, Volume 202, Issue 1, pp 13–33 | Cite as

Description of 90 inbred lines of castor plant (Ricinus communis L.)

  • Marco Baldanzi
  • Mirina Luiza Myczkowski
  • Mariangela Salvini
  • Mario Macchia


The research describes the field comparison of 90 inbred lines of castor plant derived from both selected and wild germplasm. It was carried out in central-western Italy. An important aim of this work was to describe each inbred line based on 19 morphological traits concerning stem, leaves, racemes and capsules and then to suggest a list of descriptors to International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants as to conduct the Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability test also on the castor plant. The plants in the field were grown at wide distances to avoid competition and enable observation of the growth habit, particularly the specific capacity of branching. An additional characterization of the inbred lines was obtained measuring 7 quantitative traits related to main stem and first raceme; the number of racemes per plant was used to quantify the plant branching. The results allowed distinguishing almost all the genotypes using only the morphological traits. Nectaries at the node, emergences on the stem and petioles, colour of nectaries on petiole resulted important plant descriptors. The two pairs of inbred lines (Tor87#9 vs. Tor87#83 and Pod87#255Hy2 vs. Rot95#55-23) were distinguished thanks to the quantitative traits. Based on the morphological traits, two UPGMA dendrograms, one for the dwarf and one for the normal genotypes, were characterized and the resulting clusters better explained the relationships among the various inbred lines. Six genotypes (Pod87#389, Tor87#81A, Tor87#220B, Tor87#287, Tor87#287Hy, and Liba21) resulted unable to flower in the field; in these inbred lines the induction to flower is particularly influenced by the environmental growth conditions. Regarding the branching ability, the strong apical dominance of two inbred lines (Pod94#31-2 and Pod93#211) obtained from previous breeding programs was confirmed and it was possible to detect other interesting genotypes (Pod87#287A, Pod87#287B, Tor86#67). The several inbred lines described herein showed a wide range of phenotypes that might be useful in various fields of research.


DUS test Metric traits Plant descriptors Plant morphology UPGMA UPOV 



Andrea Bertacchi, Rosanna Bertozzi, Sauro Cappagli, Maria Carrau, Salvatore Casano, Franco Cecconi, Marcello Chiavoni, Nicola Colonna, Adriana Cozzani, Davide Dattola, Mauro Durante, Grazia Fiaschi, Carlo Gatti, Alessio Macchia and Guido Pardini provided seed of the wild and garden genotypes. Roberto Canovai, Barbara Conti, Giorgio Loi, Alfio Raspi, Elisabetta Rossi and Luciano Santini determined each pest species and suggested the appropriate control methods. Antonino Onnis recommended the use of the growth chamber. Mirina Luiza Myczkowski has participated in this research thanks to a grant from the CAPES, Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior, Faculdade de Ciências Agronomicas, Unesp/Botucatu.


  1. Anjani K, Pallavi M, Babu SNS (2007) Uniparental inheritance of purple leaf and the associated resistance to leafminer in castor bean. Plant Breed 126:515–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atsmon D (1989) Castor. In: Röbbelen G, Downey RK, Ashri A (eds) Oil crops of the world. McGraw Hill, New York, pp 348–447Google Scholar
  3. Auld DL, Zanotto MD, McKeon T, Morris JB (2009) Castor. In: Vollmann J, Rajcan I (eds) Oil crops. Handbook of plant breeding. Springer, New York, pp 316–332Google Scholar
  4. Baldanzi M, Pugliesi C (1998) Selection for non-branching in castor, Ricinus communis L. Plant Breed 117:392–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldanzi M, Pugliesi C (1999) Searching for a non-branching plant in castor. Ital J Agron 2:127–132Google Scholar
  6. Baldanzi M, Fambrini M, Pugliesi C (2003) Redesign of the castorbean plant body plan for optimal combine harvesting. Ann App Biol 142:299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brigham RD (1980) Castor. In: Fehr WR, Hadley HH (eds) Hybridization of crop plants. ASA and CSSA Publishers, Madison, pp 235–247Google Scholar
  8. Chan AP, Crabtree J, Zhao Q, Lorenzi H, Orvis J, Puiu D, Melake-Berhan A, Jones KM, Redman J, Chen G, Cahoon EB, Gedil M, Stanke M, Haas BJ, Wortman JR, Fraser-Liggett CM, Ravel J, Rabinowicz PD (2010) Draft genome sequence of the oilseed species Ricinus communis. Nat Biotechnol 28:951–956CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cowling WA (2013) Sustainable plant breeding. Plant Breed 132:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Department of Agriculture and Cooperation—Ministry of Agriculture—Government of India (2005) National guidelines for the conduct of tests for distinctness, uniformity and stability—Castor (Ricinus communis L.). Accessed 23 April 2014
  11. Esau K (1965) Plant anatomy, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Fehr WR (1987) Principles of cultivar development. Theory and technique, vol 1. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Felsenstein J (1989) PHYLIP—Phylogeny Inference Package (Version 3.2). Cladistics 5:164–166Google Scholar
  14. Kolte SJ (1995) Castor. Diseases and crop improvement. Shipra Publications, DelhiGoogle Scholar
  15. Kulkarni LG, Ramanamurthy GV (1977) Castor. ICAR, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  16. Martins VF, Guimaraes PR Jr, Haddad CRB, Semir J (2009) The effect of ants on the seed dispersal cycle of the typical myrmechorous Ricinus communis. Plant Ecol 205:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moshkin VA (1986) Direction of breeding and criteria of selection. In: Moshkin VA (ed) Castor. Oxonian Press, New Delhi, pp 117–125Google Scholar
  18. Moshkin VA, Dvoryadkina AG (1986) Cytology and genetics of qualitative characteristics. In: Moshkin VA (ed) Castor. Oxonian Press, New Delhi, pp 93–103Google Scholar
  19. Moshkin VA, Perestova TA (1986) Morphology and anatomy. In: Moshkin VA (ed) Castor. Oxonian Press, New Delhi, pp 28–34Google Scholar
  20. Popova GM, Moshkin VA (1986) Botanical classification. In: Moshkin VA (ed) Castor. Oxonian Press, New Delhi, pp 11–27Google Scholar
  21. Shifriss O (1960) Conventional and unconventional systems of controlling sex variation in Ricinus. J Genet 57:361–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. UPOV (2000) TG/81/6 Guidelines for the conduct of tests for distinctness, uniformity and stability. Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Geneva, Switzerland.
  23. Wackers FL, Zuber D, Wunderlin R, Keller F (2001) The effect of herbivory on temporal and spatial dynamics of foliar nectar production in cotton and castor. Ann Bot 87:365–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Weiss EA (1983) Oilseed crops. Longman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. William GL, Shifriss O (1967) Interspersed sexuality in Ricinus. Genetics 57:347–356Google Scholar
  26. Zimmerman LH (1958) Castorbeans: a new oil crop for mechanized production. Adv Agron 10:257–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zimmerman LH, Smith JD (1966) Production of F1 seed in castor-beans by use of sex genes sensitive to environment. Crop Sci 6:406–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Baldanzi
    • 1
  • Mirina Luiza Myczkowski
    • 2
  • Mariangela Salvini
    • 3
  • Mario Macchia
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Alimentari e AgroambientaliUniversità di PisaPisaItaly
  2. 2.Departamento de Produção VegetalUNESPSão PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Scuola Normale SuperiorePisaItaly

Personalised recommendations