4.7 Article

Analysis of yield and genetic similarity of Polish and Ukrainian Camelina sativa genotypes

Journal

INDUSTRIAL CROPS AND PRODUCTS
Volume 123, Issue -, Pages 667-675

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.07.001

Keywords

Camelina saliva; Molecular markers; SSR; RAPD-PCR; Yield

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The information about diversity of spring and winter Camelina sativa germplasm in West Europe is limited despite the long tradition of growing this plant. Therefore the aim of the study was to assess the yield potential of Polish and Ukrainian genotypes of camelina in the Polish growing conditions. A field experiment was conducted in Poland from 2011 to 2016. The average yield of winter camelina genotypes was statistically higher than that of spring cultivars (1.9 vs 1.3 t/ha). The yield from currently grown Polish spring cultivars is much higher than the yield from Ukrainian cultivars. The average yield of five mutation lines exceeded 2 t ha(-1) and it was greater than the yield of the donor cultivar 'Przybrodzka', which produced 1.9 t ha(-1) on average. The 9 spring and 11 winter camelina genotypes were also analysed for their genetic similarity. The RAPD-PCR and SSR data were used for grouping genotypes with the UPGMA method. Apart from the 'Kirgizskir cultivar, all the Ukrainian genotypes were included in one group. Apart from the Przybrodzka' cultivar, the Polish cultivars of spring and winter camelina were included in one similarity group and their genetic similarity coefficients ranged from 0.52 to 0.73. The genetic similarity of the Polish and Ukrainian spring genotypes was greater than the similarity of the winter genotypes and the camelina mutation lines. Camelina has great potential as an oilseed plant for the production of food, feed and biofuel also in a region where for three millennia Camelina oil was used as a food and technical.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available