DOCSLIB.ORG

Nuseed DHA Canola Final EA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nuseed DHA Canola Final EA Nuseed Americas Inc. Petition (17-236-01p) for Nonregulated Status for DHA Canola (Brassica napus) OECD Unique Identifier: NS-B5ØØ27-4 Final Environmental Assessment August 2018 Agency Contact Cindy Eck Biotechnology Regulatory Services 4700 River Road USDA, APHIS Riverdale, MD 20737 Fax: (301) 734-8669 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’S TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide specific information. This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PURPOSE AND NEED .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF DHA CANOLA ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 THE COORDINATED FRAMEWORK FOR THE REGULATION OF BIOTECHNOLOGY ............................................................... 2 1.3.1 USDA-APHIS ............................................................................................................................................. 2 1.3.2 Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................................................................... 2 1.3.3 Food and Drug Administration ................................................................................................................ 3 1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR APHIS ACTION .............................................................................................................. 4 1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1.5.1 First Opportunity for Public Involvement ................................................................................................. 4 1.5.2 Second Opportunity for Public Involvement ............................................................................................ 4 1.5.3 Public Involvement for Petition 17-236-01p ............................................................................................ 5 1.5.4 Issues Considered in this EA ..................................................................................................................... 6 2 ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE: CONTINUATION AS A REGULATED ARTICLE ......................................................................... 8 2.2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: DETERMINATION OF NONREGULATED STATUS FOR DHA CANOLA ........................................... 8 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 8 2.3.1 Prohibit the Release of DHA Canola ......................................................................................................... 8 2.3.2 Approve the Request in Part .................................................................................................................... 9 2.3.3 Isolation of DHA Canola and Non-GE Canola Production Systems or Geographic Restriction................. 9 2.3.4 Requirements to Test for DHA Canola ................................................................................................... 10 2.4 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ................................................................................................. 10 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................................ 16 3.1 OVERVIEW OF CANOLA PRODUCTION AND USES ................................................................................................... 16 3.1.1 Rapeseed and Canola Cultivars.............................................................................................................. 16 3.1.2 Canola .................................................................................................................................................... 17 3.1.2.1 Canola Oil ...................................................................................................................................................... 18 3.1.2.2 Canola Meal .................................................................................................................................................. 18 3.2 ACREAGE AND AREAS OF CANOLA PRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 19 3.2.1 Global Production .................................................................................................................................. 19 3.2.2 U.S. Production: Conventional, GE, and Organic Canola ....................................................................... 20 3.2.2.1 Conventional Canola ..................................................................................................................................... 22 3.2.2.2 GE Canola in the United States ..................................................................................................................... 22 3.2.2.3 Organic Canola Production ........................................................................................................................... 23 3.3 AGRONOMIC PRACTICES AND INPUTS .................................................................................................................. 23 3.3.1 Tillage .................................................................................................................................................... 24 3.3.2 Agronomic Inputs ................................................................................................................................... 24 3.3.2.1 Fertilizers ....................................................................................................................................................... 24 3.3.2.2 Pesticides: Insecticides and Fungicides ......................................................................................................... 25 3.3.2.3 Pesticides: Herbicides ................................................................................................................................... 26 3.3.3 Pest and Pathogen Resistance Management ........................................................................................ 29 3.3.4 Volunteer Management ........................................................................................................................ 30 3.3.5 Pesticide Toxicity .................................................................................................................................... 31 i 3.4 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................................................. 31 3.4.1 Soils ........................................................................................................................................................ 31 3.4.2 Water Resources .................................................................................................................................... 33 3.4.3 Air Quality .............................................................................................................................................. 34 3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................... 35 3.5.1 Soil Biota ................................................................................................................................................ 35 3.5.2 Animal and Plant Communities ............................................................................................................. 35 3.5.2.1 Animals.......................................................................................................................................................... 35 3.5.2.2 Vegetation Associated with Canola Fields....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 58. Brassica L.* Hierbas Anuales, Bienales, Perennes O
    362 LXXII. CRUCIFERAE – BRASSICEAE 58. Brassica 1. Tallos erectos, foliosos, de poco a moderadamente pelosos en los entrenudos basales; hojas inferiores de profundamente pinnatisectas a subpinnadas, con segmentos latera- les ± elípticos de base frecuentemente asimétrica y estrechada en pseudopeciólulo, y con segmento terminal poco mayor que los otros ............................... a. subsp. siifolia – Tallos ascendentes, subescaposos, densamente hirsutos en los entrenudos basales; ho- jas inferiores lirado-pinnatipartidas, con segmentos laterales oblongo-elípticos, de base simétrica y poco o no estrechada, y con segmento terminal mayor que los otros ........... ............................................................................................................. b. subsp. vicentina a. subsp. siifolia Tallos de hasta 1 m, foliosos, generalmente erectos, con pelos escasos o más raramente densos en los entrenudos inferiores. Hojas inferiores con el limbo de 3-18 × 1,5-12 cm, de profundamente pinnatisecto a subpinnado, con 3-5 pares de segmentos laterales elípticos u ovados, de irregularmente dentados a loba- dos, con frecuencia estrechados y asimétricos en su base, y segmento terminal poco mayor; peciolo 1-12 cm. Semillas 0,7-0,9(1) × 0,6-0,8(1) mm. n =10. Preferentemente silicícola, en cunetas, campos de cultivo, zonas ruderalizadas; 0-100 m. IX- VII. SW de la Península Ibérica, N de Marruecos y NW de Argelia. Litoral atlántico y mediterráneo del SW de España, litoral atlántico del S de Portugal. Esp.: Ca Ma. Port.: BA1. b. subsp. vicentina (Welw. ex Samp.) Mart. Laborde [vicentína] in Anales Jard. Bot. Madrid 49: 241 (1992) D. virgata raza vicentina Welw. ex Samp., Man. Fl. Portug.: 194 (1910) [basión.] D. virgata subsp. vicentina (Welw. ex Samp.) Samp. ex Cout., Fl.
    [Show full text]
  • London Rocket Tech Bulletin – ND
    4/6/2020 London Rocket London Rocket Sisymbrium irio L. Family: Brassicaceae. Names: Sisymbrium was the Greek name of a fragrant herb. London Rocket. Summary: An erect, annual, many branched plant, with deeply lobed leaves that does not form a rosette. It has clusters of small, 4-petalled, yellow flowers in late winter to spring on the tops of stems that form long (25-110 mm), narrow seed pods that may be slightly curved. Description: Cotyledons: Two. Club shaped, Tip rounded. Sides convex. Base tapered. Surface hairless. Petiole longer than the blade. First Leaves: Club shaped, paired. The first pair have rounded tips and smooth edges. The second pair have pointed tips and toothed edges. Hairless or a few hairs. Leaves: Alternate. Does not form a rosette. Stipules - None. Petiole - On lower leaves. Blade - 30-160 mm long x 13-70 mm wide, triangular in outline, deeply lobed or serrated or toothed (usually 2-6 pairs), lobes are usually toothed, end lobe is pointed and larger than the side lobes. The side lobes usually point towards the base of the leaf. Tip pointed. Smooth and hairless or a few scattered hairs. Stem leaves - Alternate. Similar to rosette leaves but not as lobed or unlobed, sometimes arrow shaped. Hairless or small hairs. Stems: Slender, erect, round, up to 1000 mm tall. Often with slender, curved, simple hairs near the base, usually hairless near the top. Usually much branched from the base with spreading stems. Flower head: www.herbiguide.com.au/Descriptions/hg_London_Rocket.htm 1/8 4/6/2020 London Rocket Flowers are in clusters at the top of the stem which then elongates as the fruits mature underneath.
    [Show full text]
  • Brassica Spp.) – 151
    II.3. BRASSICA CROPS (BRASSICA SPP.) – 151 Chapter 3. Brassica crops (Brassica spp.) This chapter deals with the biology of Brassica species which comprise oilseed rape, turnip rape, mustards, cabbages and other oilseed crops. The chapter contains information for use during the risk/safety regulatory assessment of genetically engineered varieties intended to be grown in the environment (biosafety). It includes elements of taxonomy for a range of Brassica species, their centres of origin and distribution, reproductive biology, genetics, hybridisation and introgression, crop production, interactions with other organisms, pests and pathogens, breeding methods and biotechnological developments, and an annex on common pathogens and pests. The OECD gratefully acknowledges the contribution of Dr. R.K. Downey (Canada), the primary author, without whom this chapter could not have been written. The chapter was prepared by the OECD Working Group on the Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology, with Canada as the lead country. It updates and completes the original publication on the biology of Brassica napus issued in 1997, and was initially issued in December 2012. Data from USDA Foreign Agricultural Service and FAOSTAT have been updated. SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF TRANSGENIC ORGANISMS: OECD CONSENSUS DOCUMENTS, VOLUME 5 © OECD 2016 152 – II.3. BRASSICA CROPS (BRASSICA SPP.) Introduction The plants within the family Brassicaceae constitute one of the world’s most economically important plant groups. They range from noxious weeds to leaf and root vegetables to oilseed and condiment crops. The cole vegetables are perhaps the best known group. Indeed, the Brassica vegetables are a dietary staple in every part of the world with the possible exception of the tropics.
    [Show full text]
  • A Spatial Assessment of Brassica Napus Gene Flow Potential to Wild and Weedy Relatives in the Fynbos Biome
    Research Articles South African Journal of Science 105, March/April 2009 109 A spatial assessment of Brassica napus gene flow potential to wild and weedy relatives in the Fynbos Biome a,c M.A. McGeocha,b*, J.M. Kalwij and J.I. Rhodesa,d sion may be considerable.11–13 Furthermore, gene flow from 2 Gene flow between related plant species, and between transgenic transgenic plants is difficult to contain. This has been clearly 14,15 16 and non-transgenic crop varieties, may be considered a form of demonstrated by transgene movement in maize, rice, creep- biological invasion. Brassica napus (oilseed rape or canola) and ing bentgrass17,18 and oilseed rape.19,20 Indeed, Snow and Morán- its relatives are well known for intra- and inter-specific gene flow, Palma2 suggest that ‘if gene flow is possible then it is probable’. hybridisation and weediness. Gene flow associated with B. napus Nonetheless, for hybridisation to occur between a crop plant poses a potential ecological risk in the Fynbos Biome of South and a wild relative, a number of barriers to gene flow must be Africa, because of the existence of both naturalised (alien, weedy) overcome.21 For example, the respective taxa must be geographi- and native relatives in this region. This risk is particularly pertinent cally proximate, must overlap at least partially in flowering time, given the proposed use of B. napus for biofuel and the potential must share a pollination mechanism, must show reproductive future introduction of herbicide-tolerant transgenic B. napus. Here compatibility, and hybrids must be viable and at least partially we quantify the presence and co-occurrence of B.
    [Show full text]
  • Potential of Parasitoids for the Control of Cabbage Moth in Augmentative Releases
    OF t5- ll-ö POTENTIAL OF PARASITOIDS FOR THE CONTROL OF CABBAGE MOTH IN AUGMENTATIVE RELEASES Herminanto M.S. (The University of Jenderal Soedirman, Purwokerto, Indonesia) A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Agricultural Science in the Department of Applied and Molecular Ecology, Faculty of Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, Adelaide University November 1995 Revised September 2001 ll TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DECLARATION v ABSTRACT vi ACKNOWLEDMENTS vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 REVIEW OF LITERÄTTJRE .... 8 2.L Introduction 8 2.2 The cabbage moth (Plutelln xylostelaL.) 10 2.2.I Introduction 10 2.2.2 Biology t2 2.2.3 Control measures 2t 2.3 Role of parasitoids in insect pest management 4I 2.3.I Introduction ....... 4L 2.3.2 Utilisation of parasitoids ..... 42 2.3.3 Classical biological control 43 2.3.4 Augmentation 47 2.3.5 Conservation 55 2.4 The parasitoid Cotesìn plutellae Kurdjumov 60 2.4.I Introduction 60 2.4.2 Morphology and life history 6I 2.4.3 Host range 6t 2.4.4 Hyperparasitoids ...... 63 2.5 The parasitoid Díadegma semiclausun Helen 63 2.5.1 Introduction 63 2.5.2 Morphology and life history 63 2.5.3 Host range 65 i 2.5.4 Hyperparasitoids 65 I lll 3.0 EFFBCTIVEI{ESS OF PARASITOIDS AT VARIOUS PARASITOID DENSITIES AGAINST DIFFERENT HOST INSTARS 67 3.1 Introduction 67 3.2 Materials and Methods 68 3.2.1 Insect source 68 3.2.2 Parasitoid effectiveness 68 3.3 Results and Discussion 72 3.3.1 Rate of parasitism 72 3.3.2 Killing capacity 75 3.3.3 Searching efficiency 79 3.3.4 Number of encounters 80 4.0 EFFECT OF CONSTANT TEMPERATLTRES PARASITISATION, DEVELOPMENT, SLZE AND FECITNDITY OF PARASITOIDS 83 4.1 Introduction 83 4.2 Materials and Methods ......
    [Show full text]
  • Brassica Elongata Subspecies Integriflia Weeds Once They Have Become Widely Established
    32 RANGELANDS 25 (1) 25th Anniversary a1 introduction to identification of a new exotic hy didn't someone do something about weed into several years. The next delay is in com- that weed when it was just starting as municating the correct identification of the new in- small patches? You can substitute the w troduced plant to a broad spectrum of natural re- name of your own favorite weed species in this source managers, weed control regulators, environ- often repeated question. Medusahead, halogeton, mentally concerned citizens, and legislatures. That Dyers woad, yellow starthistle, the same has been is our purpose in this article. said many times for these and many other very seri- ous weeds of rangelands. Millions of dollars have been spent on sometimes An example: futile efforts to stop the spread of invasive range Brassica elongata subspecies integriflia weeds once they have become widely established. A communication problem is already apparent. We are going to attempt to explain, with the exam- We do not have a widely accepted common name ple of a new introduced species, why so many for this species. In this case where the subspecies is weeds are allowed to become major problems over of great practical importance, communication with extensive areas of rangeland before suppression a name that requires 38 letters is difficult. programs are initiated. What is it? The first problem you face with an absolutely new 1 introduced plant species is proper identification. Plant taxonomy as practiced by natural resource managers is a comparative science. You look in the appropriate flora and try to find something that looks like what you have just collected.
    [Show full text]
  • Noxious Weed Field Guide for Utah 4Th Edition
    Noxious Weed Field Guide for Utah 4th Edition Authors: Brenda Jarvis Lowry, Corey V. Ransom, Ralph E. Whitesides, and Heather Olsen Edited by: Brenda Jarvis Lowry Produced by: Utah State University Extension Printed by: Utah State University Publication, Design and Production Graphics and design by: Mike Wernert This publication is for public use. Reproductions of any or all of this publication is permissible with acknowledgment of authors and/or photographers. This handbook is valid as to its list of noxious weeds as of the date of publication. However, the list is subject to change. Please contact the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, or go to ag.utah.gov/plants-pests.html to ensure you have the most up-to-date information. The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the authors of previous editions: Nathan Belliston, Ralph Whitesides, Steven Dewey, Joel Merritt, and Stephen Burningham. ON THE COVER Left to Right: Musk Thistle ‒ pg. 72, Camelthorn ‒ pg. 10, Purple Loosestrife ‒ pg. 48, Cogongrass ‒ pg. 92 CONTENTS Introduction..............................................2 Yellow Starthistle..................................56 Using this Book.......................................4 Yellow Toadflax....................................58 Class IA Weeds (Early Detection Class III Weeds (Contain)......................60 Rapid Response Watch List)..................6 Bermudagrass......................................60 African Rue...........................................6 Canada Thistle.....................................62
    [Show full text]
  • Taxonomic Checklist and Life History, Ecological, and Geographical Data
    Guide to Wild Germplasm of Brassica and Allied Crops (Tribe Brassiceae, Brassiceae): Part I PART I: Taxonomic Checklist and Life History, Ecological, and Geographical Data Part I, Section I of the guide to the wild germplasm of Brassica and allied crops provides a complete checklist of genera, species, subsp./var. in the tribe Brassiceae. It is based on a comprehensive examination of all major floras of the world [see references] and recent taxonomic treatments. Extensive synonymy exists for almost all species in this tribe, with different taxonomists over the last 240 years referring to the same species under different names. A complete list of all Latin binomials and cross references for each species in the tribe would number in the thousands. The list below is therefore selective and only includes synonyms which are most likely to cause confusion to the reader. The following information is provided for each taxon: ACC Y or N whether taxon name is currently accepted SYNONYM OF For ACC=N, the current Latin binomial with which this species name is synonymous TAXON Latin binomial for each taxon (species, subsp. and var.) followed by the name of the taxonomic authority and the reference in which the name was first published. [ACCEPTED NAMES IN BOLD] Part I, Section II of the guide summarizes information on life cycle, growth form, ecology, geography and phytogeographical status for each of the species under its accepted name and is not given separately for subspecies and varieties. Guide to Wild Germplasm of Brassica and Allied Crops (Tribe Brassiceae, Brassiceae): Part I Part I, Section I: Checklist ACC SYNONYM OF TAXON Y Ammosperma cinerea (Desf.) Hook.
    [Show full text]
  • A Spatial Assessment of Brassica Napus Gene Flow Potential to Wild and Weedy Relatives in the Fynbos Biome
    Research Articles South African Journal of Science 105, March/April 2009 109 A spatial assessment of Brassica napus gene flow potential to wild and weedy relatives in the Fynbos Biome a,c M.A. McGeocha,b*, J.M. Kalwij and J.I. Rhodesa,d sion may be considerable.11–13 Furthermore, gene flow from 2 Gene flow between related plant species, and between transgenic transgenic plants is difficult to contain. This has been clearly 14,15 16 and non-transgenic crop varieties, may be considered a form of demonstrated by transgene movement in maize, rice, creep- biological invasion. Brassica napus (oilseed rape or canola) and ing bentgrass17,18 and oilseed rape.19,20 Indeed, Snow and Morán- its relatives are well known for intra- and inter-specific gene flow, Palma2 suggest that ‘if gene flow is possible then it is probable’. hybridisation and weediness. Gene flow associated with B. napus Nonetheless, for hybridisation to occur between a crop plant poses a potential ecological risk in the Fynbos Biome of South and a wild relative, a number of barriers to gene flow must be Africa, because of the existence of both naturalised (alien, weedy) overcome.21 For example, the respective taxa must be geographi- and native relatives in this region. This risk is particularly pertinent cally proximate, must overlap at least partially in flowering time, given the proposed use of B. napus for biofuel and the potential must share a pollination mechanism, must show reproductive future introduction of herbicide-tolerant transgenic B. napus. Here compatibility, and hybrids must be viable and at least partially we quantify the presence and co-occurrence of B.
    [Show full text]
  • Brassicaceae
    Wild Crucifer Species as Sources of Traits Wild Crucifer Species as Sources of Agronomic Traits The following guide to the wild germplasm of Brassica and allied crops reviews the potential of wild crucifers, particularly members of the tribe Brassiceae, as sources of agronomic traits. In addition to traditional breeding methods, interspecific and intergeneric transfer of genes governing qualitative and quantitative characters from wild allies to cultivated forms will be facilitated with various in vitro methods, such as somatic cell genetics and recombinant DNA techniques (See Guide Part III). Examples of genetic variability in potential agronomic traits of germplasms of Brassica and related genera (Tribe Brassiceae) will be presented under 14 sections. Data will be presented for all species in the Family. CONTENTS 1. GERMPLASM 1.1 Brassicaceae Species Checklist 1.2 North American Germplasm – Tribe Brassiceae 1.2.1 North American Ethnobotany 1.2.2 Weed and Crop Species in Canada 1.2.3 Weed and Crop Species in U.S.A. and Mexico 1.2.4 Invasives 2. MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERS 2.1 Hairs/Trichomes 2.2 Leaf Thickness/Waxiness 2.3 Petal Colour 2.4 Resistance to Pod Shattering 2.5 Growth Form and Geocarpy 2.6 Floral Structure 2.7 Fruit Type and Dispersal 2.8 Seed Size 2.9 Vegetative Reproduction 3. GENOME ARRANGEMENT 3.1 Chromosome Numbers 3.2 Genome Size 3.3 Genome Comparative Mapping 3.4 Cruciferae: Compendium of Trait Genetics 4. CHEMICAL TRAITS 4.1 Fatty Acids 4.2 Glucosinolates (mustard oil glucosides) 4.3 Phenolics 4.4 Secondary Metabolites/Floral Pigments 4.5 Anti-pest/Allelopathy 4.6 Flavonoids 4.7 Peroxidases 4.8 Tocopherols 4.9 Nectar Production Wild Crucifer Species as Sources of Traits 4.10 Mucilage 4.11 Cyanide 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Crop Wild Relatives of Genus Coriandrum L
    Research Article Agri Res & Tech: Open Access J Volume 7 Issue 3 - May 2017 Copyright © All rights are reserved by Maia Akhalkatsi DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2017.07.555712 Crop Wild Relatives of Genus Coriandrum L. in Georgia (South Caucasus) Maia Akhalkatsi* and Tamar Girgvliani Department of Plant Genetic Resources, Ilia State University, Republic of Georgia Submission: March 08, 2017; Published: May 30, 2017 *Corresponding author: Maia Akhalkatsi, Head of Department of Plant Genetic Resources, Institute of Botany, Ilia State University, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Engineering, K Cholokashvili 3/5, 0162 Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia, Email: Abstract Coriander - Coriandrum sativum L., genus Coriandrum as Coriandrum sativum, Aethusa cynapium, Bifora radians, L.,Cicuta family virosa, Apiaceae; Conium is agriculturalmaculatum, speciesPhysospermum and many cornubiense, species with Sium this latifolium genus are and as Smyrniumcrop wild relatives cicutarium (CWRs). Rural vegetation is one of the most interesting in terms of CWR. This is especially important for fodder species, such Bifora radians is multiplied in agrarian Coriandrum. These sativum oll species are for food and as medicinal plants with many vitamins - A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B9, C, E and K. Fruit contain essential coriander oil (0.68-0.9%). This oil is utilized in soap production and in the textile industry. meadows. is growing from on the edge of the sea (20m) and on high mountains (2144m) in Georgia. Coriander seems to Blossomshave been incultivated June-July in and Georgia bears since fruit atin leastAugust. the Thesecond Caucasus millennium has 8 BC.species Stem of is CWRs straight, for orbicularagrarian Coriander.
    [Show full text]
  • BRASSICACEAE (CRUCIFERAE) 十字花科 Shi Zi Hua Ke Zhou Taiyan (周太炎 Cheo Tai-Yien)1, Lu Lianli (陆莲立 Lou Lian-Li)1, Yang Guang (杨光)1; Ihsan A
    Flora of China 8: 1–193. 2001. BRASSICACEAE (CRUCIFERAE) 十字花科 shi zi hua ke Zhou Taiyan (周太炎 Cheo Tai-yien)1, Lu Lianli (陆莲立 Lou Lian-li)1, Yang Guang (杨光)1; Ihsan A. Al-Shehbaz2 Herbs annual, biennial, or perennial, sometimes subshrubs or shrubs, with a pungent, watery juice. Eglandular trichomes unicellular, simple, stalked or sessile, 2- to many forked, stellate, dendritic, or malpighiaceous (medifixed, bifid, appressed), rarely peltate and scalelike; glandular trichomes multicellular, with uniseriate or multiseriate stalk. Stems erect, ascending, or prostrate, sometimes absent. Leaves exstipulate, simple, entire or variously pinnately dissected, rarely trifoliolate or pinnately, palmately, or bipinnately compound; basal leaf rosette present or absent; cauline leaves almost always alternate, rarely opposite or whorled, petiolate or sessile, sometimes absent. Inflorescence bracteate or ebracteate racemes, corymbs, or panicles, sometimes flowers solitary on long pedicels originating from axils of rosette leaves. Flowers hypogynous, mostly actinomorphic. Sepals 4, in 2 decussate pairs, free or rarely united, not saccate or lateral (inner) pair saccate. Petals 4, alternate with sepals, arranged in the form of a cross (cruciform; hence the earlier family name Cruciferae), rarely rudimentary or absent. Stamens 6, in 2 whorls, tetradynamous (lateral (outer) pair shorter than median (inner) 2 pairs), rarely equal or in 3 pairs of unequal length, sometimes stamens 2 or 4, very rarely 8–24; filaments slender, winged, or appendaged, median pairs free or rarely united; anthers dithecal, dehiscing by longitudinal slits. Pollen grains 3-colpate, trinucleate. Nectar glands receptacular, highly diversified in number, shape, size, and disposition around base of filaments, always present opposite bases of lateral filaments, median glands present or absent.
    [Show full text]