Jankowski, et al.

Sawicka, B., Kotiuk, E., 2007. Mustard species as multi-functional. Acta Sci. Pol. Agric. 6 (2), 17–27 [in Polish]. Sharma, K.R., Srivastava, P.C., Sribastava, P., Singh, V.P., 2006. Effect of farmyard manure application on boron adsorption-desorption characteristics of some soils. Chemosphere 65, 769–777. Shorrocks, V.M., 1997. The occurrence and correction of boron deficiency. Plant Soil 193, 121–148. Sieling, K., Kage, H., 2010. Efficient N management using winter oilseed rape. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 30, 271–279. Sienkiewicz-Cholewa, U., Kieloch, R., 2015. Effect of sulphur and micronutrients fertilization on yield and fat content in winter rape seeds (Brassica napus L.). Plant Soil Environ. 61 (4), 164–170. Statistics Poland, 2016. Crop Production in 2015. Statistical Data and Reports. Warsaw, Poland. Available from https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/rolnictwo-lesnictwo/uprawy-rolne-i-ogrodnicze/wyniki-produkcji-roslinnej-w-2015-roku,6,12.html. (Accessed 10 June 19) [in Polish]. . Statistics Poland, 2019. Production of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops in 2018. Warsaw, Poland. Available from https://stat.gov.pl/en/topics/agriculture-forestry/ agricultural-and-horticultural-crops/production-of-agricultural-and-horticulturalcrops-in-2018,2,3.html. (Accessed 10 June 19) [in Polish]. . Szempliński, W., Nowak, J., Jankowski, K.J., 2018. Coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.) response to different levels of agronomic factors in Poland. Ind. Crops Prod. 122, 456–464. TIBCO Software Inc, 2016. Statistica (data Analysis Software System), Version 13. Toboła, P., 2010. White mustard. In: Budzyński, W.S., Zając, T. (Eds.), Oilseed Crops. Cultivation and Use. PWRiL, Poznań, pp. 109–124 [in Polish]. Toboła, P., Muśnicki, C., 1999. Yielding variability of spring sown oilseed crops of cruciferous family. Rośliny Oleiste-Oilseed Crops 20 (1), 93–100 [in Polish]. Verkerk, R., Schreiner, M., Krumbein, A., Ciska, E., Holst, B., Rowland, I., De Schrijver, R., Hansen, M., Gerhäuser, C., Mithen, R., Dekker, M., 2009. Glucosinolates inBrassica vegetables: The influence of the food supply chain on intake, bioavailability and human health. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 53, 219–265. Wysocki, D.J., Corp, M.K., 2002. Dryland Cropping Systems: Edible Mustard. Oregon State University Extension Publication EM, pp. 8796. Załuski, D., Dubis, B., Budzyński, W.S., Jankowski, K.J., 2016. Applicability of the 35-2 fractional factorial design in determining the effect of cultivation factors on hulless oat. Agron. J. 108 (1), 205–218. Zielonka, R., Szczebiot, M., 2001. Effect of some agronomic factors on Sinapis alba yield. Rośliny Oleiste-Oilseed Crops 22 (1), 59–68 [in Polish].

canola in northeastern Saskatchewan. Can. J. Soil Sci. 83, 99–108. McKenzie, R.H., Middleton, A.B., Bremer, E., 2005. Response of mustard to fertilization, seeding date, and seeding rate in southern Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci. 86 (2), 353–362. Meher, L.C., Sagar, V.D., Naik, S.N., 2006. Technical aspects of biodiesel production by transesterification – a review. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 10, 248–268. Meier, U., 2018. Growth Stages of Mono- and Dicotyledonous Plants: BBCH Monograph. Julius Kühn-Institut, Quedlinburg, Germany Available from https://www.juliuskuehn.de/media/Veroeffentlichungen/bbch%20epaper%20en/page.pdf. (Accessed 30 September 19). Nowak-Polakowska, H., Czaplicki, S., Tańska, M., Jankowski, K.J., 2005. Chemical composition of white and sarepta mustard seeds as affected by differentiated conditions of nitrogen top-dressing at sowing-preceding fertilization with sulphur and magnesium. Pol. J. Nat. Sci. 8, 25–39. Oplinger, E.S., Oelke, E.A., Putnam, D.H., Kelling, K.A., Kaminsid, A.R., Teynor, T.M., Doll, J.D., Durgan, B.R., 1997. Alternative Field Crops Manual: Mustard. University of Wisconsin-Extension; Cooperative Extension - University of Minnesota; Center for Alternative Plant and Animal Products; Minnesota Extension Service. Piętka, T., Krzymański, J., Krótka, K., Bartkowiak-Broda, I., 2014. Double low white mustard (Sinapis alba L. syn. Brassicahirta) is a source of protein and oil. Rośliny Oleiste- Oilseed Crops 35, 21–35. Przybylski, R., 2011. Canola/rapeseed oil. In: Gunstone, F.D. (Ed.), Vegetable Oils in Food Technology: Composition, Properties and Uses. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 107–136. Rashid, M.H., Hasan, M.M., Ahmed, M., Rahman, M.T., Rahman, K., 2012. Response of mustard to boron fertilization. Bangladesh J. Agric. Res. 37 (4), 677–682. Ropelewska, E., Jankowski, K.J., 2019. Classification of the seeds of traditional and double‐low cultivars of white mustard based on texture features. J. Food Processs Eng. 42, e13077. Ropelewska, E., Jankowski, K.J., Zapotoczny, P., Bogucka, B., 2018. Thermophysical and chemical properties of seeds of traditional and double low cultivars of white mustard. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture 105 (3), 257–264. Ruiz, J.M., Bretones, G., Baghour, M., Ragala, L., Belakbir, A., Romero, L., 1998. Relationship between boron and phenolic metabolism in tobacco leaves. Phytochemistry 48 (2), 269–272. Ryant, P., 2009. Effect of sulphur fertilisation on yield and quality of white mustard seeds. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 57 (2), 95–104. Sattar, A., Cheema, M.A., Wahid, M.A., Saleem, M.F., Hassan, M., 2011. Interactive effect of sulphur and nitrogen on growth, yield and quality of canola. Crops Environ. 2 (1), 32–37.

9