Table of Contents
Bhardwaj, H.L., A.A. Hamama, D.M. Porter, and P.F. Reese,
Jr. 1996. Rapeseed meal as a natural pesticide. p. 615-619. In: J. Janick
(ed.), Progress in new crops. ASHS Press, Arlington, VA.
Rapeseed Meal as a Natural Pesticide*
Harbans L. Bhardwaj, Anwar A. Hamama, D. Morris Porter, and Paul F. Reese,
- PESTICIDAL EVALUATION
- GERMPLASM EVALUATIONS
- Table 1
- Table 2
- Table 3
The current interest in glucosinolates and the associated degradation products
stems from the possibility of using them as pesticides. Glucosinolates are
organic anions possessing a ß-D-thioglucose moeity (Brown et al. 1991)
decomposing to form isothiocyanates, the same class of chemical compounds
produced by the decomposition of metam-sodium (Vapam).
Cruciferous plant tissues or tissue extracts, which contain high amounts of
glucosinolates, have been reported to be phytotoxic (Jimenez-Osornio and
Gliessman 1987; Fenwick et al. 1983) and insecticidal (Lichtenstein et al.
1964). The most thoroughly described control of a plant pathogen is for
Aphanomyces root rot of peas, in which a variety of cruciferous plant
amendments applied to infested soil reduced either the level of Aphanomyces
euteiches (f. sp. pisi W.F. Pfender & D.J. Hagedorn) or the
severity of the disease symptoms (Papavizas 1966; Papavizas and Lewis 1971;
Lewis and Papavizas 1971, Chan and Close 1987). Glucosinolates from rapeseed
(Brassica napus L.) meal were shown to have anti-fungal activity against
Cylindrocladium parasiticum (Crous, Wingefield and Alfenas), casual
agent of Cylindrocladium black rot (CBR) of peanuts, by Adamsen et al.
Considerable demand exists in the United States for industrial feedstocks and
products from high erucic acid oil. Existence of glucosinolates restricts the
use of protein-rich, defatted meal, from industrial rapeseed, as livestock
feed. Development of defatted rapeseed meal as a natural annually-renewable
biocide can not only help the environment but also has the potential to support
industrial base of U.S. industry by providing a boost to development of
rapeseed as a domestic source of high erucic acid oil.
The main objective of these studies was to ascertain efficacy of
glucosinolate-rich rapeseed meal to control CBR in peanut and SCN (soybean cyst
nematode, Heterodera glycines Ichinohe) in soybean. Our intent in
conducting these experiments was not to develop rapeseed as a new crop to
provide meal for use as a natural pesticide but to find a use of the meal so
that production of industrial rapeseed as an oilseed can be facilitated.
Accessions of Brassica napus and B. rapa were evaluated for
winter hardiness in a separate study.
CBR and SCN incidence was determined in replicated field experiments following
three rates of soil-treatment with rapeseed meal (1, 2, or 3 t/ha), a
commercial pesticide (Vapam for peanut and Aldicarb for soybean), and an
untreated control. Both Vapam and Aldicarb were applied at rates recommended
in the production area. The rapeseed meal was obtained from the Department of
Agricultural Engineering, University of Idaho.
Two peanut cultivars, 'NC6' (susceptible) and 'NC10C' (resistant), were used
for CBR studies. Six soybean lines/cultivars (susceptible/tolerant, G88-20092
and 'Hutcheson'; susceptible/intolerant, 'Essex' and 'Toano'; and resistant
'Asgrow 5403' and 'Deltapine 415') were used for SCN studies. The layout of
field experiments was a split-plot design with soil-treatments in main-plots
and cultivars in sub-plots. Each sub-plot consisted of four rows with 1 m and
0.45 m spacing between rows, respectively for peanuts and soybean. The
rapeseed meal and Vapam treatments were applied to peanut experiments with a
tractor-driven spreader/sprayer. In the soybean experiments, rapeseed meal was
spread manually in each main-plot. The rapeseed meal in soybean experiments
was spread on May 2, soybean were planted on May 23, and Aldicarb was applied
on May 27, 1994. Rapeseed meal was spread in peanut experiments on May 2 and
peanuts were planted on May 16, 1994. The peanut sub-plots were 15 m long
whereas soybean plots were 6 m long. A constant length was harvested from two
middle rows of each plot at maturity. The peanut plots were scored for CBR
incidence in Sept., 1994 with a disease severity index of 1 (all plants healthy
in 15m row) to 10 (all plants in a 15m row length exhibiting typical CBR
symptoms). Each row of each sub-plot was scored and averaged for CBR
Soil samples were taken on May 2, June 29, Oct. 7, 1994 in soybean experiments.
These samples were kept under refrigeration until determination of SCN cysts
and larvae by Department of Plant Pathology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg.
The rapeseed meal was effective as a pesticide to control CBR of peanut. The
rapeseed meal reduced the disease incidence by 7%, 25%, and 70% over control in
`NC6', a susceptible cultivar, when 1, 2, or 3 t/ha, respectively of rapeseed
meal was used as soil treatment. The lowest disease incidence on `NC6'
occurred with Vapam (Table 1). However, a clear reduction in disease incidence
was observed with increasing rate of rapeseed meal. Similar results were also
obtained from 'NC10C', a resistant cultivar. All three rapeseed meal
treatments resulted in significantly lower disease incidence as compared to
control. However, the lowest incidence still occurred when Vapam was used,
indicating that resistance alone may not be adequate to control CBR incidence
in peanut. The yield of 'NC6', following soil treatment with 3 t/ha of
rapeseed meal, was similar to that following treatment with Vapam and the yield
following soil treatment with 1 or 2 t/ha was significantly higher than that
from the control treatment. In the case of 'NC10C', Vapam treatment resulted
in significantly higher yield as compared to the other four treatments. The
yield differences among rapeseed meal treatments and control were not
The results with soybean were unclear. The number of cysts was significantly
lower when 2 t/ha rapeseed meal was used with resistant cultivars but increased
with susceptible-tolerant ones (Table 2). The larval population of soybean
cyst nematodes, generally, increased over time when 2 or 3 t/ha of rapeseed
meal was used. The seed yields (Table 3) of soybean cultivars were similar
following five soil treatments.
In a separate experiment, 938 accessions of Brassica napus and B.
rapa, supplied by USDA-ARS, Plant Introduction Station, Ames, Iowa, were
evaluated in single row observation plots during 1993-94 for winter hardiness
at Petersburg, Virginia. Five hundred accessions from this collection were
identified to be cold-tolerant. The glucosinolate content in seeds of these
accessions, when determined using TRUBLUGLU meter (Truscott et al. 1991),
varied from 38 to 77 µmol/g. The glucosinolate content in 456 napus
accessions as a group was 49 µmol/g which was significantly greater than the
mean glucosinolate content of 44 µmol/g in 44 rapa accessions. The oil
content was determined in 159 accessions. The 122 napus accessions
(38.4%) had significantly higher oil content than that of 37 rapa
accessions (36.5%). A significant positive correlation (0.63** for
napus and 0.79** for rapa accessions) existed between oil content
and glucosinolate content.
The results from one year's field studies indicate that rapeseed meal has
pesticidal properties against Cylindrocladium parasiticum, casual agent
of Cylindrocladium black rot (CBR) of peanuts. Further evaluations are needed
to confirm these results and to determine if rapeseed meal has potential to
control soybean cyst nematode.
- Adamsen, F.J., D.M. Porter, and D.L. Auld. 1991. Rapeseed meal as a potential
biological control of CBR of peanut. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. Abstr. 23:38.
- Brown, P.D., M.J. Morra, J.P. McCaffrey, D.L. Auld, and L. Williams, III. 1991.
Allelochemicals produced during glucosinolate degradation in soil. J. Chem.
- Chan, M.K.Y. and R.C. Close. 1987. Aphanomyces root rot of peas. 3.
Control by the use of cruciferous amendments. New Zealand J. Agr. Res.
- Fenwick, G.R., R.K. Heaney, and W.J. Mullin. 1983. Glucosinolates and their
breakdown products in food and food plants. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.
- Jimenz-Osornio, J.J. and S.R. Gliessman. 1987. Allelopathic interference in a
wild mustard (Brassica campestris L. var. italica) intercrop
agroecosystem. p. 262-288. In: G.R. Waller (ed.), Allelochemicals: Role in
agriculture and forestry.
- Lewis, J.A. and G.C. Papavizas. 1971. Effect of sulfur-containing volatile
compounds and vapors from cabbage decomposition on Aphanomyces
euteiches. Phytopathology 61:208-214.
- Lichtenstein, E.P., D.G. Morgan, and C.H. Mueller. 1964. Naturally occurring
insecticides in cruciferous crops. J. Agr. Food Chem.. 12:158-161.
- Papavizas, G.C. 1966. Suppression of Aphanomyces root rot of peas by
cruciferous amendments. Phytopathology 56:1071-1975.
- Papavizas, G.C. and J.A. Lewis. 1971. Effect of amendments and fungicides on
Aphanomyces root rot of peas. Phytopathology 61:215-220.
- Truscott, R.J.W., J. Tholen, G. Buzza, and D.I. McGregor. 1991. Glucosinolate
measurement in rapeseed using reflectance. The TRUBLUGLU meter. p. 1425-1429.
In: D.I. McGregor (ed.), Proc. 8th Int. Rapeseed Congress, Groupe Consultatif
International de Recherche sur le Colza (GCIRC) and Canola Council of Canada.
Vol. 5 of 6.
*This material is based upon work supported by the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under
Cooperative Agreement No. 93-COOP-1-9523. Any opinions, findings, conclusions,
or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Table 1. Cylindrocladium black rot (CBR) disease scores on peanut
cultivars at Suffolk, Virginia following rapeseed meal and other soil
treatments during 1994.
zDisease index from 1 (all plants healthy) to 10 (all plants
exhibiting typical CBR symptoms).
||CBR severity scoresz ||Yield (kg/ha)|
|Soil treatment ||NC10Cx ||NC6y ||NC10C ||NC6|
|Untreated ||4.9aw ||8.9a ||3612b ||2643c|
|Vapam ||1.2c ||1.8c ||4364a ||4359a|
|Meal ||(1 t/ha) ||3.4b ||8.3a ||3594b ||3221b|
| ||(2 t/ha) ||2.6b ||6.7b ||3897b ||3194b|
| ||(3 t/ha) ||2.7b ||2.7b ||3959b ||4027a|
yResistant to CBR.
xSusceptible to CBR.
wMean separation in columns by Duncan's Multiple Range Test (5%
Table 2. Soybean cyst nematode populations following soil treatments
with rapeseed meal or Aldicarb during 1994.
zT1 = Sampled before planting, May 2, 1994
|Treatment ||Cultivar ||T1 ||T2 ||T3|
|Meal (1 t/ha) ||Resistant ||63 ||33 ||56|
| ||Susceptible-Intolerant ||63 ||41 ||45|
| ||Susceptible-Tolerant ||63 ||48 ||88|
|(2 t/ha) ||Resistant ||71ay ||62ab ||31b|
| ||Susceptible-Intolerant ||71 ||85 ||51|
| ||Susceptible-Tolerant ||71 ||61 ||69|
|(3 t/ha) ||Resistant ||92 ||73 ||61|
| ||Susceptible-Intolerant ||92 ||64 ||67|
| ||Susceptible-Tolerant ||92 ||60 ||78|
|Aldicarb ||Resistant ||41 ||45 ||35|
| ||Susceptible-Intolerant ||41 ||45 ||65|
| ||Susceptible-Tolerant ||41b ||37b ||102a|
|Untreated ||Resistant ||50 ||45 ||42|
| ||Susceptible-Intolerant ||50 ||64 ||55|
| ||Susceptible-Tolerant ||50 ||66 ||75|
|Meal (1 t/ha) ||Resistant ||170 ||70 ||227|
| ||Susceptible-Intolerant ||170 ||88 ||178|
| ||Susceptible-Tolerant ||170 ||110 ||260|
|(2 t/ha) ||Resistant ||133 ||205 ||137|
| ||Susceptible-Intolerant ||133 || 87 ||165|
| ||Susceptible-Tolerant ||133b ||102b ||450a|
|(3 t/ha) ||Resistant || 43b ||133a ||150a|
| ||Susceptible-Intolerant || 43 ||155 ||153|
| ||Susceptible-Tolerant || 43b || 88b ||282a|
|Aldicarb ||Resistant ||110 ||162 ||103|
| ||Susceptible-Intolerant ||110 ||122 ||193|
| ||Susceptible-Tolerant ||110 ||197 ||258|
|Untreated ||Resistant ||63 ||97 ||110|
| ||Susceptible-Intolerant ||63 ||62 ||106|
| ||Susceptible-Tolerant ||63b ||148ab ||297a|
T2 = Sampled after planting, June 29, 1994
T3 = Sampled before harvest, Oct. 7, 1994
yMean separation between T1, T2, or T3 within treatments and
cultivars by Duncan's Multiple Range Test (5% level)
Table 3. Seed yield of soybean cultivars following soil treatments
with rapeseed meal or Aldicarb during 1994.
zClassification of soybean cultivars based on reaction to
infestation by soybean cyst nematode.
||Seed yield (kg/ha)|
|Soil treatment ||Resistantz ||Susceptible/ |
|Untreated ||2368y ||1336y ||1800y|
|Aldicarb ||2688 ||1566 ||1997|
|Meal (1 t/ha) ||2700 ||1510 ||2103|
|(2 t/ha) ||2401 ||1179 ||2004|
|(3 t/ha) ||2488 ||1046 ||1972|
yNo significant differences within columns (Duncan's Multiple Range
Test, 5% level).
Last update July 1, 1997