You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Submitted Successfully!
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic. For video creation, please contact our Academic Video Service.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
John Cushman
 -- 2984 2022-04-01 15:57:34 |
2 revised
Camila Xu
 Meta information modification 2984 2022-04-02 03:59:09 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Academic Video Service to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Cushman, J.; Neupane, D.; , .; Solomon, J. Potential of Camelina sativa. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/21290 (accessed on 20 July 2025).
Cushman J, Neupane D,  , Solomon J. Potential of Camelina sativa. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/21290. Accessed July 20, 2025.
Cushman, John, Dhurba Neupane,  , Juan Solomon. "Potential of Camelina sativa" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/21290 (accessed July 20, 2025).
Cushman, J., Neupane, D., , ., & Solomon, J. (2022, April 01). Potential of Camelina sativa. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/21290
Cushman, John, et al. "Potential of Camelina sativa." Encyclopedia. Web. 01 April, 2022.
Potential of Camelina sativa
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/plants11060772

Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz., also known as false or wild flax, German sesame, gold-of-pleasure, or linseed dodder, is an allohexaploid (2n = 40) oilseed crop within the Brassicaceae.

Camelina sativa semi-arid lands biofuel feedstock biodiesel

1. Introduction

Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz., also known as false or wild flax, German sesame, gold-of-pleasure, or linseed dodder, is an allohexaploid (2n = 40) oilseed crop within the Brassicaceae [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Interest in C. sativa increased in recent years due to its adaptability to diverse environmental conditions, low requirements for water and nutrients, relatively strong resistance to insect pests and microbial diseases, and unique oil composition and characteristics suitable for the production of food and fodder, biofuels, and bio-based products [1][2][7][8]. These positive agronomic traits and environmental attributes, along with the recent development of methods for transgenesis [9][10][11][12][13] and CRISPR/Cas genome editing [14][15][16], triggered great interest in C. sativa as an industrial oilseed crop. The ongoing interest in C. sativa is documented by the large number of peer-reviewed publications from various databases retrieved when “camelina” was used as a search term, for example, in a query of the ScienceDirect (2309 publications from 1997–2021), Web of Science (1525 publications from 2000–2021) and Agricola (677 publications from 2000–2021) databases (reported on December 30, 2021). The large number of publications and data reported on C. sativa highlight the immense potential of this crop and the interest in genetic improvement to allow it to gain more widespread acceptance and economic viability. Most publications focus on the uses of C. sativa oil and meal, the composition of oil and fatty acids, its genetics and breeding, its physiology, and its production and agronomic management. Agronomic management refers to the practice of minimizing input factors such as fertilizer, irrigation, tillage, herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides to maximize crop yield outputs such as seed yield, oil content, and biodiesel production. Many reviews report on various aspects of its general use as an oilseed crop [2][4][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24], and as a platform for the production of biofuels [25][26][27][28] and industrial lipids [1][6][8]. After providing some essential background, researchers summarize the present status of C. sativa research and identify areas for its future improvement with a particular emphasis on enhancing the climate resilience of this highly versatile crop.

2. C. sativa Yield Potential under Hot and Dry Conditions

Global climate change is related to increasing surface aridification and the increasing duration and frequency of droughts in many regions of the world [29][30]. Interest in C. sativa as a low-input crop for use on marginal lands has grown in recent years [31][32][33][34][35][36]. Thus, recent studies investigated C. sativa grown under semi-arid conditions with limited water inputs, with the goal of assessing its performance under reduced water and fertilizer inputs [37][38][39][40][41].
Many studies were conducted across semi-arid or arid regions of the globe with distinct mean annual precipitation levels to compare seed yield (kg ha−1), oil content (%), protein content (%), and biodiesel production (L ha−1) (Figure 1, Table 1). Differences in cultivars (genotypes), water availability, environment, physical and chemical characteristics of soils, and management practices such as irrigation, nitrogen application, sowing date, seeding methods and rates, clearly impact overall C. sativa productivity. Among these studies, the overall mean seed yield of C. sativa was 1410 kg ha−1 (Figure 1, Table 1). The highest reported seed yield ranges were attained in Austria (2419–3625 kg ha−1) [42] and in southern Ethiopia (2795–3200 kg ha−1) [43]. The lowest C. sativa seed yield ranges were reported by studies performed in Kansas [44] and Nevada, USA [37][38][39][40]. Low seed yield of C. sativa may occur due to drought and high temperatures during the flowering and pod filling stage [45][46], as well as poor soil quality [47]. Consistent with these findings, environmental factors (e.g., temperature and rainfall) were responsible for approximately 73% of the variation in seed yield in north-eastern Poland [41]. In contrast, only ~6% of the variation in seed yield was due to genetic factors [41]. Mild weather conditions, along with moderate in-season precipitation, favor higher seed yields [48][49]. Additionally, high C. sativa seed yields were associated with adequate moisture and mild temperatures during seed filling, which is critical for the production and transport of sugars from source to sink tissues [3][47][50]. In contrast, low seed yields were observed under conditions of hot temperature and low precipitation [51][52]. Studies showed an increase in seed yields ranging from 425 to 2867 kg ha−1 as a result of increasing amounts of applied irrigation ranging from 187 to 536 mm [37][34][35][53]. Seasonal water requirements range from 332–490 mm for C. sativa based upon cumulative evapotranspiration (ET) estimates [54][55][56]. Notably, C. sativa might serve as a reliable alternative to Canola in locations where seasonal water supply is less than 250 mm [57]. In addition to increased water inputs, increasing nitrogen fertilizer application can increase seed yield. Seed yields of 1800 kg ha−1 can be attained with 150 kg N ha−1 and water inputs in the range of 320–376 mm [58]. Similar estimates for optimal N input were reported for rainfed field settings [59][60]. The use of organic fertilizers during the production of C. sativa for animal feed reduces its environmental impact [61].
Figure 1. Average seed yield (kg ha−1), oil (%), and protein content (%) of C. sativa grown at various locations across the world.
Another important measure of productivity for any oilseed crop is oil and protein production of the seed meal. For C. sativa, oil and protein content varied widely across various parts of the world, with overall mean seed oil and protein contents of ~36% and ~28%, respectively (Figure 1, Table 1). Highest seed oil contents were reported in the range of 39.8–45.7% in Chile [45], followed by 45% in Arizona, USA [56], and 38–43% in western Canada [49]. The lowest seed oil content, ranging from 25.7 to 31.8%, was observed in Nevada, USA [38]. Similarly to seed yield, oil yield is strongly influenced by environmental factors [62][63]. For example, oil content variation was chiefly associated with mean air temperature and water availability during seed development [45].
Table 1. C. sativa seed yield, oil, and protein content reported across various regions of the world.
Locations Seed Yield
(kg ha−1)		 Seed Oil
Content (%) 1		 Seed Meal Protein
Content (%) 2		 Biodiesel Yield
(L ha−1) 3		 Major Sources of Variation Reference
Mean Range Range Range Mean    
Austria 2986 2419–3625 37.0–40.0 25.0–27.9 505 Nitrogen and sulfur rates [42]
Southern Ethiopia 2956 2795–3200 - - - Seeding rates and nitrogen fertilizer [43]
Saskatchewan, Canada 2466 2184–2747 38 to 43
(39.7)		 27 to 32
(29.3)		 430 Genotypes and environment [49]
North–Eastern Poland 2023 1700–2210 - - - Genotypes [41]
Maritime Provinces of Eastern Canada 1775 1638–1911 33.8–39.0
(36.6)		 25.0–26.8
(26.0)		 285 Breeding lines, nitrogen and sulfur rates [59]
Europe and Canada 1660 1100–2700 (41.8) (26.2) 305 Genotypes and environment [47]
Arizona, USA 1583 1527–1638 (45) - 313 Nitrogen rates, water use and irrigation scheduling [56]
Montana USA 1349 546–2942 33.5–37.6
(36.0)		 - 211 Cultivars and locations [50]
Wyoming, USA 1129 832–1643 31.1–32.4 29.3–30.4 157 Nitrogen and sulfur rates [64]
Chile 991 387–2314 39.8–45.7
(41.41)		 - 180 Cultivars, planting dates, and locations [45]
Northern Italy 820 600–940 (39.2)   141 Low input and growing seasons [36]
Nevada, USA 899 770–1013 31.8–33.3
(32.4)		 27.1–28.1
(27.5)		 128 Cultivars and irrigation rates [37]
784 534–1010 31.8–32.6
(32.2)		 26.2–30.4
(28.4)		 111 Cultivars, nitrogen sources and rates [39]
735 34–1921 26.6–30.8 - 69.7 Cultivars and year [38]
570 130–921 28.4–29.5 - 72 cultivars, sowing date, and methods [40]
Minnesota, USA 812 650–944 39.4–40.7
(40.1)		 26.2–27.9
(27.0)		 143 Genotypes and seeding rate [3]
Kansas, USA 427 317–503 27–29
(27.7)		 29–30
(29.7)		 52 Cultivar and planting date [44]
Overall mean 1410   36.0 27.8 208.4    
1 Oil and 2 protein content inside brackets indicate the average oil and protein content (%). 3 Biodiesel yield was estimated by multiplying seed yield (kg ha−1) and oil content (%) using the volumetric conversion factor of 1 kg ha−1 to 0.439 L ha−1 [65].
Compared with seed oil values, protein content generally varied less widely relative to the location of production across the globe, with the lowest and highest ranges of 25.0–26.8% and 27–32%, respectively, reported in Canada, with an overall mean of 27.8% (Figure 1, Table 1). However, more wide-ranging protein contents (23–47%) of C. sativa seeds were reported depending upon local field conditions [66][47]. High air temperatures during flowering and seed filling are generally associated with low oil contents but high protein contents within C. sativa seed [40]. Furthermore, increased N application rates can increase protein contents, with an associated decrease in oil contents [42][59][67][68]. Such increased nitrogen applications are known to increase protein at the expense of fatty acid synthesis due to the competition for carbon skeleton during carbohydrate metabolism [69].
A major use of C. sativa seed oil is biodiesel production. Biodiesel production, which is closely linked with overall oil production, varied widely with a mean of 208 L ha−1 across the globe (Figure 1, Table 1). The highest biodiesel yield (505 L ha−1) was reported in Austria [42], followed by western Canada (430 L ha−1) [49]. A multi-location study performed in Europe and Canada reported a mean biodiesel yield of 305 L ha−1 [47]. The lowest biodiesel yield (52 L ha−1) was reported in Kansas, USA [44]. The wide variation in biodiesel production is likely accounted for by differences in temperature and water availability, including ambient precipitation, length of growing season, and managerial factors such as fertilizer application rates and irrigation practices.

3. Biotic Production Constraints of C. sativa

Weeds are a major constraint to C. sativa production (Berti et al., 2016). C. sativa is considered to be very competitive against weeds with good stand establishment [22][70], due to its ability to produce and release secondary metabolites that prevent the growth of seedlings of neighboring plants [71][72][73]. However, the competitiveness of C. sativa for sunlight, nutrients, and water can be challenged by some weed species such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), green foxtail (Setaria viridis L.), and Russian thistle (Salsola kali L.), among others [2][5][74][75]. Similarly, perennial broadleaf weeds such as field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense L. Scop.), and skeleton weed (Chondrilla juncea L.) can also present challenges for C. sativa. Notably, C. sativa can exhibit susceptibility to dodder (Cuscuta spp.), a parasitic weed of many crops (D. Neupane, personal observation). C. sativa does not hybridize efficiently with cultivated Brassica species or wild Brassica species within the tribe Camelineae [76]. However, C. sativa does exhibit the ability to outcross with common Brassica weed species, such as North American weeds C. alyssum and C. microcarpa [77]. Fortunately, C. sativa is less competitive and shows lower invasive potential than Canola [78].

3.1. Weed Control

Both chemical and non-chemical approaches for weed control are available for C. sativa production systems. For chemical control, Sethoxydim (Poast®) (2-[(E)-N-ethoxy-C-propylcarbonimidoyl]-5-(2-ethylsulfanylpropyl)-3-hydroxycyclohex-2-en-1-one), a post-emergent and selective grass herbicide, which belongs to the cyclohexanone group, is currently the only registered herbicide for C. sativa in the USA [39][40][79][80]. Tepraloxydim (2-[(E)-N-[(E)-3-chloroprop-2-enoxy]-C-ethylcarbonimidoyl]-3-hydroxy-5-(oxan-4-yl)cyclohex-2-en-1-one) was also used to control post-emergent grass weeds [45]. Similarly, Clethodim (2-[(E)-N-[(E)-3-chloroprop-2-enoxy]-C-ethylcarbonimidoyl]-5-(2-ethylsulfanylpropyl)-3-hydroxycyclohex-2-en-1-one), which is a related post-emergent cyclohexanone herbicide, was successfully used for grassy weed control for C. sativa [37]. Quizalofop (2-[4-(6-chloroquinoxalin-2-yl)oxyphenoxy]propanoic acid), which is a selective, postemergence phenoxy herbicide registered in Canada and other parts of the world, was also used to control annual and perennial grass weeds of C. sativa [2][5][81].
In contrast to selective grass herbicides, C. sativa withstands very few broadleaf herbicides, and few have been approved for use on C. sativa in the USA [2][5][22][81][82]. Dinitroaniline pre-emergent herbicides, such as Trifluralin (2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)aniline), are widely used in the USA for early season weed control. Pre-emergent herbicides, including dimethenamid-P (2-chloro-N-(2,4-dimethylthiophen-3-yl)-N-[(2S)-1-methoxypropan-2-yl]acetamide), pendimethalin (3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitro-N-pentan-3-ylaniline), pyroxasulfone (3-[[5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)pyrazol-4-yl]methylsulfonyl]-5,5-dimethyl-4H-1,2-oxazole), quinclorac (3,7-dichloroquinoline-8-carboxylic acid), and S-metolachlor (2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-[(2S)-1-methoxypropan-2-yl]acetamide), were tested at three different concentrations with C. sativa to examine weed control and injury to the crop [83]. Pendimethalin and S-metolachlor caused some injury, but did not lower C. sativa seed yields. Dimethenamid-P, used at a low rate, did not affect plant populations and seed yield; however, when applied at a high rate, it caused 60% injury with a 31% reduction in seed yield [83][84]. Quinclorac did not significantly injure the crop and was considered the safest of all the herbicides tested [83]. C. sativa mutants with resistance to acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitors were developed, displaying increased resistance to imazethapyr (5-ethyl-2-(4-methyl-5-oxo-4-propan-2-yl-1H-imidazol-2-yl)pyridine-3-carboxylic acid), sulfosulfuron (1-(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)-3-(2-ethylsulfonylimidazo[1,2-a]pyridin-3-yl)sulfonylurea), and flucarbazone (3-methoxy-4-methyl-5-oxo-N-[2-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]sulfonyl-1,2,4-triazole-1-carboxamide) [84].
Several non-chemical strategies for weed control were shown to be effective for C. sativa [70]. Mechanical weeding is a well-established and useful approach for small scale production systems (e.g., research plots). For large-scale production, early season planting that promotes stand establishment is one of the most effective strategies for overcoming weed competition in C. sativa fields [85]. Furthermore, increasing sowing rates can effectively suppress weeds in C. sativa plots, likely through increased utilization of resources by the crop at the expense of weeds [70]. Mixed cropping of C. sativa grain with peas (Pisum sativum) (or barley (Hordeum vulgare)) afforded significant weed suppression and acted as a smother crop and weed antagonist, leading to enhanced C. sativa seed yields [70][86].
Use of C. sativa as a winter cover crop suppressed weed abundance while increasing cash crop yields [87]. Including C. sativa in crop rotations for winter cereals can suppress winter weed populations and increase grain yields in semi-arid Mediterranean climates [88]. C. sativa was also used in innovative double- and relay-cropping systems with forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), maize (Zea mays), and soybean (Glycine max) with an increased potential for biofuel and energy feedstock production [89]. When C. sativa was intersown as a cover crop with maize or soybean, establishment and winter survival rates increased, with the greatest success being achieved with soybean [90]. C. sativa was also used as an intercrop with Jatropha integerrima in semi-arid regions of India with seed production improvements observed when grown alternatively with leguminous fodder crops [91]. Further exploration of the potential allelopathic effects of C. sativa in intercropping systems for weed suppression is needed [73].

3.2. Insect Pests

Insects can limit C. sativa production, but these generally present lower production barriers than weeds. C. sativa is known to be relatively resistant to insect predation and infestation. C. sativa shows resistance to several common insect pests of Canola [92][93]. For example, C. sativa shows high resistance to flea beetles (Phyllotreta spp.), a common insect pest of B. rapa, B. napus, and B. juncea [49][94][95][96]. This resistance is thought to be due to the presence of repellents or the absence of stimulatory volatile phytochemicals [97]. More recent studies confirmed that the presence of quercetin glycosides in C. sativa leaves is likely responsible for flea beetle resistance [98]. In addition to flea beetles, C. sativa was shown to be a poor host for the diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella L.) and root maggots (Delia spp.) [99]. Feeding damage by the Bertha armyworm (Mamestra configurata Walker) on C. sativa was consistent with Canola, but larvae and pupae weighed less when reared on C. sativa leaves [99]. Leafhopper (Macrosteles quadrilineatus Forbes) did not cause damage to C. sativa; however, this insect can transmit aster yellows phytoplasma, which can result in chronic, systemic disease resulting in chlorosis, phyllody, and virescence, malformed seeds, and reduced seed set [99]. C. sativa also appeared to show resistance against the cabbage seedpod weevil (Ceutorhyncus obstrictus (Marsh.) [100]. However, stem feeding below the soil by several weevil species (e.g., Ceutorhynchus cyanipennis and C. americanus) was associated with stand failures for fall-planted C. sativa [101]. Although aphids can colonize C. sativa under field conditions, they are not known to cause significant economic damage; however, such colonization can create a reservoir for different aphid species that can negatively impact other crops in the rotation [102].

3.3. Fungal, Bacterial, and Viral Pathogens

Similar to its apparent resistance to many insect pests, C. sativa shows good resistance to a variety of microbial pathogens that typically target crops within the Brassicaceae [18][103]. For example, C. sativa showed strong resistance to blackspot fungal disease caused by Alternaria brassicae (Berk.) Sacc. [104][105][106]. Such resistance is associated with the relative expression of defense-related genes [107]. Resistance to blackspot disease caused by Alternaria brassicicola [(Schw.) Wiltsh] varies among C. sativa genebank accessions [108]. However, such resistance can be transferred to hybrids of C. sativa and rapid-cycling Brassica oleracea in an effort to confer resistance of this disease to Brassica vegetable crops [109][110]. Resistance to the blackspot pathogen was associated with the production of phytoalexins, specifically to camalexin, an antimicrobial phytoalexin [104][106][109][111]. Resistance was also correlated with the higher expression of chitinase gene family members in C. sativa relative to B. juncea [112]. C. sativa showed strong resistance to blackleg fungal disease [49] assessed using 80 different isolates of Leptosphaeria maculans (Desmaz.) [113]. However, for those C. sativa genotypes that are susceptible to blackleg disease, the fungicides metoconazole and a mixture of tebuconazole and triadimenol provided very effective control against the fungus [45].
C. sativa genotypes show various, but low, degrees of susceptibility to common Brassicaceae diseases, such as stem rot (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary), brown girdling root rot (Fusarium spp. and R. solani), downy mildew (Peronospora sparsa, P. parasitica), powdery mildew (Erysiphe sp.), grey mold (Botrytis cinerea), sore shin and damping-off disease (Rhizoctonia solani), Verticillium wilt (Verticillium dahliae), and white rust (Albugo candida) [18][103][114][115]. Some C. sativa genotypes are susceptible to downy mildew (Hyaloperonospora camelinae) [116]. Thirty diverse C. sativa genotypes showed varying degrees of resistance to S. sclerotiorum [117]. Resistance to S. sclerotiorum was associated with cell wall strengthening due to monolignol biosynthesis in C. sativa [118]. However, while camalexin production was induced by S. sclerotiorum inoculation, the relative degree of disease resistance was not correlated with levels of camalexin production, suggesting that other antimicrobial activities might be responsible for the observed disease resistance [117]. C. sativa also shows resistance to the soil-born fungus Fusarium virguliforme [119]. However, C. sativa is susceptible to other fungal diseases common to the Brassicaceae, such as damping-off (caused by Rhizoctonia solani), clubroot (Plasmodiophora brassicae Woronin.), and white rust (Albugo candida Pers. Kuntze) [103]. While susceptible, C. sativa showed greater resistance to Rhizoctonia solani than B. napus did, due to the presence of the phytoalexins camalexin and methoxycamelexin and two additional antimicrobial compounds in its roots [120].
C. sativa is susceptible to some bacterial diseases, such as bacterial blight (Pseudomonas syringae pv. spec.), phytoplasma disease, which was reported for C. sativa grown in Germany and Canada [114][115][121], and aster yellows diseases [99]. C. sativa also shows susceptibility to the bacterial pathogen Xanthomonas campestris Dowson pv. campestris, which causes black rot of Brassica crops globally [108].
Lastly, although relatively less well studied for viral diseases, C. sativa is susceptible to the Turnip crinkle virus and Turnip rosette virus [122], which are viral diseases transmitted by flea beetles via infested seed [2][123]. The beet western yellows mosaic virus reportedly caused up to 34% yield reductions in C. sativa [124]. Aphid (Myzus persicae) vector behavior and host palatability are key factors in the transmission of the Turnip yellows virus in C. sativa [125].

References

  1. Bansal, S.; Durrett, T.P. Camelina sativa: An ideal platform for the metabolic engineering and field production of industrial lipids. Biochimie 2016, 120, 9–16.
  2. Berti, M.; Gesch, R.; Eynck, C.; Anderson, J.; Cermak, S. Camelina uses, genetics, genomics, production, and management. Ind. Crops Prod. 2016, 94, 690–710.
  3. Gesch, R.W.; Matthees, H.L.; Alvarez, A.L.; Gardner, R.D. Winter Camelina: Crop growth, seed yield, and quality response to cultivar and seeding rate. Crop Sci. 2018, 58, 2089–2098.
  4. Putnam, D.H.; Budin, J.T.; Field, L.A.; Breene, W.M. Camelina: A promising low-input oilseed. In New Crops; Janick, J., Simon, J.E., Eds.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1993; pp. 314–322.
  5. Schillinger, W.F. Camelina: Long-term cropping systems research in a dry Mediterranean climate. Field Crops Res. 2019, 235, 87–94.
  6. Vollmann, J.; Eynck, C. Camelina as a sustainable oilseed crop: Contributions of plant breeding and genetic engineering. Biotechnol. J. 2015, 10, 525–535.
  7. Masella, P.; Martinelli, T.; Galasso, I. Agronomic evaluation and phenotypic plasticity of Camelina sativa growing in Lombardia, Italy. Crop Pasture Sci. 2014, 65, 453–460.
  8. Iskandarov, U.; Kim, H.J.; Cahoon, E.B. Camelina: An emerging oilseed platform for advanced biofuels and bio-based materials. In Plants and Bioenergy; Advances in Plant Biology; McCann, M., Buckeridge, M., Carpita, N., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; Volume 4, pp. 131–140.
  9. Liu, X.; Brost, J.; Hutcheon, C.; Guilfoil, R.; Wilson, A.K.; Leung, S.; Shewmaker, C.K.; Rooke, S.; Nguyen, T.; Kiser, J. Transformation of the oilseed crop Camelina sativa by Agrobacterium-mediated floral dip and simple large-scale screening of transformants. Vitr. Cell. Dev. Biol.-Plant 2012, 48, 462–468.
  10. Lu, C.; Kang, J. Generation of transgenic plants of a potential oilseed crop Camelina sativa by Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. Plant Cell Rep. 2008, 27, 273–278.
  11. Sainger, M.; Jaiwal, A.; Sainger, P.A.; Chaudhary, D.; Jaiwal, R.; Jaiwal, P.K. Advances in genetic improvement of Camelina sativa for biofuel and industrial bio-products. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68, 623–637.
  12. Sitther, V.; Tabatabai, B.; Enitan, O.; Dhekney, S. Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of Camelina sativa for production of transgenic plants. J. Biol. Methods 2018, e83.
  13. Yemets, A.I.; Boychuk, Y.N.; Shysha, E.N.; Rakhmetov, D.B.; Blume, Y.B. Establishment of in vitro culture, plant regeneration, and genetic transformation of Camelina sativa. Cytol. Genet. 2013, 47, 138–144.
  14. Ozseyhan, M.E.; Kang, J.; Mu, X.; Lu, C. Mutagenesis of the FAE1 genes significantly changes fatty acid composition in seeds of Camelina sativa. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2018, 123, 1–7.
  15. Morineau, C.; Bellec, Y.; Tellier, F.; Gissot, L.; Kelemen, Z.; Nogué, F.; Faure, J.D. Selective gene dosage by CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing in hexaploid Camelina sativa. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2017, 15, 729–739.
  16. Jiang, W.Z.; Henry, I.M.; Lynagh, P.G.; Comai, L.; Cahoon, E.B.; Weeks, D.P. Significant enhancement of fatty acid composition in seeds of the allohexaploid, Camelina sativa, using CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2017, 15, 648–657.
  17. Chaturvedi, S.; Bhattacharya, A.; Khare, S.K.; Kaushik, G. Camelina sativa: An Emerging Biofuel Crop; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 1–38.
  18. Dharavath, R.N.; Singh, S.; Chaturvedi, S.; Luqman, S. Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz A mercantile crop with speckled pharmacological activities. Ann. Phytomed. 2016, 5, 6–26.
  19. Malik, M.R.; Tang, J.; Sharma, N.; Burkitt, C.; Ji, Y.; Mykytyshyn, M.; Bohmert-Tatarev, K.; Peoples, O.; Snell, K.D. Camelina sativa, an oilseed at the nexus between model system and commercial crop. Plant Cell Rep. 2018, 37, 1367–1381.
  20. Moser, B.R. Camelina (Camelina sativa L.) oil as a biofuels feedstock: Golden opportunity or false hope? Lipid Technol. 2010, 22, 270–273.
  21. Murphy, E.J. Camelina (Camelina sativa). In Industrial Oil Crops; McKeon, T., Hayes, D., Hildebrand, D., Weselake, R., Eds.; Elevier: London, UK, 2016; pp. 207–230.
  22. Obour, K.A.; Sintim, H.Y.; O’bend, E.; Jeliazkov, V.D. Oilseed Camelina (Camelina sativa L. Crantz): Production systems, prospects and challenges in the USA Great Plains. Adv. Plants Agric. Res. 2015, 2, 00043.
  23. Waraich, E.A.; Ahmed, Z.; Ahmad, R.; Ashraf, M.Y.; Naeem, M.S.; Rengel, Z. ‘Camelina sativa’, a climate proof crop, has high nutritive value and multiple-uses: A review. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2013, 7, 1551–1559.
  24. Zubr, J. Oil-seed crop: Camelina sativa. Ind. Crops Prod. 1997, 6, 113–119.
  25. Fröhlich, A.; Rice, B. Evaluation of Camelina sativa oil as a feedstock for biodiesel production. Ind. Crops Prod. 2005, 21, 25–31.
  26. Ciubota-Rosie, C.; Ruiz, J.R.; Ramos, M.J.; Pérez, Á. Biodiesel from Camelina sativa: A comprehensive characterisation. Fuel 2013, 105, 572–577.
  27. Zaleckas, E.; Makarevičienė, V.; Sendžikienė, E. Possibilities of using Camelina sativa oil for producing biodiesel fuel. Transport 2012, 27, 60–66.
  28. Agarwal, A.; Prakash, O.; Bala, M. Camelina sativa, a short gestation oilseed crop with biofuel potential: Opportunities for Indian scenario. Oil Crop Sci. 2021, 6, 114–121.
  29. Dai, A.; Zhao, T.; Chen, J. Climate Change and Drought: A Precipitation and Evaporation Perspective. Curr. Clim. Change Rep. 2018, 4, 301–312.
  30. Naumann, G.; Alfieri, L.; Wyser, K.; Mentaschi, L.; Betts, R.A.; Carrao, H.; Spinoni, J.; Vogt, J.; Feyen, L. Global changes in drought conditions under different levels of warming. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2018, 45, 3285–3296.
  31. Gehringer, A.; Friedt, W.; Luhs, W.; Snowdon, R.J. Genetic mapping of agronomic traits in false flax (Camelina sativa subsp. sativa). Genome 2006, 49, 1555–1563.
  32. McKenzie, B.A.; Smallfield, B.M.; Fasi, V.; Martin, R.J. Possible species for the production of biodiesel on marginal land. Agron. N. Z. 2011, 41, 97–108.
  33. Pavlista, A.D.; Isbell, T.A.; Baltensperger, D.D.; Hergert, G.W. Planting date and development of spring-seeded irrigated canola, brown mustard and camelina. Ind. Crops Prod. 2011, 33, 451–456.
  34. Hergert, G.W.; Margheim, J.F.; Pavlista, A.D.; Martin, D.L.; Isbell, T.A.; Supalla, R.J. Irrigation response and water productivity of deficit to fully irrigated spring camelina. Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 177, 46–53.
  35. Hergert, G.W.; Margheim, J.F.; Pavlista, A.D.; Martin, D.L.; Supalla, R.J.; Isbell, T.A. Yield, irrigation response, and water productivity of deficit to fully irrigated spring canola. Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 168, 96–103.
  36. Matteo, R.; D’Avino, L.; Ramirez-Cando, L.J.; Pagnotta, E.; Angelini, L.G.; Spugnoli, P.; Tavarini, S.; Ugolini, L.; Foschi, L.; Lazzeri, L. Camelina (Camelina sativa L. Crantz) under low-input management systems in northern Italy: Yields, chemical characterization and environmental sustainability. Ital. J. Agron. 2020, 15, 132–143.
  37. Neupane, D.; Solomon, J.K.Q.; McLennon, E.; Davison, J.; Lawry, T. Camelina production parameters response to different irrigation regimes. Ind. Crops Prod. 2020, 148, 112286.
  38. Lohaus, R.H.; Neupane, D.; Mengistu, M.A.; Solomon, J.K.Q.; Cushman, J.C. Five-year field trial of eight Camelina sativa cultivars for biomass to be used in biofuel under irrigated conditions in a semi-arid climate. Agronomy 2020, 10, 562.
  39. Neupane, D.; Solomon, J.K.Q.; Davison, J.; Lawry, T. Nitrogen source and rate effects on grain and potential biodiesel production of camelina in the semiarid environment of northern Nevada. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 2018, 10, 861–876.
  40. Neupane, D.; Solomon, J.K.Q.; McLennon, E.; Davison, J.; Lawry, T. Sowing date and sowing method influence on camelina cultivars grain yield, oil concentration, and biodiesel production. Food Energy Secur. 2019, 8, e00166.
  41. Załuski, D.; Tworkowski, J.; Krzyżaniak, M.; Stolarski, M.J.; Kwiatkowski, J. The characterization of 10 spring Camelina genotypes grown in environmental conditions in North-eastern Poland. Agronomy 2020, 10, 64.
  42. Lošák, T.; Hlusek, J.; Martinec, J.; Vollmann, J.; Peterka, J.; Filipcik, R.; Varga, L.; Ducsay, L.; Martensson, A. Effect of combined nitrogen and sulphur fertilization on yield and qualitative parameters of Camelina sativa Crtz. (false flax). Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B-Soil Plant Sci. 2011, 61, 313–321.
  43. Manore, D.; Yohanns, A. Evaluating growth, seed yield and yield attributes of Camelina (Camelina sativa L) in response to seeding rate and nitrogen fertilizer levels under irrigation condition, southern Ethiopia. Agric. For. Fish. 2019, 8, 31–35.
  44. Obeng, E.; Obour, A.K.; Nelson, N.O.; Moreno, J.A.; Ciampitti, I.A.; Wang, D.; Durrett, T.P. Seed yield and oil quality as affected by Camelina cultivar and planting date. J. Crop Improv. 2019, 33, 202–222.
  45. Berti, M.; Wilckens, R.; Fischer, S.; Solis, A.; Johnson, B. Seeding date influence on camelina seed yield, yield components, and oil content in Chile. Ind. Crops Prod. 2011, 34, 1358–1365.
  46. Amiri-Darban, N.; Nourmohammadi, G.; Rad, A.H.S.; Mirhadi, S.M.J.; Heravan, I.M. Potassium sulfate and ammonium sulfate affect quality and quantity of camelina oil grown with different irrigation regimes. Ind. Crops Prod. 2020, 148, 112308.
  47. Zanetti, F.; Eynck, C.; Christou, M.; Krzyżaniak, M.; Righini, D.; Alexopoulou, E.; Stolarski, M.J.; Van Loo, E.N.; Puttick, D.; Monti, A. Agronomic performance and seed quality attributes of Camelina (Camelina sativa L. crantz) in multi-environment trials across Europe and Canada. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 107, 602–608.
  48. Gesch, R.W. Influence of genotype and sowing date on camelina growth and yield in the north central U.S. Ind. Crops Prod. 2014, 54, 209–215.
  49. Gugel, R.K.; Falk, K.C. Agronomic and seed quality evaluation of Camelina sativa in western Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2006, 86, 1047–1058.
  50. Mohammed, Y.A.; Chen, C.; Lamb, P.; Afshar, R.K. Agronomic Evaluation of Camelina (Camelina sativa L. Crantz) Cultivars for Biodiesel Feedstock. BioEnergy Res. 2017, 10, 792–799.
  51. Obour, A.K.; Obeng, E.; Mohammed, Y.A.; Ciampitti, I.A.; Durrett, T.P.; Aznar-Moreno, J.A.; Chen, C.C. Camelina seed yield and fatty acids as influenced by genotype and wnvironment. Agron. J. 2017, 109, 947–956.
  52. Obour, A.K.; Chen, C.C.; Sintim, H.Y.; McVay, K.; Lamb, P.; Obeng, E.; Mohammed, Y.A.; Khan, Q.; Afshar, R.K.; Zheljazkov, V.D. Camelina sativa as a fallow replacement crop in wheat-based crop production systems in the US Great Plains. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018, 111, 22–29.
  53. Pavlista, A.D.; Hergert, G.W.; Margheim, J.M.; Isbell, T.A. Growth of spring camelina (Camelina sativa) under deficit irrigation in western Nebraska. Ind. Crops Prod. 2016, 83, 118–123.
  54. French, A.N.; Hunsaker, D.; Thorp, K.; Clarke, T. Evapotranspiration over a camelina crop at Maricopa, Arizona. Ind. Crops Prod. 2009, 29, 289–300.
  55. Hunsaker, D.J.; French, A.N.; Clarke, T.R.; El-Shikha, D.M. Water use, crop coefficients, and irrigation management criteria for camelina production in arid regions. Irrig. Sci. 2011, 29, 27–43.
  56. Hunsaker, D.J.; French, A.N.; Thorp, K.R. Camelina water use and seed yield response to irrigation scheduling in an arid environment. Irrig. Sci. 2012, 31, 911–929.
  57. George, N.; Thompson, S.E.; Hollingsworth, J.; Orloff, S.; Kaffka, S. Measurement and simulation of water-use by canola and camelina under cool-season conditions in California. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 196, 15–23.
  58. Bronson, K.F.; Hunsaker, D.J.; Thorp, K.R. Nitrogen fertilizer and irrigation effects on seed yield and oil in Camelina. Agron. J. 2019, 111, 1712–1719.
  59. Jiang, Y.; Caldwell, C.D.; Falk, K.C.; Lada, R.R.; MacDonald, D. Camelina yield and quality response to combined nitrogen and sulfur. Agron. J. 2013, 105, 1847–1852.
  60. Malhi, S.S.; Johnson, E.N.; Hall, L.M.; May, W.E.; Phelps, S.; Nybo, B. Effect of nitrogen fertilizer application on seed yield, N uptake, and seed quality of Camelina sativa. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2014, 94, 35–47.
  61. Martinez, S.; Alvarez, S.; Capuano, A.; del Mar Delgado, M. Environmental performance of animal feed production from Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz: Influence of crop management practices under Mediterranean conditions. Agric. Syst. 2020, 177, 102717.
  62. Vollmann, J.; Moritz, T.; Kargl, C.; Baumgartner, S.; Wagentristl, H. Agronomic evaluation of camelina genotypes selected for seed quality characteristics. Ind. Crops Prod. 2007, 26, 270–277.
  63. Krzyżaniak, M.; Stolarski, M.J. Life cycle assessment of camelina and crambe production for biorefinery and energy purposes. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 237, 117755.
  64. Sintim, H.Y.; Zheljazkov, V.D.; Obour, A.K.; Garcia y Garcia, A.; Foulke, T.K. Influence of nitrogen and sulfur application on camelina performance under dryland conditions. Ind. Crops Prod. 2015, 70, 253–259.
  65. Kemp, W.H. Biodiesel: Basics and Beyond, a Comprehensive Guide to Production and Use for the Home and Farm; Aztext Press: Tamworth, ON, Canada, 2006.
  66. Walia, M.K.; Wells, M.S.; Cubins, J.; Wyse, D.; Gardner, R.D.; Forcella, F.; Gesch, R. Winter camelina seed yield and quality responses to harvest time. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018, 124, 765–775.
  67. Bobrecka-Jamro, M.C. The effects of varied plant density and nitrogen fertilization on quantity and quality yield of Camelina sativa L. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2018, 29, 988–993.
  68. Keshavarz-Afshar, R.; Mohammed, Y.A.; Chen, C. Energy balance and greenhouse gas emissions of dryland camelina as influenced by tillage and nitrogen. Energy 2015, 91, 1057–1063.
  69. Rathke, G.-W.; Christen, O.; Diepenbrock, W. Effects of N source and rate on productivity and quality of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) grown in different crop rotations. Field Crops Res. 2005, 94, 103–113.
  70. Leclère, M.; Jeuffroy, M.-H.; Butier, A.; Chatain, C.; Loyce, C. Controlling weeds in camelina with innovative herbicide-free crop management routes across various environments. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019, 140, 111605.
  71. Lovett, J.V.; Jackson, H.F. Allelopathic activity of Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz inrelation to its phyllosphere bacteria. New Phytol. 1980, 86, 273–277.
  72. Walsh, K.D.; Sanderson, D.; Hall, L.M.; Mugo, S.; Hills, M.J. Allelopathic effects of camelina (Camelina sativa) and canola (Brassica napus) on wild oat, flax and radish. Allelopath. J. 2014, 33, 83–96.
  73. Abbas, A.; Huang, P.; Hussain, S.; Saqib, M.; He, L.; Shen, F.; Du, D. Application of allelopathic phenomemna to enhance growth and production of camelina (Camelina sativa (L.). Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2021, 19, 453–469.
  74. Davis, P.B.; Maxwell, B.; Menalled, F.D. Impact of growing conditions on the competitive ability of Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz (Camelina). Can. J. Plant Sci. 2013, 93, 243–247.
  75. Lenssen, A.W.; Iversen, W.M.; Sainju, U.M.; Caesar-TonThat, T.C.; Blodgett, S.L.; Allen, B.L.; Evans, R.G. Yield, pests, and water use of durum and selected crucifer oilseeds in two-year rotations. Agron. J. 2012, 104, 1295–1304.
  76. Julié-Galau, S.; Bellec, Y.; Faure, J.-D.; Tepfer, M. Evaluation of the potential for interspecific hybridization between Camelina sativa and related wild Brassicaceae in anticipation of field trials of GM camelina. Transgenic Res. 2014, 23, 67–74.
  77. Zhang, C.-J.; Auer, C. Hybridization between Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz and common Brassica weeds. Ind. Crops Prod. 2020, 147, 112240.
  78. Davis, P.B. The Invasion Potential and Competitive Ability of Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz (Camelina) in Rangeland Ecosystems; Montana State University-Bozeman, College of Agriculture: Bozeman, MT, USA, 2010.
  79. Enjalbert, J.; Johnson, J. Guide for Producing Dryland Camelina in Eastern Colorado; Colorado State University Extension: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2011.
  80. WAPMC. Biomass Crop Assistance Program: Camelina Agronomy Sheet; NRCS: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
  81. Sobiech, Ł.; Grzanka, M.; Kurasiak-Popowska, D.; Radzikowska, D. Phytotoxic effect of herbicides on various camelina genotypes and plant chlorophyll fluorescence. Agriculture 2020, 10, 185.
  82. Scheliga, M.; Petersen, J. Selectivity of herbicides in camelina (Camelina sativa (L.) Crtz.). Jul.-Kühn-Arch. 2016, 452, 154–162.
  83. Jha, P.; Stougaard, R.N. Camelina (Camelina sativa) tolerance to selected preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 2013, 27, 712–717.
  84. Walsh, D.T.; Babiker, E.M.; Burke, I.C.; Hulbert, S.H. Camelina mutants resistant to acetolactate synthase inhibitor herbicides. Mol. Breed. 2012, 30, 1053–1063.
  85. Schillinger, W.F.; Wysocki, D.J.; Chastain, T.G.; Guy, S.O.; Karow, R.S. Camelina: Planting date and method effects on stand establishment and seed yield. Field Crops Res. 2012, 130, 138–144.
  86. Saucke, H.; Ackermann, K. Weed suppression in mixed cropped grain peas and false flax (Camelina sativa). Weed Res. 2006, 46, 453–461.
  87. Almoussawi, A.; Lenoir, J.; Spicher, F.; Dupont, F.; Chabrerie, O.; Closset-Kopp, D.; Brasseur, B.; Kobaissi, A.; Dubois, F.; Decocq, G. Direct seeding associated with a mixture of winter cover crops decreases weed abundance while increasing cash-crop yields. Soil Tillage Res. 2020, 200, 104622.
  88. Royo-Esnal, A.; Valencia-Gredilla, F. Camelina as a rotation crop for weed control in organic farming in a semiarid Mediterranean climate. Agriculture 2018, 8, 156.
  89. Berti, M.; Gesch, R.; Johnson, B.; Ji, Y.; Seames, W.; Aponte, A. Double-and relay-cropping of energy crops in the northern Great Plains, USA. Ind. Crops Prod. 2015, 75, 26–34.
  90. Berti, M.; Samarappuli, D.; Johnson, B.L.; Gesch, R.W. Integrating winter camelina into maize and soybean cropping systems. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 107, 595–601.
  91. Chandra, K.; Sharma, D.K.; Meher, L.C.; Kulkarni, A.V.; Nasim, M. Studies of feasibility of intercropping of Camelina sativa in jatropha plantation in semi–arid climate in Andhra Pradesh, India. Res. J. Agric. For. Sci. 2014, 2, 23–26.
  92. Robinson, R.G. Camelina: A Useful Research Crop and a Potential Oilseed Crop. 1987, 579. Available online: https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/141546/SB579.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 10 February 2022).
  93. Soroka, J.J.; Olivier, C.; Wist, T.J.; Grenkow, L. Present and potential impacts of insects on Camelina and Crambe. In Integrated Management of Insect Pests on Canola and Other Brassica Oilseed Crops; CABI: Boston, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 316–340.
  94. Francis, A.; Warwick, S.I. The biology of Canadian weeds. 142. Camelina alyssum (Mill.) thell. C. microcarpa andrz. ex DC.; C. sativa (L.) crantz. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2009, 89, 791–810.
  95. Nielsen, J.K.; Hansen, M.L.; Agerbirk, N.; Petersen, B.L.; Halkier, B.A. Responses of the flea beetles Phyllotreta nemorum and P. cruciferae to metabolically engineered Arabidopsis thaliana with an altered glucosinolate profile. Chemoecology 2001, 11, 75–83.
  96. Pachagounder, P.; Lamb, R.J.; Bodnaryk, R.P. Resistance to the flea beetle Phyllotreta cruciferae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in false flax, Camelina sativa (Brassicaceae). Can. Entomol. 1998, 130, 235–240.
  97. Henderson, A.E.; Hallett, R.H.; Soroka, J.J. Prefeeding behavior of the crucifer flea beetle, Phyllotreta cruciferae, on host and nonhost crucifers. J. Insect Behav. 2004, 17, 17–39.
  98. Onyilagha, J.C.; Gruber, M.Y.; Hallett, R.H.; Holowachuk, J.; Buckner, A.; Soroka, J.J. Constitutive flavonoids deter flea beetle insect feeding in Camelina sativa L. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2012, 42, 128–133.
  99. Soroka, J.; Olivier, C.; Grenkow, L.; Séguin-Swartz, G. Interactions between Camelina sativa (Brassicaceae) and insect pests of canola. Can. Entomol. 2015, 147, 193–214.
  100. Cárcamo, H.; Olfert, O.; Dosdall, L.; Herle, C.; Beres, B.; Soroka, J. Resistance to cabbage seedpod weevil among selected Brassicaceae germplasm. Can. Entomol. 2007, 139, 658–669.
  101. Jewett, F.G. Camelina sativa: For biofuels and bioproducts. Ind. Crops 2015, 9, 157–170.
  102. Chesnais, Q.; Verzeaux, J.; Couty, A.; Le Roux, V.; Ameline, A. Is the oilseedcrop Camelina sativa a potential host for aphid pests? BioEnergy Res. 2015, 8, 91–99.
  103. Séguin-Swartz, G.; Eynck, C.; Gugel, R.K.; Strelkov, S.E.; Olivier, C.Y.; Li, J.L.; Klein-Gebbinck, H.; Borhan, H.; Caldwell, C.D.; Falk, K.C. Diseases of Camelina sativa (false flax). Can. J. Plant Pathol. 2009, 31, 375–386.
  104. Conn, K.L.; Tewari, J.P.; Dahiya, J.S. Resistance to Alternaria brassicae and phytoalexin-elicitation in rapeseed and other crucifers. Plant Sci. 1988, 56, 21–25.
  105. Sharma, G.; Kumar, V.D.; Haque, A.; Bhat, S.R.; Prakash, S.; Chopra, V.L. Brassica coenospecies: A rich reservoir for genetic resistance to leaf spot caused by Alternaria brassicae. Euphytica 2002, 125, 411–417.
  106. Jejelowo, O.A.; Conn, K.L.; Tewari, J.P. Relationship between conidial concentration, germling growth, and phytoalexin production by Camelina sativa leaves inoculated with Alternaria brassicae. Mycol. Res. 1991, 95, 928–934.
  107. Dixit, S.; Jangid, V.K.; Grover. Evaluation of physiological and molecular effect of variable virulence of Alternaria brassicae isolates in Brassica juncea, Sinapis alba and Camelina sativa. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2020, 155, 626–636.
  108. Westman, A.L.; Kresovich, S.; Dickson, M.H. Regional variation in Brassica nigra and other weedy crucifers for disease reaction to Alternaria brassicicola and Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris. Euphytica 1999, 106, 253–259.
  109. Sigareva, M.A.; Earle, E.D. Camalexin induction in intertribal somatic hybrids between Camelina sativa and rapid-cycling Brassica oleracea. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1999, 98, 164–170.
  110. Hansen, L.N. Intertribal somatic hybridization between rapid cycling Brassica oleracea L. and Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz. Euphytica 1998, 104, 173–179.
  111. Browne, L.M.; Conn, K.L.; Ayer, W.A.; Tewari, J.P. The camalexins: New phytoalexins produced in the leaves of Camelina sativa (Cruciferae). Tetrahedron 1991, 47, 3909–3914.
  112. Mir, Z.A.; Ali, S.; Shivaraj, S.M.; Bhat, J.A.; Singh, A.; Yadav, P.; Rawat, S.; Paplao, P.K.; Grover, A. Genome-wide identification and characterization of chitinase gene family in Brassica juncea and Camelina sativa in response to Alternaria brassicae. Genomics 2020, 112, 749–763.
  113. Li, H.; Barbetti, M.J.; Sivasithamparam, K. Hazard from reliance on cruciferous hosts as sources of major gene-based resistance for managing blackleg (Leptosphaeria maculans) disease. Field Crops Res. 2005, 91, 185–198.
  114. Paul, V.H.; Tewari, J.P.; Tewari, I.; Foller, I.; Henneken, M. Joint field experiment on cultivation, yield, and diseases of false flax (Camelina sativa) in Germany and Canada. IOBC WPRS BULLETIN 2000, 23, 205–208.
  115. Föller, I.; Henneken, M.; Paul, V.H. Occurrence of false flax diseases (Camelina sativa (L.) CRTZ.) in field trials in Germany in 1995 and 1996. Bull. OILB/SROP 1998, 21, 65–76.
  116. Putnam, M.L.; Serdani, M.; Ehrensing, D.; Curtis, M. Camelina infected by downy mildew (Hyaloperonospora camelinae) in the western United States: A first report. Plant Health Prog. 2009, 10, 40.
  117. Purnamasari, M.; Cawthray, G.R.; Barbetti, M.J.; Erskine, W.; Croser, J.S. Camalexin production in Camelina sativa is independent of cotyledon resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Plant Dis. 2015, 99, 1544–1549.
  118. Eynck, C.; Séguin-Swartz, G.; Clarke, W.E.; Parkin, I.A.P. Monolignol biosynthesis is associated with resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in Camelina sativa. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2012, 13, 887–899.
  119. Kobayashi-Leonel, R.; Mueller, D.; Harbach, C.; Tylka, G.; Leandro, L. Susceptibility of cover crop plants to Fusarium virguliforme, causal agent of soybean sudden death syndrome, and Heterodera glycines, the soybean cyst nematode. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2017, 72, 575–583.
  120. Conn, K.L.; Browne, L.M.; Tewari, J.P.; Ayer, W.A. Resistance to Rhizoctonia solani and presence of antimicrobial compounds in Camelina sativa roots. J. Plant Biochem. Biotechnol. 1994, 3, 125–130.
  121. Paul, V.H.; Badent, S.; Henneken, M.; Foller, I. Results on the occurrence and seed-borne nature of the new disease bacterial blight (Pseudomonas syringae pv. spec) on false flax (Camelina sativa). IOBC WPRS BULLETIN 2000, 23, 43–50.
  122. Broadbent, L.; Heathcote, G.D. Properties and host range of turnip crinkle, rosette and yellow mosaic viruses. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1958, 46, 585–592.
  123. Hein, A. Transmission of turnip yellow mosaic virus through seed of Camelina sativa (gold of pleasure). Z. Pflanzenkrankh. Pflanzenschutz/J. Plant Dis. Prot. 1984, 91, 549–551.
  124. Graichen, K. Zur Bedeutung von Virusbefall fuer denAnbau von Winterraps und Leindotter. Mitt. Biol. Bundesanst. Land-Forstwirtsch 1995, 310, 102–108.
  125. Chesnais, Q.; Mauck, K.E.; Bogaert, F.; Bamière, A.; Catterou, M.; Spicher, F.; Brault, V.; Tepfer, M.; Ameline, A. Virus effects on plant quality and vector behavior are species specific and do not depend on host physiological phenotype. J. Pest Sci. 2019, 92, 791–804.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Plant Sciences
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
John Cushman
,
dhurba Neupane
,
,
Juan Solomon
View Times: 763
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 02 Apr 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Academic Video Service
    Feedback