Montana Statewide Spring Canola Variety Trial

Disclaimer: The information given herein is supplied with the understanding that no discrimination is intended and no endorsement by the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station is implied. The results of data and studies are considered to be of a PRELIMINARY nature and should NOT be considered as a product endorsement or recommendation for commercial use.

Project Leaders

Simon Fordyce

Research Associate, CARC, Moccasin

Pat Carr

Superintendent & Associate Professor, CARC, Moccasin

Sally Dahlhausen

Research Assistant III, CARC, Moccasin

Project Personnel 

Jessica Torrion

Department Head, Superintendent, & Associate Professor, NWARC, Creston

Chengci Chen

Superintendent & Professor, EARC, Sidney

Peggy Lamb

Research Scientist, NARC, Havre

Justin Vetch

Superintendent & Assistant Professor, WTARC, Conrad

Dan Porter

Research Associate, NWARC, Creston

Eleri Haney

Research Associate, NARC, Havre

Tracy Runner

Research Assistant II, NARC, Havre

Introduction

The number of entries submitted to the Mon­tana Statewide Spring Canola Variety Trial by commercial seed suppliers has in­creased steadily in recent years, reflecting a strong in­terest in agronomic performance data for canola in Montana. In 2023, perfor­mance of 28 canola hybrids was evaluated at five loca­tions in the state (Moccasin, Sidney, Havre, Kalispell, and Conrad) under both irri­gated (Sidney) and dryland conditions (all other lo­cations).   

Objectives

The objective of the 2023 Montana Statewide Spring Canola Variety Trial was to evaluate the agronomic performance of available can­ola hybrids and breeding lines submitted by commercial entities at testing locations across the state. The information obtained from these trials is intended to provide canola growers in Montana with unbiased infor­mation regarding which canola hybrids are best suited to their specific growing condi­tions.

Methods

In spring 2023, 28 canola varieties (Brassica napus) with six herbicide tolerance systems (including two cultivars with no herbicide tol­erance) were submitted by nine sponsors (Table 1). Originally, 36 entries from 11 spon­sors were scheduled for testing. However, seed from eight cultivars did not arrive by the trial deadline. Ultimately, seed from 28 hy­brids was distributed to five testing locations.Testing was carried out by staff and faculty of Montana State University Agri­cultural Research Centers (ARCs). Testing sites included Central ARC (CARC) near Moccasin, Eastern ARC (EARC) near Sid­ney, Northern ARC (NARC) near Havre, Northwestern ARC (NWARC) near Kalispell, and Western Triangle ARC (WTARC) near Conrad. Different combinations of hybrids were tested at each location, although 10 cul­tivars were tested at all five locations. Plots were seeded at 9 PLS/ft², with a goal of 6 es­tablished plants/ft². Seed was treated prior to seeding with Lumiderm^® or Helix XTra^® for control of flea beetle. Select varieties were also treated with Prosper^® Evergol^®. Varieties were grown in small plots ranging from 70 to 100 ft² and were replicated four times in a randomized complete block design. Hybrids were compared for plant count (plants per square feet; ft^-2), canopy height (inches), flowering date (Julian day of year), lodging (%), shattering (%), seed yield (pounds per acre; lb ac^-1), test weight (pounds per bushel; lb bu^-1), and oil content (%). Lodging (Ka­lispell) and pod shatter (Kalispell, Moccasin) were ranked on a 0 to 100 scale, and plant counts were either ranked on a 0 to 100 scale based on cover (Sidney) or seedlings were counted within a known area (all other loca­tions). Grain yield was adjusted to 8.5% moisture. Seeding and harvest dates, ferti­lizer and pesticide applications, row spacing, tillage systems, and field crop histories were recorded for each location (Table 2). Meteor­ological and soils data were also recorded (Table 3).

Interpreting Results

Performance data are presented by location in Tables 4-9. The Least Significant Differ­ence (LSD) values are presented, allowing pairwise comparisons between treatment means (varieties). If the difference between two treatment values within a column ex­ceeds the LSD value, the entries are consid­ered statistically different from one another for that particular response variable. If the dif­ference does not exceed the LSD value, the entries are considered statistically equal. The LSD value is replaced with ‘NS’ for ‘non-significant’ when the probability value (P-Value) exceeds 0.05. In past years, LSDs were replaced with ‘NS’ when coefficients of variation (CVs) of seed yield exceeded 15% and were assumed to reflect yield data of poor quality. However, in 2023, it was ob­served that CVs were elevated due to dry conditions at pod fill rather than issues of data quality. Thus, in 2023, yield LSDs were reported ‘as is’ regardless of CVs. Within col­umns where P-Values are less than 0.05 and LSDs are not equal to ‘NS’, the value of the ‘top performer’ is bolded and underlined. The variety or varieties with the highest plant count, canopy height, yield, test weight, and oil content and the lowest Julian flowering date, lodging, and shatter scores are consid­ered top performers. If the difference be­tween the value of the top performer(s) and that of given variety within the same column does not exceed the LSD, then the latter is bolded, indicating statistical equivalence to the top performer. That is, a bolded yield value, for example, is equivalent to a bolded and underlined yield value, despite being arithmetically lower. Note that all hybrids at a given location were established in the same trial and weeds were managed uniformly across herbicide tolerance systems. In other words, imidazolinone herbicides were not used for in-crop weed control in plots contain­ing Clearfield® hybrids; nor glufosinates for in-crop weed control on Liberty Link® hy­brids; nor glyphosate on Roundup Ready® hybrids. Rather, glyphosate was applied for weed control either pre-plant or pre-emer­gence, depending on the location (Table 2) and weeds were controlled during the grow­ing season by means of hand-weeding and/or alternative chemicals, not by means of herbicides paired to tolerance systems repre­sented in the trial.

Results and Discussion

The following results are for informational purposes only. The presentation of data for the hybrids evaluated does not imply ap­proval or endorsement by Montana State University. Just 10 of the 28 cultivars were tested at all five locations (Table 1). Only these 10 cultivars are considered in compar­isons discussed in the next paragraph. Cultivars CP7250LL and CP9978TF were among the top performers for plant density in 3 out of 3 trials where differences were de­tected. CP9221TF, NC155 TF, and NCC1825/8-S were among the top perform­ers for flowering date in 5 out of 5 trials. CP7130LL was among the top performers for canopy height in 4 out of 5 trials where differ­ences were detected. CP7130LL, CP9221TF, and CP9978TF experienced sig­nificantly more lodging than the top performer in the only trial where differences were de­tected (Kalispell). CP7130LL, NC471 TF, and NCC101S experienced significantly more shattering than the top performers at Mocca­sin and Kalispell, the only locations where shattering differences were detected. CP9221TF and CP9978TF were among the top yielding cultivars in 3 of 5 trials. CP7250LL and NC471 TF were outper­formed by top yielders in all trials. NCC1825/8-S was among the top yielders in of 4 of 5 trials and was a top performer for test weight at 5 of 5 testing locations. NC471 TF was a top performer for oil content at 2 of 5 locations where differences were de­tected. No shattering or lodging was ob­served at Sid­ney, Conrad, or Havre. Despite in-crop insec­ticide treatments at Sid­ney, NC155 TF, NC471 TF, StarFlex, and NCC101S experi­enced disproportionate damage from flea beetle at the seedling stage, perhaps impact­ing seed yield. DK902TF, DKTF99SC, DKTFLL21SC, In­Vigor L340PC, and InVigor L345PC were not tested at all locations, how­ever, it is worth noting that these cultivars also experienced disproportionate flea beetle damage at Sid­ney. Seed yield data are sum­marized for all locations in Table 4. Cultivar performance at each location is summarized in Tables 5-9.

Future Plans

With continued support from the canola in­dustry and research center personnel, multi-location canola evaluations will continue in 2024.

Cultivar List

Table 1.  2023 cultivar list grouped by seed source, with shatter, herbicide, and disease resistance traits indicated, as well as testing location.

¹TF = TruFlex; LL = Liberty; TFLL = TruFlex + Liberty Link; RRLL = Roundup Ready + Liberty Link

²BL = Blackleg; CR = Clubroot

Multi-location Summaries

Management Information

Table 2. 2023 spring canola variety trial management information by location.

Meteorological and Soils Information

Table 3. 2023 soil and meteorological data by location. 

Yield Summary

Table 4. 2023 seed yield (in lbs/ac) summary by location.

Bold* = top performer within a column; Bold = equivalent to top performer within a column

Individual Location Summaries

Table 5. 2023 Spring canola variety trial, CARC, Moccasin, MT.

Bold* = top performer within a column; Bold = equivalent to top performer within a column

Table 6. 2023 Spring canola variety trial, EARC, Sidney, MT.

Bold* = top performer within a column; Bold = equivalent to top performer within a column

Table 7. 2023 Spring canola variety trial, NARC, Havre, MT.

Bold* = top performer within a column; Bold = equivalent to top performer within a column; ND = No Data. Seed yield was too low to obtain oil content measurement. 

Table 8. 2023 Spring canola variety trial, NWARC, Kalispell, MT.

Bold* = top performer within a column; Bold = equivalent to top performer within a column; NS= Not significant

Table 9. 2023 Spring canola variety trial, WTARC, Conrad, MT.

Bold* = top performer within a column; Bold = equivalent to top performer within a column; NS= Not significant