The Biology of Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz (Camelina)

A companion document to Directive 94-08 (Dir94-08), Assessment Criteria for Determining Environmental Safety of Plant with Novel Traits

Plant and Biotechnology Risk Assessment Unit
Plant Health Science Division,
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Ottawa, Ontario

Table of Contents

• 1 General Administrative Information
  • 1.1 Background
  • 1.2 Scope
• 2 Identity
  • 2.1 Name(s)
  • 2.2 Family
  • 2.3 Synonym(s)
  • 2.4 Common name(s)
  • 2.5 Taxonomy and genetics
  • 2.6 General description
• 3 Geographical Distribution
  • 3.1 Origin and history of introduction
  • 3.2 Native range
  • 3.3 Introduced range
  • 3.4 Potential range in North America
  • 3.5 Habitat
• 4 Biology
  • 4.1 Reproductive biology
  • 4.2 Breeding and seed production
  • 4.3 Cultivation and use as a crop
  • 4.4 Gene flow during commercial seed and biomass production
  • 4.5 Cultivated Camelina sativa as a volunteer weed
    • 4.5.1 Cultural/mechanical control
    • 4.5.2 Chemical control
    • 4.5.3 Integrated weed management
    • 4.5.4 Biological control
  • 4.6 Means of movement and dispersal
• 5 Related Species of Camelina sativa
  • 5.1 Inter-species/genus hybridization
  • 5.2 Potential for introgression of genetic information from Camelina sativa into relatives
  • 5.3 Summary of the ecology of relatives of Camelina sativa
• 6 Potential Interaction of Camelina sativa with Other Life Forms
• 7 References

General Administrative Information

1.1 Background

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency's Plant and Biotechnology Risk Assessment (PBRA) Unit is responsible for assessing the potential risk to the environment from the release of plants with novel traits (PNTs) into the Canadian environment. The PBRA Unit is also responsible for assessing the pest potential of plants imports and plant species new to Canada.

Risk assessments conducted by the PBRA Unit require biological information about the plant species being assessed. Therefore, these assessments can be done in conjunction with species-specific biology documents that provide the necessary biological information. When a PNT is assessed, these biology documents serve as companion documents to Dir94-08: Assessment Criteria for Determining Environmental Safety of Plants with Novel Traits.

1.2 Scope

This document is intended to provide background information on the biology of Camelina sativa, its identity, geographical distribution, reproductive biology, related species, the potential for gene introgression from C. sativa into relatives, and details of the life forms with which it interacts.

Such information will be used during risk assessments conducted by the PBRA Unit. Specifically, it may be used to characterize the potential risk from the release of the plant into the Canadian environment with regard to weediness/invasiveness, gene flow, plant pest properties, impacts on other organisms and impact on biodiversity.

2 Identity

2.1 Name(s)

Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz

2.2 Family

Brassicaceae (Cruciferae) family, commonly known as the mustard family.

2.3 Synonym(s)

Synonyms for Camelina sativa are C. parodii Ibara & La Porte, Myagrum sativum L. (basionym), C. caucasica (Sinskaya) Vassilcz, and C. glabrata (DC.) Fritsch ex N.W. Zinger (Francis and Warwick 2009; USDA, ARS 2011).

2.4 Common name(s)

Camelina sativa is commonly known as gold-of-pleasure, false flax, big-seed false flax, large-seeded false flax, Dutch flax, western false flax, wild flax (UK), German sesame, linseed dodder, caméline ciliée, Leindotter, camelina, camelina pilosa, caméline cultivée, caméline faux-lin, faux lin, faux lin de l'Ouest, lin bâtard, petit lin, sésame bâtard, and sésame d'Allemagne (Putnam et al. 1993; Darbyshire 2003; Francis and Warwick 2009; USDA, ARS 2011).

2.5 Taxonomy and genetics

The genus Camelina is a member of the tribe Camelineae of the mustard family (Brassicaceae) (Al-Shehbaz et al. 2006). In addition to Camelina spp., the Camelineae tribe includes the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. and the weedy species Capsella bursa pastoris (L.) Medik.

Genetic mapping of the genome of C. sativa suggests a polyploid or duplicated structure (Gehringer et al. 2006; Galasso et al. 2010), and characterization of two genes in the fatty acid biosynthesis pathway further suggests a hexaploid genome (Hutcheon et al. 2010). Chromosome counts have been reported as n=6 or 14 or 2n=12, 26 or 40, with 2n=40 being the most common count (Warwick et al. 1999; Mulligan 2002; Gehringer et al. 2006).

Taxonomic position (USDA, NRCS 2010):

• Kingdom: Plantae (plants)
• Subkingdom: Tracheobionta (vascular plants)
• Superdivision: Spermatophyta (seed plants)
• Division: Magnoliophyta (flowering plants)
• Class: Magnoliopsida (dicotyledons)
• Subclass: Dilleniidae
• Order: Capparales
• Family: Brassicaceae (mustard family)
• Tribe: Camelineae
• Genus: Camelina Crantz (false flax)
• Species: Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz (gold-of-pleasure)

2.6 General description

Camelina sativa is a herbaceous annual or winter annual with a taproot. Plants are erect and typically reach heights between 30 and 90 cm (Putnam et al. 1993; Francis and Warwick 2009). Rosette leaves are not lobed and are withered at flowering (Francis and Warwick 2009). Leaves on stems are alternate, lance-shaped, lacking a petiole, and usually clasping. They are typically 2 to 8 cm long and 2 to 10 mm wide and may be smooth or have a few, primarily forked, hairs (Francis and Warwick 2009). Stems are single, typically branched above, and become woody as they mature. Stems may be smooth or may be sparsely hairy (Putnam et al. 1993; Francis and Warwick 2009). Flowers are small and pale yellow or greenish-yellow in colour. The four petals are spatulate, 4 to 5 mm in length, the four sepals are erect and the six stamens are in three pairs of unequal length (Francis and Warwick 2009). Inflorescences are racemes with the flowers in terminal clusters and lack bracts (Francis and Warwick 2009). The pear-shaped silicles are smooth and leathery, 7 to 9 mm long and superfically resemble the bolls of flax (Francis and Warwick 2009). Seeds are small, pale yellow-brown, generally 2 to 3 mm long, and are rough, having a deeply ridged surface (Putnam et al. 1993; Francis and Warwick 2009). Seeds typically contain 38 to 43% oil and 27 to 32% protein (Gugel and Falk 2006).

Camelina sativa closely resembles two congeners also found in Canada, C. microcarpa Andrz. ex DC. and C. alyssum (Mill.) Thell. Generally, C. microcarpa stems are hairier than those of C. sativa, and the leaves on the stems are pubescent primarily with simple trichomes (Al-Shehbaz and Beilstein 2010). Camelina microcarpa can be further differentiated from C. sativa by the size of both silicles and seeds, which are 5 to 7 mm and 0.8 to 1.4 mm long, respectively, for C. microcarpa (Francis and Warwick 2009). Camelina sativa may be distinguished from C. alyssum based on the leaves, which for C. alyssum are deeply toothed or lobed, while for C. sativa they are only shallowly toothed. In addition, C. alyssum silicles are shaped as a flattened sphere as opposed to the pear-shaped silicles of C. sativa (Francis and Warwick 2009).

3 Geographical Distribution

3.1 Origin and history of introduction

Camelina spp. likely originated in southeastern Europe and southwestern Asia (Francis and Warwick 2009), although the exact region remains uncertain. A molecular analysis of a number of C. sativa accessions of Russian-Ukrainian origin revealed that this region is a hotspot for genetic diversity in C. sativa, suggesting that it could be the centre of origin for this species (Ghamkhar et al. 2010).

Archaeological evidence suggests that the cultivation of camelina began in Neolithic times in southeast Europe, and by the Iron Age camelina was an important crop throughout most of Europe (Knörzer 1978). Cultivation declined during the Middle Ages (Knörzer 1978), but is still reported as late as the middle of the 20th century (Zubr 1997).

Camelina was likely introduced to North America as a contaminant in seeds of flax or other crops (Putnam et al. 1993; Francis and Warwick 2009). In Canada, camelina was first reported in Manitoba in 1863, where it was deliberately introduced, and subsequently it has been found as far west as the Peace River District and as far north as the Northwest Territories by the early to mid-1900s (Francis and Warwick 2009). Camelina has periodically been considered as a potential crop in North America (Porcher 1863; Plessers et al. 1962; Downey 1971; Robinson 1987), but although cultivation on a small scale has been ongoing for some time, significant commercial cultivation began only in the late 1990s.

3.2 Native range

3.3 Introduced range

3.4 Potential range in North America

Camelina sativa has been reported to USDA Plant Hardiness Zones 1 through 9 (Magarey et al. 2008). This suggests that the potential range of C. sativa includes most or all of North America.

3.5 Habitat

Camelina sativa can be found growing in natural prairies, grain, flax and alfalfa fields, open woods, lakeshore, roadsides, railways, and waste places as well as around elevators (Scoggan 1978; Warwick et al. 1999; Mulligan 2002). Camelina grows best in cold semi-arid climate zones in steppes or prairies (Francis and Warwick 2009). It is able to grow in most soil types (Porcher 1863; Anderson and Olsson 1950; Gugel and Falk 2006).

When cultivated on marginal lands, Camelina is generally reported to grow well (Porcher 1863; Putnam et al. 1993; Gehringer et al. 2006; Ehrensing and Guy 2008). In particular, camelina can tolerate drought conditions (Zubr 1997; Gugel and Falk 2006; Francis and Warwick 2009), although severe droughts, particularly during sensitive growth stages such as flowering can have a negative impact (Vollmann et al. 1996). Camelina shows some cold tolerance in that it is able to germinate at low temperatures and seedlings are able to tolerate frost (Plessers et al. 1962; Robinson 1987; Putnam et al. 1993; Ehrensing and Guy 2008), although this has not been fully characterized. For some varieties, seedlings have been observed to survive temperatures as low as -11°C without damage (Plessers et al. 1962; Ehrensing and Guy 2008). A comparison of several growth parameters for camelina and canola under varying saline concentrations revealed that camelina does not perform as well as Brassica napus L. under moderate to high saline levels (Stepphuhn et al. 2010); however, only a single variety of camelina was tested, and therefore other varieties with greater salt tolerance may exist.

4 Biology

4.1 Reproductive biology

Camelina reproduces by means of seed and does not exhibit any vegetative reproduction (Francis and Warwick 2009). Rates of outcrossing for camelina have not been documented as low (0.09-0.28%) (Walsh et al. 2012). Camelina is reported to be primarily self-pollinating (Plessers et al. 1962; Zubr 1997; Mulligan 2002), but cross-pollination mediated by insects, and in particular bees, has also been suggested (Blamey and Grey-Wilson 1989; Corbet et al. 1991; Milbau and Stout 2008). A study conducted in Sweden measured the quantitative distribution of the worker bumblebee (Bombus spp.) population on different agricultural crops and found that camelina was visited by bumblebees at a frequency similar to flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) and rapeseed (Brassica napus var. oleifera) (Fridén 1972).

In North America, camelina generally flowers from May to June (Francis & Warwick 2009). The flowering and pollination of camelina have been described by Tedin (1922) and Schultze-Motel (1939). The flowers are reported to be protogynous and may open at different hours throughout the day, but the majority open by mid-morning. One to two hours prior to the opening of the flower, the anthers are ripe, although they may open only when the flower does. Once the flower does open, the four longer stamens have reached the same height as the stigma, and the anthers have burst open. The anthers on the two shorter stamens will open only a few hours after the flowers open. At night, the closing of the flower causes the inner anthers of the four longer stamens to press against the stigma. At this point, the anthers have less pollen but are not yet empty. The next day, the flower will open again. The anthers on the longer stamens will be empty, while those on the two shorter stamens may still contain some pollen. On this second day, the petals will begin to wilt and after another two to three days both petals and sepals will fall off.

4.2 Breeding and seed production

Given the sporadic, low level cultivation of camelina that has occurred in North America in the past, there has been little interest in camelina breeding until recently. The observed variability in the crop suggests that it can be improved through breeding (Budin et al. 1995; Vollmann et al. 1996; Schuster and Friedt 1998; Gehringer et al. 2006; Vollmann et al. 2007).

Some of the key traits that are the focus of camelina breeding, which we can expect to see in Canadian germplasm in the future, include the improvement of quality traits, agronomic performance, and in some instances disease resistance. Quality traits include increased seed size, increased oil content, modified oil composition and decreased levels of anti-nutrients such as erucic acid and glucosinolates (Vollmann et al. 1996; Büchsenschütz-Nothdurft et al. 1998; Zubr 2003a; Vollmann et al. 2005; Gehringer et al. 2006; Pilgeram et al. 2007; Vollmann et al. 2007). Modifications to the fatty acid profile will likely depend on the desired end use of the oil (Putnam et al. 1993; Pilgeram et al. 2007). For use as a lubricant, higher levels of hydroxy fatty acids will be favoured. For food uses, increased levels of α-linolenic acid may be favoured to increase nutritive value. Alternatively, decreased levels of α-linolenic acid and other unsaturated fatty acids may be favoured to improve the oxidative stability of the oil. Increases in antioxidants, such as γ-tocopherol, could also help to improve the stability of the oil. Agronomic performance traits that will be targeted include increased seed size, resistance to lodging, increased competitive ability (e.g., broader leaves), and herbicide resistance (Zubr 1997; Zubr 2003a; Pilgeram et al. 2007). Disease resistance breeding will likely include resistance to downy mildew (Peronospora parasitica (Pers.:Fr.) Fr.), white rust (Albugo candida (Pers.) Kuntze), and sclerotinia stem rot (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary) (Vollmann et al. 2001; Zubr 2003a; Pilgeram et al. 2007).

While many breeding efforts are employing conventional crossing to develop camelina, genetic mapping of camelina has also begun for molecular breeding (Vollmann et al. 2005; Gehringer et al. 2006). Mutational breeding of camelina is also being explored (Vollmann et al. 1997; Büchsenschütz-Nothdurft et al. 1998). More recently, genetic engineering of camelina plants has been reported (Lu and Kang 2008) for the purpose of producing novel fatty acids as well as other biochemicals such as bioplastics, primarily for industrial applications. In 2014, a field-based evaluation was initiated to synthesize omega-3 fish oils in seeds of transgenic camelina via the heterologous reconstitution of the omega-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid biosynthetic pathway. Data collected in the evaluation supported the feasibility of producing fish oils in genetically modified crops (Usher et al. 2015).

Currently, in Canada, camelina seeds do not require variety registration. Varietal purity standards for pedigreed seed crop production of Foundation, Registered and Certified seed have been developed by the Canadian Seed Growers' Association (Canadian Seed Growers' Association 2010).

4.3 Cultivation and use as a crop

Camelina is usually seeded in the spring (Gugel and Falk 2006; Urbaniak et al. 2008b). Winter seeding is also being investigated (Robinson 1987; Putnam et al. 1993), although it is unclear at this time if this will be a common practice. Seeds are planted at a shallow depth with good soil contact (Putnam et al. 1993; McVay and Lamb 2007; Ehrensing and Guy 2008). Seeds can be drilled using packer wheels to achieve this, or if broadcast, a roller harrow can be used to mix seed and soil together (McVay and Lamb 2007). Use of both a seed drill and a forage seeder to sow camelina were found to provide good crop establishment, but the forage seeder provided a better crop stand compared to the seed drill (Urbaniak et al. 2008b). Generally, the seeding and harvesting equipment used for canola and mustard crops are suitable for camelina (Gugel and Falk 2006).

The recommended sowing rate ranges from 3 to 7 kg/ha (approximately 250 to 600 seeds/ m²), with the objective of producing a stand density in the range of 125 to 200 plants/m² (Zubr 1997; McVay and Lamb 2007; Johnson et al. 2008; Urbaniak et al. 2008b; Johnson et al. 2011). Higher seeding rates can increase the competitiveness of the crop and decrease time to maturity (Johnson et al. 2008, 2011). The rate of emergence for camelina has been observed to range from 12% to 70%, with an average of approximately 40%, which is comparable to canola (Thomas 2003; Johnson et al. 2007, 2008; Urbaniak et al. 2008a; Urbaniak et al. 2008b; Johnson et al. 2011). As with other brassicas, it is generally recommended that camelina not be grown in a field more than once every three to four years (McVay and Lamb 2007; Ehrensing and Guy 2008). In semi-arid wheat growing regions of the Great Plains, camelina could potentially replace fallow periods in typical small grains rotations (Lafferty et al. 2009). Due to its short growing season, camelina also has the potential to be incorporated into double cropping systems, particularly in warmer climates such as the southern United States, however is not a frequent practice at higher latitudes (Putnam et al. 1993; Groeneveld et al. 2014).

While it has been suggested that camelina can grow without fertilizer application, this will ultimately depend on the nutrient levels in the soil. Studies have shown that yield is improved through the application of nitrogen and the recommended application rate ranges from 60 to 100 kg N ha^-1 (Zubr 1997; Crowley and Fröhlich 1998; Ehrensing and Guy 2008; Johnson et al. 2008; Urbaniak et al. 2008a; Johnson et al. 2011). Depending on soil levels, application of phosphorous and sulphur may also improve yield (Jackson 2008); however, at this time the optimal application rate has not been determined, and in a 2013 field study conducted in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, camelina did not respond to applied sulphur at any test site (Wysocki et al. 2013). In the absence of further information, fertilizer application for camelina may be modelled after canola production practices.

Weed control for camelina may be challenging due to its sensitivity to most herbicides. Camelina does show tolerance to the Group I acetyl CoA carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors and dinitroaniline herbicides, such as ethalfluralin, pendimethalin and trifluralin (Johnson et al. 2007, 2008, 2011). In Canada, Assure® II (quizalofop-p-ethyl) has received a User Requested Minor Use Label Expansion for the control of annual and perennial grasses in camelina. A minor use label expansion is also currently being sought for Roundup (glyphosate) for pre-harvest weed control. In the United States, Poast® (sethoxydim) has been registered for use on camelina, also for the control of grass weeds.

Camelina has also displayed tolerance to soil applied group 3 herbicides ethalfluralin (N-ethyl-α-α-α-trifluoro-N-[2-methylallyl]-2,6-dinitro-p-toluidine) and trifluralin (2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-4-[trifluoromethyl] aniline) (Johnson et al. 2008; Walsh et al. 2013). Tolerances of camelina to preemergence applications of quinclorac, S-metolachlor, dimethenamid-P, pendimethalin, and pyroxasulfone have also been evaluated at two sites in Montana. Results displayed quinclorac as a potential herbicide for use in camelina, with preemergence applications at 280 to 840 g ai ha-1 not significantly injuring the plant and having no detrimental effect on plant density, biomass, flowering, and yield. Dimethenamid-P, S-metolachlor, pendimethalin also displayed an acceptable level of crop safety at lower use rates (Jha and Stougaard 2013).

Pre-seeding tillage is a means of weed control. However, it has been suggested that camelina shows good weed competitiveness, especially when plant stands are dense, although this has not been directly measured. This may in part be due to the early emergence and rapid growth of this crop, as well as its cold tolerance, which allows it to be planted early (Putnam et al. 1993; Ehrensing and Guy 2008). As a result, it may be possible to grow camelina with minimal tillage and pre-emergence weed control (Putnam et al. 1993). If weeds are problematic, the best weed control practices will include the selection of fields that do not have a high weed pressure, establishment of dense, uniform stands, and if necessary, the use of fallow techniques (McVay and Lamb 2007).

The seeds of weeds such as prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola L.), stinkweed (Thlaspi arvense L.) and shepherd's purse (Capsella bursa pastoris) are difficult to separate from camelina seeds due to similarities in size and could result in downgrading for pedigreed seed crops (Canadian Seed Growers' Association 2010). Other weeds that could be problematic include Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad. as well as volunteer canola plants. Overall, broadleaf weeds are likely to be the most difficult to control during cultivation.

Few problems with insect infestations have been reported and therefore insect control measures are not usually undertaken (Robinson 1987; Zubr 1997; Gugel and Falk 2006; Ehrensing and Guy 2008). An investigation of interactions between camelina and insect pests common to canola on the Canadian prairies (including flea beetles, root maggots, diamondback moths, bertha armyworms, and leafhoppers) concluded that camelina is unlikely to support high populations of any of these insect pests. It was also concluded that other canola insect pests such as grass hoppers, cutworms and Lygus Hahn species were unlikely to cause any problems (Soroka et al. 2014).

Camelina is a short-season crop that matures in 85 to 100 days (Putnam et al. 1993; Gugel and Falk 2006; Ehrensing and Guy 2008). Camelina can be swathed for field drying prior to harvest, or it can be direct combined if varieties that are resistant to shattering are used (Zubr 1997; McVay and Lamb 2007; Pilgeram et al. 2007; Ehrensing and Guy 2008). Swathing is recommended if there is a high degree of lodging or green weeds in the field (McVay and Lamb 2007). Swathing should be done when two-thirds of the pods turn from green to yellow (Ehrensing and Guy 2008). Although it is recommended to harvest camelina immediately, at least one study has demonstrated that there is no loss of yield if the crop is left to stand up to a month after maturity (Crowley and Fröhlich 1998).

Historically, camelina has been cultivated as a source of food and animal feed. In addition, the oil has been used as lamp fuel as well as in various industrial applications and the stems were valued for their fibre (Porcher 1863; Sturtevant 1919; Francis and Warwick 2009).

Currently, camelina oil is being used as a feedstock for the production of biofuel (McVay and Lamb 2007; El Bassam 2010). The primary market for the biofuel includes the commercial airline industry as well as the military. A number of other industrial uses for camelina oil have been proposed, including use in paints, inks, soaps, varnishes, lubricants, cosmetics and as a plastic additive (Bonjean and Le Goffic 1999; McVay and Lamb 2007; Pilgeram et al. 2007; El Bassam 2010).

Due to high levels of essential fatty acids, particularly the omega-3 fatty acid α-linolenic acid, camelina oil is also being investigated as a food ingredient (Ní Eidhin et al. 2003; Zubr 2003b; Abramovic and Abram 2005; Ní Eidhin and O'Beirne 2010). In 2010, Health Canada approved the use of cold-pressed, unrefined camelina oil as a food ingredient in Canada. In some eastern European countries, camelina oil is used in folk medicine for the treatment of burns, wounds, eye inflammations, as well as to cure stomach ulcers and as a tonic (Rode 2002).

Several studies have demonstrated the applicability of using camelina meal as a feed component for broiler and laying chickens, beef and dairy cattle, and fish such as salmon, with the added benefit of increasing the omega-3 content of the resulting meat, eggs and dairy products (McVay and Lamb 2007; Peiretti and Meineri 2007; Pilgeram et al. 2007; Aziza et al. 2010; Bell et al. 2010). In the U.S., camelina meal extracted is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, for use in the diets of cattle fed in confinement for slaughter, broiler chickens and laying hens at an inclusion rate of no more than 10% of the diet. In Canada, camelina meal cold-pressed, non-solvent extracted is approved by the Animal Feed Division of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for use in the diets of broiler chickens in an amount not to exceed 12% of the total diet, and recently this ingredient has been approved for use in the diets of laying hens in an amount not to exceed 10% of the total diet. In addition, mechanically extracted camelina oil has recently been approved for use in feeds for juvenile salmonid fish in an amount not to exceed 13% of the total diet.

4.4 Gene flow during commercial seed and biomass production

In field trials conducted in Alberta, pollen-mediated gene flow from transgenic camelina to a conventional cultivar was observed to a maximum of 0.8% (858 hybrids from 340,000 seeds screened). Outcrossing was reported to rapidly decline with increasing distance, with a 50% reduction in pollen-mediated gene flow 1.5 m from the pollen source, and a 99% reduction at 10.0 m from the pollen source. Outcrossing was also affected by flowering synchrony and planting date (Walsh et al. 2015).

4.5 Cultivated Camelina sativa as a volunteer weed

As with all crops, some camelina seed will be lost during harvest, remaining in the field to become volunteers in subsequent crops. However, it is likely that any volunteers can be easily controlled. In one report, camelina volunteers were never observed to be a problem in over thirty years of field research (Robinson 1987).

Shattering could contribute to harvest losses (Plessers et al. 1962), but to date shattering losses have been reported to be low (Gugel and Falk 2006; Johnson et al. 2007; Ehrensing and Guy 2008). The small seed size of camelina may also contribute to harvest losses.

Cultivated camelina seeds are reported to show no dormancy (Robinson 1987; Ehrensing and Guy 2008).

Variable results have been observed in seed burial experiments, and it remains unclear how long camelina seeds will persist in the seed bank. In Saskatchewan, camelina seeds distributed throughout a 2.5 inch layer of soil and buried in November did not germinate until the subsequent spring, at which point almost all of the seeds germinated during the month of April (Chepil 1946). Studies conducted in Alberta observed that despite high fecundity and large seed losses at harvest, C. sativa possessed limited seed bank persistence and is unlikely to become a weed of agricultural areas. Viable seed persisted for less than 15 months at all depths, sites, and years tested. Any volunteer populations declined over time and were nearly extinct after 2 years under conventional production practices, including broadleaf herbicide applications and zero-tillage practices (Walsh et al. 2013). Conversely, in a burial experiment conducted in southeastern France using wild camelina seeds, after two and a half years buried at a 10 cm depth, 85.8% of camelina seeds had survived (Saatkamp et al. 2009). Therefore, under some conditions it is possible that camelina seeds may persist in the seed bank.

It is likely that the majority of camelina seeds will germinate a few weeks after the first significant rainfall provided there is good soil contact (McVay and Lamb 2007). This suggests that most camelina seeds lost during harvest will likely germinate in the fall; however, some seeds may persist in the seed bank. Due to their frost tolerance, seedlings that germinate in the fall could potentially survive until the following season, depending on the climatic conditions in the area where they are growing.

4.5.1 Cultural/mechanical control

In order to minimize the number of potential camelina volunteers, efforts should be made to reduce harvest losses. This can be done by properly setting combines and sealing any leaks.

4.5.2 Chemical control

Due to the high sensitivity of camelina to most herbicides, volunteers can be easily controlled by herbicides. The group 4 herbicides 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid (MCPA) are registered for the control of camelina weeds. Chemical fallow systems have also been used in the fall (McVay and Lamb 2007).

4.5.3 Integrated weed management

Integrated weed management (IWM) employs a combination of cultural, mechanical and chemical weed control approaches to manage weed populations and maximize crop yields. IWM strategies have not yet been developed for the control of camelina volunteers, but it is likely that such an approach will be useful. Practices such as early seeding, increased seeding rates, and use of competitive cultivars will be applicable..

4.5.4 Biological control

Biological control methods for camelina volunteers have not been developed.

4.6 Means of movement and dispersal

The means of movement and dispersal of camelina seeds are unclear at this time. Camelina seeds might be dispersed by organisms that consume the seeds. In Ireland, birds have been observed to eat camelina seeds (Crowley and Fröhlich 1998). Similarly, in northern Switzerland, slugs were found to consume camelina seeds, and germinating seeds were sometimes observed in slug feces (Kollmann and Bassin 2001).

Davis (2010) demonstrated that the risk of establishment of camelina in rangeland ecosystems in southwest Montana was low. Camelina plants were found to survive to establishment only in plots that were subjected to mechanical disturbance. Therefore, although camelina seeds may be dispersed from the site of cultivation, their ability to become established may depend upon the receiving environment.

5 Related Species of Camelina sativa

Camelina sativa is able to interbreed with its congeners in the Camelina genus. In addition to C. sativa, C. microcarpa. and C. alyssum are also present in Canada and the United States while C. rumelica Velen. can be found in the United States, but has not been observed in Canada (USDA, NRCS 2010). Camelina alyssum is not very widespread in Canada, having been found only in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba where it was identified in prairie fields and on roadsides (Warwick et al. 1999; Francis and Warwick 2009). In contrast, C. microcarpa has been found in all of the provinces as well as Yukon (Warwick et al. 1999; Francis and Warwick 2009). Much like C. sativa, C. microcarpa can be found growing in grain, flax, corn and hay fields, prairies, pastures, grasslands, rangeland, low slopes, flats and sloughs as well as along roadsides, railways and wharves and in waste places (Warwick et al. 1999).

Outside of the Camelina genus, other species closely related to camelina with the potential to interbreed can be found within the Camelineae tribe. Those found in Canada include Arabidopsis lyrata L. and A. thaliana, Capsella bursa pastoris, Neslia paniculata (L.) Desv., Erysimum spp., and Turritis glabra L. The following details the distribution and habitat for each of these species in Canada, according to Warwick et al. (1999).

Arabidopsis lyrata can be found in the Northwest Territories, British Columbia, the three Prairie Provinces, Ontario and Quebec. It grows on dry to moist wooded hillsides, rocky ledges, cliffs and islets, thickets, woods, banks, beaches, dunes, and shores of streams, rivers and lakes.

Arabidopsis thaliana has been found in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. It grows on open slopes and in woods, gardens, fields, meadows and banks. It can also be found on alkaline flats, flood plains, sloughs, beaches and shores, beside roads, railways and in waste places.

Capsella bursa pastoris can be found in every province and territory in Canada. It grows in grain, hay, canola, potato and strawberry fields, pastures, meadows, orchards, vineyards, gardens, woods, flats, beaches and hotsprings. It can also be found around docks, fish houses and beside roads, railways and in waste places.

Ten Erysimum spp. have been found growing in Canada. Several have a limited distribution, including E. angustatum Rydb., found only in Yukon, E. arenicola S. Watson and E. capitatum (Douglas ex Hook.) Greene, both found only in British Columbia, and E. pallasii (Pursh) Fernald (purple rocket), found in the three Territories as well as British Columbia and Alberta. All four species grow primarily in arctic and/or alpine habitats and are therefore unlikely to be found growing near C. sativa, with the possible exception of E. capitatum, which Darbyshire (2003) reports as a rare agricultural weed in Canada. Erysimum repandum L. similarly has a limited distribution, being found only in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, where it grows on farms and on lakeshores. Erysimum asperum (Nutt.) DC. (western wallflower) can be found from British Columbia to Quebec on hillsides, sandhills, dunes and riverbanks, in shortgrass prairies, rangelands, and by roads as well as in rocky places and on sandstone cliffs. Erysimum cheiranthoides L. (wormseed mustard) can be found throughout Canada, except for Nunavut and Labrador, and grows in grain, potato, mustard, and clover fields, prairies, woods, flats and sloughs and on hillsides, cliffs and shores and is often found beside elevators and in waste places. Erysimum coarctatum Fernald has been found in Yukon, the Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland and grows on slopes, sandbanks and along railways as well as on disturbed calcareous cliffs and gravels. Erysimum hieracifolium L. (grey rocket) can be found growing in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. It grows in pastures, fields, dumpsites, and locks and on river banks as well as on gypsum slopes, by roads and railways and in waste places. Erysimum inconspicuum (S. Watson) MacMill. (small-flowered prairie-rocket) has been found from British Columbia to Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. It grows on dry slopes, ridges, benches, streambeds, lake margins, banks, and flats, in prairies, grasslands, open woods, pastures, sagebrush, fields and burrows, and by roads and railways.

Neslia paniculata is found throughout Canada except for Nunavut and Labrador. It can be found growing in grain, alfalfa and potato fields, wooded areas that have been cut-over, and gardens as well as roadsides, railways, waste places and near elevators.

Turritis glabra has been identified in Yukon, British Columbia, the Prairie Provinces, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. It is typically found growing in crop fields, gardens, pastures, grasslands, woods, thickets, meadows, streamsides and on slopes, banks, bluffs, and cliffs. It has also been found on roadsides and in waste places.

Other members of the Brassicaceae family outside of the Camelineae tribe are more distantly related to camelina and are therefore less likely to be able to interbreed. However, several members of the Brassicaceae family, due to their importance and abundance as agricultural crops in Canada, require further consideration. These include Brassica napus (oilseed rape, canola, rapeseed), B. rapa L. (turnip rape, bird-rape, canola, rapeseed, turnip), B. oleracea L. (cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower), B. juncea (L.) Czern. (canola, oriental and brown mustard), Sinapis alba L. (white/yellow mustard), and Raphanus sativus L. (radish). Wild or feral populations of these species can also be found growing throughout Canada. The following details the distribution and habitat for each of these species in Canada, according to Warwick et al. (1999).

Brassica napus can be found growing throughout Canada except for Yukon and Nunavut. It grows in cultivated and abandoned wheat, oat, potato and rape fields, orchards as well as beside roads and railways, in waste places and near elevators.

Brassica rapa is also found throughout Canada except for Nunavut. It can be found growing in grain, hay, mustard, vegetable, potato, corn, bulb and sugar beet fields, in open woods, meadows, ballast, on riverbanks, slopes and beaches as well as by roads and in waste places.

Brassica oleracea is a rare escape from cultivation that has been found growing in British Columbia, established around driftwood, as well as in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward Island. It is found mainly in fields, beside roads and in waste places.

Brassica juncea has been found throughout Canada except for Yukon, Nunavut and Labrador. It is typically found in cultivated wheat, oat, potato and rape fields, and orchards, as well as by roads and railways, in waste places, and near feedmills and elevators.

Sinapis alba is again quite widespread throughout Canada, although it has not been identified in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Nova Scotia or Newfoundland. It grows in fields, disturbed prairies, on farms and irrigated land, by roads and railways and in waste places.

Raphanus sativus is found throughout Canada except for Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Labrador. It grows in gardens, grain, canola and corn fields, and orchards, on flats and riverbanks, by wharves and on roadsides.

5.1 Inter-species/genus hybridization

Camelina sativa is thought to intercross with many of its congeners in the Camelina genus, in particular C. microcarpa and C. alyssum (Al-Shehbaz 1987). In addition, while intergeneric crosses have been made between C. sativa and its relatives in the Brassica genus, all have required human intervention in the form of protoplast fusion. Table 1 summarizes reports of interspecific and intergeneric experimental crosses between C. sativa and its relatives. Table 2 summarizes reports of somatic hybridization between C. sativa and its relatives.

5.2 Potential for introgression of genetic information from Camelina sativa into relatives

There is potential for crossing, and therefore gene introgression, from C. sativa into its congeners in Canada. Camelina sativa and C. alyssum (as C. macrocarpa) have been reported as completely interfertile (Tedin 1922). Recent experimental crosses performed by Séguin-Swartz et al. (2010) confirmed Tedin's report as well as demonstrated the ability of C. sativa and C. microcarpa to successfully hybridize. However, at this time, the mophology, fertility and genomic composition of such hybrids have not been described. The transfer of genetic information from C. sativa into the fourth North American Camelina species, C. rumelica, is highly unlikely. Camelina rumelica is not found in Canada (USDA, NRCS 2010) and seed obtained from experimental crosses between the progeny of C. sativa and C. rumelica was mostly shrivelled and non-viable (Séguin-Swartz et al. 2010).

Recent studies have also investigated the potential for introgression of genetic information from C. sativa into other genera (Séguin-Swartz et al. 2013, Julié-Galau et al. 2014; Novozyhlov and Blume 2014; Martin et al. 2015). Sexual crosses between A. thaliana and C. sativa were unsuccessful (Table 1). Seed obtained from experimental crosses between the progeny of Capsella bursa-pastoris and Camelina sativa were male and female sterile (Table 1; Julié-Galau et al. 2014; Martin et al. 2015). Seed obtained from experimental crosses between Cardamine hirsuta and Camelina sativa resulted in embryos that aborted at an early stage of development (Table 1; Julié-Galau et al. 2014). Hybrid combinations using C. sativa as the female parent have not yet been tested, and may still be relevant to gene flow considerations (Julié-Galau et al. 2014; Martin et al. 2015). In Ukraine, occasional natural hybridization, but no backcrossing, was observed between C. sativa and wild relatives (Novozyhlov and Blume 2014).

Sexual crosses between C. sativa and several Brassica spp. were unsuccessful (Table 1). Fewer pollen grains from C. sativa were found on stigma of B. napus, B. juncea, and B. rapa compared to self-pollinations, suggesting that pollen does not readily adhere, and pollen that did adhere had not germinated even 48 hours after pollination (Séguin-Swartz 2008). When C. sativa was the female parent, pollen from B. napus, B. juncea, and B. rapa was observed to germinate, but pollen tubes did not extend past the stigmatic tissue to penetrate the ovary (Séguin-Swartz 2008). While there are reports of successful protoplast fusion between C. sativa and B. carinata (Narasimhulu et al. 1994), B. napus (Müller and Sonntag 2000; Jiang et al. 2009), and B. oleracea (Hansen 1998; Sigareva and Earle 1999), the resulting hybrids typically lacked vigour. Overall, sexual hybridization between C. sativa and Brassica spp. in the absence of human mediation is thought to be highly improbable. This is not surprising given the large phylogenetic distance between these species that would likely result in genetic incompatibilities (Hansen 1998).

5.3 Summary of the ecology of relatives of Camelina sativa

All three Camelina species found in Canada have been considered weedy, found primarily in crop fields, along roadsides and in waste places (Warwick et al. 1999; Darbyshire 2003). In North America, C. microcarpa is the most widespread (USDA, NRCS 2010). However, in prairie weed surveys conducted over a thirty year period starting in the 1970s, Camelina spp. were not ranked very high, always being below the 100th most common weed, and by the 2000s, when 3806 agricultural fields were surveyed following application of in crop herbicides, they were located in less than 0.1% of agricultural fields surveyed, with an average density of 0.8 plants per square meter in the single occurrence fields (Leeson et al. 2005). There was no indication that Camelina spp. were increasing in abundance or distribution in agricultural fields. Camelina spp. were previously classified as secondary noxious weed seeds on the Weed Seeds Order, 2005. In 2016, the Weed Seeds Order was updated and Camelina spp. were removed (Government of Canada 2016). Their removals was supported through stakeholder consultation, given that Camelina spp. are now grown as a crop in Western Canada and are not considered to be aggressive or problematic weed species (Canadian Food Inspection Agency 2013).

An accession of C. microcarpa with resistance to ALS-inhibiting herbicides was identified in Dufur, Oregon, in 1998. The plant showed resistance to chlorosulfuron, metsulfuron as well as cross-resistance to other sulfonylurea, sulfonylaminocarbonyl-triazolinone, imidazolinone and triazolopyrimidine herbicies (Hanson et al. 2004). Resistance of this nature could make control of C. microcarpa in agricultural settings more challenging, especially in areas where wheat is grown, as these regions rely heavily on ALS-inhibiting herbicides. However, the resistant C. microcarpa accession was easily controlled with a mixture of bromoxynil, MCPA and dicamba, indicating that there are herbicide control options that remain (Hanson et al. 2004). Herbicide mixes and rotation strategies can be applied to limit the development of herbicide resistance (Martin et al. 2001).

Outside of the Camelina genus within the Camelineae tribe, C. bursa-pastoris and N. paniculata are the weediest species as well as several of the Erysimum spp., in particular E. cheiranthoides, E. asperum and E. inconspicuum. Prairie weed surveys consistently placed C. bursa-pastoris among the 25 most abundant species. In the 1990s, it was present in 9.2% of all fields surveyed, averaging 3.3 plants per square meter in occurrence fields. Neslia paniculata was ranked between the 38th and 61st most abundant weed over the 30 years of the survey (Leeson et al. 2005).

Due to their agricultural importance, crops in the Brassicaceae family are also abundant in Canada. Additionally, several are commonly found growing outside of cultivation, including B. juncea, B. napus, B. rapa, and R. sativus. Prairie weed surveys consistently ranked canola/rapeseed (including both B. napus and B. rapa oilseed cultivars) among the 25 most abundant species (Leeson et al. 2005).

6 Potential Interaction of Camelina sativa with Other Life Forms

In general, there appears to be few insect pests of camelina (Robinson 1987; Zubr 1997; McVay and Lamb 2007; Ehrensing and Guy 2008). The crucifer flea beetle (Phyllotreta cruciferae Goeze), a common pest of crucifers, does not cause significant damage to camelina, although it may sometimes be observed on camelina plants (Plessers et al. 1962; Putnam et al. 1993; Gugel and Falk 2006; Séguin-Swartz et al. 2010). This appears to be due to the absence of stimulatory cues as opposed to the presence of a repellent (Henderson et al. 2004). Similarly, diamondback moths (Plutella xylostella L.), bertha armyworms (Mamestra configurata Walker), and crucifer-feeding root maggots (Delia spp.) were not found to cause extensive damage to camelina (Séguin-Swartz et al. 2010). The leafhopper Macrosteles quadrilineatus Forbes has also been observed among camelina plants, and could potentially serve as a vector for the aster yellows phytoplasma (Candidatus Phytoplasma asteris) (Séguin-Swartz et al. 2009). Camelina may also be a potential host for four major aphid species of northern France. Aphis fabae (Scop) and Myzus persicae (Sulzer) were able to feed and reproduce on camelina, and fed and performed better on camelina than the cabbage aphid (Brevicoryne brassicae (L.)). Camelina was also found to be a potential host for the bird cherry-oat aphid (Rhopalosiphum padi (L.)) (Chesnais et al. 2015).

Camelina also has good resistance to a number of diseases, including the important crucifer diseases black spot (Alternaria brassicae (Berk.) Sacc. and A. brassicicola (Schwein.) Wiltshire), and blackleg (Leptosphaeria maculans (Desmaz.) Ces. & De Not.) (Salisbury 1987; Conn et al. 1988; Sharma et al. 2002; Li et al. 2005; Séguin-Swartz et al. 2009). Resistance to Alternaria brassicae is associated with the induction of phytoalexins, namely camalexin and methoxycamalexin (Conn et al. 1998; Browne et al. 1991).

Camelina can, however, be affected by stem rot (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum), grey mold (Botrytis cinerea Pers.:Fr.), downy mildew (Peronospora parasitica), Ustilago spp., white rust (Albugo candida), clubroot (Plasmodiophora brassicae) and aster yellows. Camelina shows varying degrees of resistance to sclerotinia stem rot, downy mildew and brown girdling root rot, suggesting that resistant cultivars could be developed through breeding (Séguin-Swartz et al. 2009). Diseases of greatest economic importance for the cultivation of camelina appear to be clubroot, white rust, and aster yellows, in part because no resistance has yet been observed in the species (Séguin-Swartz et al. 2009).

It has been suggested that camelina has allelopathic traits. Washings from camelina leaves have been shown to increase radicle length of germinating flax (Linum usitatissimum) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in the presence of certain bacteria (Lovett and Sagar 1978; Lovett and Jackson 1980). However, Saucke and Ackermann (2006) found that when camelina and peas (Pisum sativum L.) were grown together as a mixed crop, there was no evidence for allelopathic traits in camelina. Therefore, there is little evidence to support that camelina possesses allelopathic traits that are effective in the field.

For a list of species associated with camelina, please refer to Table 3.

Table 3. Examples of potential interactions of Camelina sativa with other life forms during its life cycle in a natural environment.

7 References

Abramovič, H. and Abram, V. 2005. Physico-chemical properties, composition and oxidative stability of Camelina sativa oil. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 43: 63–70.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 2007. AAFC Pathology Database - An electronic searchable version of the Canadian plant pathology texts by Conners (1967), Ginns (1986), and Martin & Corlett (1993), with additional updates to about 2007.

Al-Shehbaz, I. A. 1987. The genera of Alysseae (Cruciferae: Brassicaceae) in the southeastern United States. J. Arnold Arbor. 68: 185–240.

Al-Shehbaz, I. A. and Beilstein, M. A. 2010. Camelina. Pages 451–453 in Flora of North America Editorial Committee, Eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 16+ vols. New York, NY, USA and Oxford, UK. Vol. 7.

Al-Shehbaz, I. A., Beilstein, M. A. and Kellogg, E. A. 2006. Systematics and phylogeny of the Brassicaceae (Cruciferae): an overview. Plant Syst. Evol. 259: 89–120.

Anderson, G. and Olsson, G. 1950. Feldversuche mit Leindotter—Camelina sativa Crantz. Sveriges Ustädes. Tidskr. 60: 440–458. [English summary].

Andreassen, L. D., Kuhlmann, U., Whistlecraft, J. W., Soroka, J. J., Mason, P. G., Akinremi, O. O. and Holliday, N. J. 2010. Spring emergence of Canadian Delia radicum and synchronization with its natural enemy, Aleochara bilineata. Can. Entomol. 142: 234–249.

Aziza, A. E., Quezada, N. and Cherian, G. 2010. Feeding Camelina sativa meal to meat-type chickens: Effect on production performance and tissue fatty acid composition. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 19: 157–168.

Barker, B., Barker, R., Jessop, J. and Vonow, H. (eds.). 2005. Census of south Australian vascular plants. 5th ed. J. Adelaide Bot. Gard. Supplement 1. Botanic Gardens of Adelaide & State Herbarium, Adelaide, Australia.

Beirne, B. 1972. Pest insects of annual crop plants in Canada. IV. Hemiptera-Homoptera; V. Orthoptera; VI. Other groups. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada No. 85. Entomological Society of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Bell, J. G., Pratoomyot, J., Strachan, F., Henderson, R. J., Fontanillas, R., Hebard, A., Guy, D. R., Hunter, D. and Tocher, D. R. 2010. Growth, flesh adiposity and fatty acid composition of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) families with contrasting flesh adiposity: Effects of replacement of dietary fish oil with vegetable oils. Aquaculture 306: 225–232.

Blamey, M. and Grey-Wilson, C. 1989. The illustrated flora of Britain and Northern Europe. Hodder & Stoughton, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Bonjean, A. and Le Goffic, F. 1999. La cameline – Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz : une opportunité pour l'agriculture et l'industrie européennes. Oléag. Corps Gras Lipides 6: 28–34.

Borg, A. 1952. Ytterligare nagra parasitangrepp pa oljedadra. Vaxtskyddsnotiser 2: 20–23. [English abstract].

Browne, L. M., Conn, K. L., Ayer, W. A. and Tewari, J. P. 1991. The camalexins: new phytoalexins produced in the leaves of Camelina sativa (Cruciferae). Tetrahedron 47: 3909–3914.

Büchsenschütz-Nothdurft, A., Schuster, A. and Friedt, W. 1998. Breeding for modified fatty acid composition via experimental mutagenesis in Camelina sativa (L.) Crtz. Ind. Crops Prod. 7: 291–295.

Budin, J. T., Breene, W. M. and Putnam, D. H. 1995. Some compositional properties of camelina (Camelina sativa L. Crantz) seeds and oils. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 72: 309–315.

CAB International. 2007. Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. [Online] Available: http://www.cabicompendium.org/cpc/home.asp [2 Nov. 2010].

Canadian Food Inspection Agency. 2013. Weed Seeds Order Review Secondary Consultation Document. [Online] [5 May 2017].

Canadian Seed Growers' Association. 2010. Section 14.10. Foundation, registered and certified production of Camelina. Pages 14-10-1 to 14-10-2 in Circular 6: Canadian regulations and procedures for pedigreed seed crop production. Canadian Seed Growers' Association, Ottawa, ON, Canada. [Online] Available: http://www.seedgrowers.ca/cropcertification/circular.asp [23 Sept. 2010].

Cárcamo, H., Olfert, O., Dosdall, L., Herle, C., Beres, B. and Soroka, J. 2007. Resistance to cabbage seedpod weevil among selected Brassicaceae germplasm. Can. Entomol. 139: 658–669.

Cerkauskas, R. F., Stobbs, L. W., Lowery, D. T., Van Driel, L., Liu, W. and VanSchagen, J. 1998. Diseases, pests, and abiotic problems associated with oriental cruciferous vegetables in southern Ontario in 1993–1994. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 20: 87–94.

Chepil, W. S. 1946. Germination of weed seeds. I. Longevity, periodicity of germination and vitality of seeds in cultivated soil. Sci. Agric. 26: 307–346.

Chesnais, Q., Verzeaux, J., Couty, A., Le Roux, V., and Ameline, A. 2015. Is the Oil Seed Crop Camelina sativa a Potential Host for Aphid Pests? Bioenerg. Res. 8:91-99.

Commonwealth Institute of Entomology. 1979. Distribution maps of pests. Series A (Agricultural), Map No. 45. Pest: Myzus persicae (Sulz.). Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux. [Online] Available: http://www.cabi.org/dmpp/default.aspx?LoadModule=Review&ReviewID=80085&site=164&page=1155 [2 Nov. 2010].

Conn, K. L., Tewari, J. P. and Dahiya, J. S. 1988. Resistance to Alternaria brassicae and phytoalexin-elicitation in rapeseed and other crucifers. Plant Sci. 56: 21–25.

Conners, I. L. 1967. An annotated index of plant diseases in Canada and fungi recorded on plants in Alaska, Canada and Greenland. Canada Department of Agriculture, Research Branch Publication No. 1251.

Corbet, S. A., Williams, I. H. and Osborne, J. L. 1991. Bees and the pollination of crops and wild flowers in the European community. Bee World 72: 47–59.

Crowley, J. G. and Fröhlich, A. 1998. The composition and use of camelina. Teagasc, Dublin, Ireland.

Crowley, J. G. 1999. Evaluation of Camelina sativa as an alternative oilseed crop. Teagasc, Dublin, Ireland.

Darbyshire, S. J. 2003. Inventory of Canadian agricultural weeds. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada. [Online] Available: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/A42-100-2003E.pdf [22 Mar. 2010].

Davis, P. B. 2010. The invasion potential and competitive ability of Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz (camelina) in rangeland ecosystems. MSc thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA. [Online] Available: http://etd.lib.montana.edu/etd/2010/davis/DavisP0510.pdf [9 Sept. 2010].

Deng, S.-D., Yun, G.-L., Zhang, Q.-W., Xu, H.-L. and Cai, Q.-N. 2004. Effect of false flax (Camelina sativa) on larval feeding and adult behavioral response of the diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella). Acta Entomol. Sinica 47: 474–478.

Dmoch, J. 1968. Obsenvacje nad dynamika populacji a szkodliwoscia chowacza Iniankowca (Ceuthorrhynchus syrites Germ.). Rocz. Nauk Roln., Seria A 93: 633–654. [English abstract].

Downey, R. K. 1971. Agricultural and genetic potentials of cruciferous oilseed crops. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 48: 718–722.

Ehrensing, D. T. and Guy, S. O. 2008. Camelina. EM 8953-E. Oregon State University Extension Service, Corvallis, OR, USA. [Online] Available: http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/pdf/em/em8953-e.pdf [28 Sept. 2009].

El Bassam, N. 2010. Handbook of bioenergy crops. A complete reference to species, development and applications. Earthscan LLC, Washington, DC, USA.

Ellis, W. N. 2007. Bladmineerders van Europa/Leafminers of Europe. [Online] Available: http://www.bladmineerders.nl/ [25 Jan. 2011].

Entomology Collection. 2010. Phyllotreta cruciferae. University of Alberta E.H. Strickland Entomological Museum, Edmonton, AB, Canada. [Online] Available: http://www.entomology.ualberta.ca/searching.php [25 Oct. 2010].

Eynck, C., Séguin‐Swartz, G., Clarke, W. E. and Parkin, I. A. 2012. Monolignol biosynthesis is associated with resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in Camelina sativa. Molecular plant pathology, 13(8):887–899.

Filip'ev, I. N. 1929. Annual report of the Division of Applied Entomology. Ann. Inst. Exp. Agron. 7: 94–106. [English abstract].

FitzJohn, R. G., Armstrong, T. T., Newstrom-Lloyd, E., Wilton, A. D. and Cochrane, M. 2007. Hybridisation within Brassica and allied genera: evaluation of potential for transgene escape. Euphytica 158: 209–230.

Francis, A. and Warwick, S. I. 2009. The biology of Canadian weeds. 142. Camelina alyssum (Mill.) Thell.; C. microcarpa Andrz. Ex DC.; C. sativa (L.) Crantz. Can. J. Plant Sci. 89: 791–810.

Fridén, F. 1972. Humlor och jordbruksväxter. Svensk Frötidning 41: 77–81.

Galasso, I., Manca, A., Braglia, L., Martinelli, T., Morello, L. and Breviario, D. 2010. h-TBP: an approach based on intro-length polymorphism for the rapid isolation and characterization of the multiple members of the β-tubulin gene family in Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz. Mol. Breeding 12 October 2010 [Epub ahead of print].

Gehringer, A., Friedt, W., Lühs, W. and Snowdon, R. J. 2006. Genetic mapping of agronomic traits in false flax (Camelina sativa subsp. sativa). Genome 49: 1555–1563.

Ghamkhar, K., Croser, J., Aryamanesh, N., Campbell, M., Kon'kova, N. and Francis, C. 2010. Camelina (Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz) as an alternative oilseed: molecular and ecogeographic analyses. Genome 53: 558–567.

Government of Canada. 2011. Plants of Canada Database. [Online] Available: https://glfc.cfsnet.nfis.org/mapserver/cfia_taxa/taxa.php?gid=1004663 [9 Mar. 2011].

Government of Canada. 2016. Weed Seeds Order 2016. Minister of Justice: 11.

Gugel, R. K. and Falk, K. C. 2006. Agronomic and seed quality evaluation of Camelina sativa in western Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 86: 1047–1058.

Hamilton, K. G. A. and Whitcomb, R. F. 2010. Leafhoppers (Homoptera: Cicadellidae): a major family adapted to grassland habitats. Pages 169–197 in J. D. Shorthouse and K. D. Floate, eds., Arthropods of Canadian grasslands (Volume 1): Ecology and interactions in grassland habitats. Biological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada. [Online] Available: http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/bsc/english/grasslandsbook/Chapter8_ACG.pdf [2 Nov. 2010].

Hansen, L. N. 1998. Intertribal somatic hybridization between rapid cycling Brassica oleracea L. and Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz. Euphytica 104: 173–179.

Hanson, B. D., Park, K. W., Mallory-Smith, C. A. and Thill, D. C. 2004. Resistance of Camelina microcarpa to acetolactate synthase inhibiting herbicides. Weed Res. 44: 187–194.

Harcourt, D. G. 1957. Biology of the diamondback moth, Plutella maculipennis (Curt.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), in eastern Ontario. II. Life-history, behaviour, and host relationship. Can. Entomol. 89: 554–564.

Harcourt, D. G. 1963. Major mortality factors in the population dynamics of the diamondback moth, Plutella maculipennis (Curt.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Mem. Entomol. Soc. Can. 32: 55–66.

Henderson, A. E., Hallett, R. H. and Soroka, J. J. 2004. Prefeeding behaviour of the crucifer flea beetle, Phyllotreta cruciferae, on host and nonhost crucifers. J. Insect Behav. 17: 17–39.

Hutcheon, C., Ditt, R. F., Beilstein, M., Comai, L., Schroeder, J., Goldstein, E., Shewmaker, C. K., Nguyen, T., De Rocher, J. And Kiser, J. 2010. Polyploid genome of Camelina sativa revealed by isolation of fatty acid synthesis genes. BMC Plant Biol. 10: 233.

Jackson, G. D. 2008. Response of camelina to nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur. Fertilizer Facts, Number 49. Montana State University Extension Service, Bozeman, MT, USA.

Jha, P., and Stougaard, R. N. 2013. Camelina (Camelina sativa) Tolerance to Selected Preemergence Herbicides. Weed Technology. 27(4): 712-717.

Jiang, J. J., Zhao, X. X., Tian, W., Li, T. B. and Wang, Y. P. 2009. Intertribal somatic hybrids between Brassica napus and Camelina sativa with high linolenic acid content. Plant Cell Tiss. Organ Cult. 99: 91–95.

Johnson, E. N., Falk, K., Klein-Gebbinck, H., Lewis, L., Malhi, S., Leach, D., Shirtliffe, S., Holm, F. A., Sapsford, K., Hall, L., Topinka, K., May, W., Nybo, B., Sluth, D., Gan, Y. and Phelps, S. 2011. Agronomy of Camelina sativa and Brassica carinata. Final Report.

Johnson, E. N., Falk, K., Klein-Gebbinck, H., Lewis, L., Vera, C., Malhi, S., Shirtliffe, S., Gan, Y., Hall, L., Topinka, K., Nybo, B., Sluth, D., Bauche, C. and Phelps, S. 2008. Agronomy of Camelina sativa and Brassica carinata. 2008 Annual Report. Western Applied Research Corporation. [Online] Available: http://www.warc.ca/reports/Camelina_and_Carinata_Annual_Report_2008_57.pdf [9 Sept. 2009].

Johnson, E., Vera, C., Klein-Gebbinck, H., Gan, Y., Falk, K. And Bauche, C. 2007. Agronomy of Camelina sativa. Western Applied Research Corporation. [Online] Available: http://www.warc.ca/reports/Agronomy_of_Camelina_Sativa_Annual_Report_54.pdf [16 Sept. 2009].

Julié-Galau, S., Bellec, Y., Faure, J.-D. and Tepfer, M. 2014. Evaluation of the potential for interspecific hybridization between Camelina sativa and related wild Brassicaceae in anticipation of field trials of GM camelina. Transgenic Res. 23:67–74.

Kelton, L. A. 1980. The insects and arachnids of Canada. Part 8. The plant bugs of the Prairie Provinces of Canada. Heteoptera: Miridae. Publication 1703. Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Knörzer, K.-H. 1978. Entwicklung und Ausbreitung des Leindotters (Camelina sativa s.l.). Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges. Bd. 91: S. 187–195. [English abstract].

Kollmann, J. and Bassin, S. 2001. Effects of management on seed predation in wildflower strips in northern Switzerland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 83: 285–296.

Lafferty, R. M., Rife, C. and Foster, G. 2009. Spring camelina production guide for the Central High Plains. Blue Sun Biodiesel, Golden, CO, USA.

Laffin, R. D., Dosdall, L. M. and Sperling, F. A. H. 2005. Population structure of the cabbage seedpod weevil, Ceutorhynchus obstrictus (Marsham) (Coleoptera Curculionidae): origins of North American introductions. Environ. Entomol. 34: 504–510.

Leeson, J. Y., Thomas, A. G., Hall, L. M., Brenzil, C. A., Andrews, T., Brown, K. R. and Van Acker, R. C. 2005. Prairie weed surveys of cereal, oilseed and pulse crops from the 1970s to the 2000s. Weed Survey Series Publ. 05-1. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatchewan Research Centre, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.

Li, H., Barbetti, M. J. and Sivasithamparam, K. 2005. Hazard from reliance on cruciferous hosts as sources of major gene-based resistance for managing blackleg (Leptosphaeria maculans) disease. Field Crops Res. 91: 185–198.

Lovett, J. V. and Sagar, G. R. 1978. Influence of bacteria in the phyllosphere of Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz on germination of Linum usitatissimum L. New Phytol. 81: 617–625.

Lovett, J. V. and Jackson, H. F. 1980. Allelopathic activity of Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz in relation to its phyllosphere bacteria. New Phytol. 86: 273–277.

Lu, C. and Kang, J. 2008. Generation of transgenic plants of a potential oilseed crop Camelina sativa by Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. Plant Cell Rep. 27: 273–278.

Madel, W. 1950. Beobachtungen ilber das Auftreten des “Leindotterrusslers” Ceuthorrhynchus syrites Germ. Nachr. Dtsch. Pflanzenschutzd. 2: 90–92. [English abstract].

Magarey, R. D., Borchert, D. M. and Schlegel, J. W. 2008. Global plant hardiness zones for phytosanitary risk analysis. Sci. Agric. 65: 54–59.

Majka, C. G., Anderson, R. S. and McCorquodale, D. B. 2007. The weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea) of the Maritime Provinces of Canada, II: New records from Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and regional zoogeography. Can. Entomol. 139: 397–442.

Martin, H., Tardif, F. and Ferguson, G. 2001. Herbicide resistant weeds. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. [Online] Available: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/01-023.htm [25 Jan. 2011].

Martin, S. L., Sauder, C. A., James, T., Cheung, K. W., Razeq, F. M., Kron, P. and Hall, L. 2015. Sexual hybridization between Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik and Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz (Brassicaceae). Plant Breeding. 134:212–220.

Mason, P. G., Arthur, A. P., Olfert, O. O. and Erlandson, M. A. 1998. The bertha armyworm (Mamestra configurata) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in western Canada. Can. Entomol. 130: 321–336.

Maw, H. E. L., Foottit, R. G., Hamilton, K. G. A. and Scudder, G. G. E. 2000. Checklist of the Hemiptera of Canada and Alaska. National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

McNamara, J. 1991. Family Nitidulidae (sap beetles). In Y. Bousquet, ed., Checklist of beetles of Canada and Alaska. Publication 1861/E. Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada. [Online] Available: http://www.canacoll.org/Coleo/Checklist/checklist.htm [2 Nov. 2010].

McVay, K. A. and Lamb P. F. 2007. Camelina production in Montana. Field Crops No. D-16. Montana State University Extension, Bozeman, MT, USA.

Milbau, A. and Stout, J. C. 2008. Database of alien plants in Ireland. Irish Biochange Project, Dublin, Ireland. [Online] Available: http://www.biochange.ie/alienplants [31 Aug. 2010].

Mito, T. and Uesugi, T. 2004. Invasive alien species in Japan: The status quo and the new regulation for prevention of their adverse effects. Global Environ. Res. 8: 171–191.

Müller, J. and Sonntag, K. 2000. Electrofusion of protoplasts in Brassicaceae. Eucarpia Cruciferae Newsl. 22: 25–26.

Mulligan, G. A. 2002. Weedy introduced mustards (Brassicaceae) of Canada. Can. Field Nat. 116: 623–631.

Narasimhulu, S. B., Kirti, P. B., Bhatt, S. R., Prakash, S. and Chopra, V. L. 1994. Intergeneric protoplast fusion between Brassica carinata and Camelina sativa. Plant Cell Rep. 13: 657–660.

Ní Eidhin, D., Burke, J. and O'Beirne, D. 2003. Oxidative stability of ω3-rich camelina oil and camelina oil-based spread compared with plant and fish oils and sunflower spread. J. Food Sci. 68: 345–353.

Ní Eidhin, D. and O'Beirne, D. 2010. Oxidative stability and acceptability of camelina oil blended with selected fish oils. Eur. J. Lipid Technol. 112: 878–886.

Novozhylov, O. V., & Blume, Y. B. 2014. Preliminary risk assessment of transgenic plant use in Ukraine. AgBioForum, 17(3), 191–196. [Online] Available: http://www.agbioforum.org/v17n3/v17n3a04-novozhylov.htm [9 February 2016].

Pachagounder, P., Lamb, R. J. and Bodnaryk, R. P. 1998. Resistance to the flea beetle Phyllotreta cruciferae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in false flax, Camelina sativa (Brassicaceae). Can. Entomologist 130: 235–240.

Palagesiu, I. 2000. Contributii la cunoasterea entomofaunei unor plante oleaginoase de perspective in Romania. Lucrari Stiintifice 32 : 983–992. [English abstract].

Paul, V. H., Badent, S., Henneken, M. and Föller, I. 2000. Results on the occurrence and seed-borne nature of the new disease bacterial blight (Pseudomonas syringae pv. Spec) on false flax (Camelina sativa). Pages 43–50 in V. H. Paul, I. Föller, N. Evans and I. Williams, eds., Proceedings of the meeting of the Integrated Control in Oilseed Crops Working Group at Prague, May 31–June 2, 1999. IOSC/WPRS Bull. 23.

Peiretti, P. G. and Meineri, G. 2007. Fatty acids, chemical composition and organic matter digestibility of seeds and vegetative parts of false flax (Camelina sativa L.) after different lengths of growth. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 133: 341–350.

Pilgeram, A. L., Sands, D. C., Boss, D., Dale, N., Wichman, D., Lamb, P., Lu, C., Barrows, R., Kirkpatrick, M., Thompson, B. and Johnson, D. L. 2007. Camelina sativa, a Montana omega-3 and fuel crop. Pages 129–131 in A. Whipkey, ed. Issues in new crops and new uses. ASHS Press, Alexandria, VA, USA. [Online] Available: http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu07/pdfs/pilgeram129–131.pdf [9 Sept. 2010].

Plessers, A. G., McGregor, W. G., Carson, R. B. and Nakoneshny, W. 1962. Species trials with oilseed plants. II. Camelina. Can. J. Plant Sci. 42: 452–459.
Porcher, F. P. 1863. Resources of the Southern fields and forests, medical, economical, and agricultural. Being also a medical botany of the Confederate States; with practical information on the useful properties of the trees, plants, and shrubs. Steam-Power Press of Evans & Cogswell, Richmond, VA, USA. [Online] Available: http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/porcher/porcher.html [19 Oct. 2009].

Putnam, D. H., Budin, J. T., Field, L. A. and Breene, W. M. 1993. Camelina: A promising low-input oilseed. Pages 314–322 in J. Janick and J. E. Simon, eds. New Crops. Wiley, New York, NY.

Rakhmaninov, A. N. and Vuirzhikovskaya, A. V. 1930. Ueber den Verborgenrussler Ceuthorrhynchus syrites Germ., einen Schadling des Leindotters (Camelina sativa). Report. Appl. Entomol. 4: 342–350. [English abstract].

Robinson, R. G. 1987. Camelina: a useful research crop and a potential oilseed crop. Minn. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 579–1987. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA.

Rode, J. 2002. Study of autochthon Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz in Slovenia. J. Herb. Spic. Med. Plants 9: 313–318.

Saatkamp, A., Affre, L., Dutoit, T. and Poschlod, P. 2009. The seed bank longevity index revisited : limited reliability evident from a burial experiment and database analyses. Ann. Bot. 104: 715–724.

Salisbury, P. A. 1987. Blackleg resistance in weedy crucifers. Eucarpia Cruciferae Newsl. 12: 90.

Salisbury, P. A. 1991. Genetic variability in Australian wild crucifers and its potential utilisation in oilseed Brassica species. PhD thesis. La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia.

Saucke, H. and Ackermann, K. 2006. Weed suppression in mixed cropped grain peas and false flax (Camelina sativa). Weed Res. 46: 453–461.

Schultze-Motel, W. 1939. Camelina. Pages 340–345 in G. Hegi, Ed. Illustrierte flora von Mittel-Europa: Mit besonderer berücksichtigung von Deutschland, Oesterreich und der Schweiz, 2nd ed. Vol. 4. Carl Hanser, Munich, Germany.

Schuster, A. and Friedt, W. 1998. Glucosinolate content and composition as parameters of quality of Camelina seed. Ind. Crops Prod. 7: 297–302.

Scoggan, H. J. 1978. The flora of Canada. Part III. Dicotyledoneae (Saururaceae to Violaceae). National Museum of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Séguin-Swartz, G. 2008. Hybridization between Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz (false flax) and Brassica napus, B. rapa and B. juncea. Report to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. July 31, 2008.

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. and Falk, K. C. 2009. Diseases of Camelina sativa (false flax). Can. J. Plant Pathol. 31: 375–386.

Séguin-Swartz, G. Warwick, S. I., Gugel, R. K., Olivier, C. Y., Soroka, J., Strelkov, S. E., Klein-Gebbinck, H. and Falk, K. C. 2010. Biology of Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz (false flax). Final report to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. June 7, 2010.

Séguin-Swartz, G., Nettleton, J. A., Sauder, C., Warwick, S. I. and Gugel, R. K. 2013. Hybridization between Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz (false flax) and North American Camelina species. Plant Breeding. 132:390–396.

Shapiro, D. S. 1930. A note on the weevil attacking Camelina sativa L. (Ceuthorrhynchus syrites Germ.). Shlyakhami Dosvidu. 4: 4. [English abstract].

Shapiro, D. S. 1936. Ceuthorrhynchus syrites Germ. – an insect injuring Camelina sativa. Proceedings. Zool.-Biol. Inst. Sci. Res. 1: 175–184. [English abstract].

Sharma, G., Kumar, V. D., Haque, A., Bhat, S. R., Prakash, S. and Chopra, V. L. 2002. Brassica coenospecies: a rich reservoir for genetic resistance to leaf spot caused by Alternaria brassicae. Euphytica 125: 411–417.

Sigareva, M. A. and Earle, E. D. 1999. Camalexin induction in intertribal somatic hybrids between Camelina sativa and rapid-cycling Brassica oleracea. Theor. Appl. Genet. 98: 164–170.

Soroka, J., Olivier, C., Grenkow, L. and Séguin-Swartz, G. 2015. Interactions between Camelina sativa (Brassicaceae) and insect pests of canola. The Canadian Entomologist. 147(02):193-214.

Steppuhn, H., Falk, K. C. and Zhou, R. 2010. Emergence, height, grain yield and oil content of camelina and canola grown in saline media. Can. J. Soil Sci. 90: 151–164.

Sturtevant, E. L. 1919. Sturtevant's notes on edible plants. U. P. Hedrick (ed.), J. B. Lyon, Albany, NY, USA.

Tedin, V. O. 1922. Zur Blüten- und Befruchtungsbiologie der Leindotter (Camelina sativa). Bot. Not. 1922: 177–189.

Thomas, P. 2003. Canola Growers Manual. Canola Council of Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.

Urbaniak, S. D., Caldwell, C. D., Zheljazkov, V. D., Lada, R. and Luan, L. 2008a. The effect of cultivar and applied nitrogen on the performance of Camelina sativa L. in the Maritime Provinces of Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 88: 111–119.

Urbaniak, S. D., Caldwell, C. D., Zheljazkov, V. D., Lada, R. and Luan, L. 2008b. The effect of seeding rate, seeding date and seeder type on the performance of Camelina sativa L. in the Maritime Provinces of Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 88: 501–508.

USDA, ARS. 2011. National Genetic Resources Program. Germplasm Resources Information Network - (GRIN). National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, MD, USA. [Online] Available: http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?8700 [4 Jan. 2011].

USDA, NRCS. 2010. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA. [Online] Available: http://plants.usda.gov [27 Aug. 2010].

USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map, 2012. Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. [Online] Available: http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov [2012].

Usher, S., Haslam, R. P., Ruiz-Lopez, N., Sayanova, O. and Napier, J. A. 2015. Field trial evaluation of the accumulation of omega-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in transgenic Camielina sativa: Making fish oil substitutes in plant. Metabolic Engineering Communications. 22: 93-98.

Villaseñor, J. L. and Espinosa-García, F. J. 2004. The alien flowering plants of Mexico. Diversity Distrib. 10: 113–123.

Vollmann, J., Damboeck, A., Baumgartner, S. and Ruckenbauer, P. 1997. Selection of induced mutants with improved linolenic acid content in camelina. Fett/Lipid 99: 357–361.

Vollmann, J., Damboeck, A., Eckl, A., Schrems, H. and Ruckenbauer, P. 1996. Improvement of Camelina sativa, an underexploited oilseed. Pages 357–362 in J. Janick, ed. Progress in new crops. ASHS Press, Alexandria, VA, USA.

Vollmann, J., Grausgruber, H., Stift, G., Dryzhyruk, V. and Lelley, T. 2005. Genetic diversity in camelina germplasm as revealed by seed quality characteristics and RAPD polymorphism. Plant Breeding 124: 446–453.

Vollmann, J., Moritz, T., Kargl, C., Baumgartner, S. and Wagentristl, H. 2007. Agronomic evaluation of camelina genotypes selected for seed quality characteristics. Ind. Crops Prod. 26: 270–277.

Vollmann, J., Steinkellner, S. and Glauninger, J. 2001. Variation in resistance of camelina (Camelina sativa [L.] Crtz.) to downy mildew (Peronospora camelinae Gäum.). J. Phytopathol. 149: 129–133.

Wahlin, B. 1951. Nagra parasitangrepp pa oljedadra. Vaxtskyddnotiser 5-6: 90–93. [English abstract].

Walsh, K. D., Puttick, D. M., Hills M. J., Yang R-C., Topinka, K. C. and Hall, L. M. 2012. Short Communication: First report of outcrossing rates in camelina [Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz], a potential platform for bioindustrial oils. Can. J. Plant Sci. 92: 681–685.

Walsh, K. D., Raatz, L. L., Topinka, K. C. and Hall, L. M. 2013. Transient seed bank of camelina contributes to a low weedy propensity in western Canadian cropping systems. Crop Sci. 53:2176–2185.

Walsh, K. D., Hills, M. J., Martin, S. L. and Hall, L. M. 2015. Pollen-mediated gene flow in Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz. Crop Science. 55:196–202.

Warwick, S. I., Francis, A. and Mulligan, G. A. 1999. Brassicaceae of Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 1999 Updated version. [Online] Available: http://www.scib.gc.ca/spp_pages/brass/index_e.php [2 Sept. 2010].

Webb, C. J., Sykes, W. R. and Garnock-Jones, P. J. 1988. Flora of New Zealand. Volume IV. Naturalised pteridophytes, gymnosperms, dicotyledons. Landcare Research. 2004 electronic edition. [Online] Available: http://FloraSeries.LandcareResearch.co.nz. [1 Sept. 2010].

Western Australian Herbarium. 2010. FloraBase – The Western Australian Flora. Department of Environment and Conservation. [Online] Available: http://florabase.dec.wa.gov.au/ [1 Sept. 2010].

Wysocki, D. J., Chastain, T. G., Schillinger, W. F., Guy, S. O., Karow, R. S., 2013. Camelina: seed yield response to applied nitrogen and sulfur. Field Crops Res. 145: 60–66.

Zubr, J. 1997. Oil-seed crop: Camelina sativa. Ind. Crops Prod. 6: 113–119.

Zubr, J. 2003a. Qualitative variation of Camelina sativa seed from different locations. Ind. Crops Prod. 17: 161–169.

Zubr, J. 2003b. Dietary fatty acids and amino acids of Camelina sativa seed. J. Food Qual. 26: 451–462.