Abstract
Core Ideas Carinata growth and yield was influenced more by row spacing than seeding rate. Rows spaced at 36 cm maximized carinata yield. Carinata branching was favored by wider row spacing. Carinata ( Brassica carinata A. Braun) is an oilseed crop with potential as a winter crop in the southeastern United States to diversify crop rotations and provide biofuel production and livestock feed. The objective was to evaluate the effects of row spacing and seeding rate on carinata yield and oil composition. Field experiments were conducted in Jay and Quincy, FL, from 2013 to 2016 evaluating carinata growth, seed and oil yield, and oil composition grown in a factorial arrangement of four seeding rates (3, 6, 9, and 12 kg ha −1 ) and four row spacings (18, 36, 53, and 89 cm). No interactions between seeding rate and row spacing were detected. Seeding rate did not influence any of the variables studied. In contrast, row spacing affected seed and oil yield, branch production, and pods per plant. Seed yield (ranked from highest to lowest) was 2761, 2286, 1851, and 1572 kg ha −1 for rows spaced at 36, 18, 53, and 89 cm, respectively. Branching and pods per plant increased with row spacing. Neither seeding rate nor row spacing affected oil concentration and quality. Oil concentration averaged 40%, of which more than a third was erucic acid (C22:1). Protein concentration was 31%, and glucosinolate concentration was 93 μmol g −1 . The results of the present study demonstrated that carinata can be successfully grown in the southeastern United States, reaching yields and oil quality similar to those reported at other latitudes, and can be a source of biofuel, protein for animal feed, and cropping system diversification for growers.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
Seeding rate did not influence the studied carinata variables.
- Taxon
- Carinata
Brassica carinatat0 - Treatment
- Seeding ratee0
- Outcome
- variables studiede0
- Direction
- did not influencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Seeding rate did not influence any of the variables studied.”
t0“Carinata”
Claim · model-written summary
Row spacing affected carinata seed and oil yield, branch production, and pods per plant.
- Taxon
- CarinataBrassica carinatat0
- Outcome
- seed and oil yield, branch production, and pods per plante0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“row spacing affected seed and oil yield, branch production, and pods per plant.”
t0“Carinata”
Claim · model-written summary
Carinata seed yield was highest at 36 cm row spacing, reaching 2761 kg ha −1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Seed yield (ranked from highest to lowest) was 2761, 2286, 1851, and 1572 kg ha −1 for rows spaced at 36, 18, 53, and 89 cm, respectively.”
t0“Carinata”
Claim · model-written summary
Carinata branching and pods per plant increased with row spacing.
- Taxon
- CarinataBrassica carinatat0
- Treatment
- row spacinge0
- Outcome
- Branching and pods per plante0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Branching and pods per plant increased with row spacing.”
t0“Carinata”
Claim · model-written summary
Neither seeding rate nor row spacing affected carinata oil concentration and quality.
- Taxon
- CarinataBrassica carinatat0
- Treatment
- seeding rate nor row spacinge0
- Outcome
- oil concentration and qualitye0
- Direction
- Neithere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Neither seeding rate nor row spacing affected oil concentration and quality.”
t0“Carinata”
Claim · model-written summary
Carinata oil concentration averaged 40%.
- Taxon
- CarinataBrassica carinatat0
- Outcome
- Oil concentratione0
- Value
- 40%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Oil concentration averaged 40%, of which more than a third was erucic acid (C22:1).”
t0“Carinata”
Claim · model-written summary
More than a third of carinata oil was erucic acid.
- Taxon
- CarinataBrassica carinatat0
- Outcome
- erucic acide0
- Value
- more than a thirde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“of which more than a third was erucic acid (C22:1).”
t0“Carinata”
Claim · model-written summary
Carinata protein concentration was 31%.
- Taxon
- CarinataBrassica carinatat0
- Outcome
- Protein concentratione0
- Value
- 31%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Protein concentration was 31%, and glucosinolate concentration was 93 μmol g −1 .”
t0“Carinata”
Claim · model-written summary
Carinata glucosinolate concentration was 93 μmol g −1.
- Taxon
- CarinataBrassica carinatat0
- Outcome
- glucosinolate concentratione0
- Value
- 93 μmol g −1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Protein concentration was 31%, and glucosinolate concentration was 93 μmol g −1 .”
t0“Carinata”
The same questions in other papers
density · yield · Brassica carinata (Ethiopian mustard)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →density · quality: oil · Brassica carinata (Ethiopian mustard)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.