Next Article in Journal
Costs, Benefits and Challenges of Sustainable Livestock Intensification in a Major Deforestation Frontier in the Brazilian Amazon
Next Article in Special Issue
Energy Generation from Horse Husbandry Residues by Anaerobic Digestion, Combustion, and an Integrated Approach
Previous Article in Journal
The Allocation of Carbon Intensity Reduction Target by 2020 among Industrial Sectors in China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Adaptation of C4 Bioenergy Crop Species to Various Environments within the Southern Great Plains of USA
Open AccessArticle

Land Suitability Assessment for Camelina (Camelina sativa L.) Development in Chile

Agroenergía Ingeniería Genética S.A. Inc. Almirante Lynch 1179, San Miguel, 8920033 Santiago, Chile
Department of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resources, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Chile, Santa Rosa 11,315, La Pintana, 8820808 Santiago, Chile
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Michael Wachendorf and Marc A. Rosen
Sustainability 2017, 9(1), 154;
Received: 30 October 2016 / Revised: 16 January 2017 / Accepted: 16 January 2017 / Published: 21 January 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biomass Energy Conversion)


Camelina (Camelina sativa L.) is an oilseed with potential for use as a raw material in second-generation biofuels. Camelina has a seed yield of up to 2380 kg·ha−1 and contains around 45% fatty acids. Selection of a suitable site is critical for production optimization. The objective of this study was to determine Chilean agro-climatic suitability for establishing camelina as a productive alternative. Climate and soil requirements and geographical restraints were evaluated for the species, considering the climatological characteristics of its regions of origin, as well as regions where camelina is successfully grown in the rest of the world. The variables considered included factors (maximum temperatures of the warmest month, water deficits, and degree days) and limitations (altitude, geomorphology, and current land use), which permitted the evaluation of the national territory for a certain level of suitability. It was determined that 1.3% of the national territory (960,664 ha) has some degree of suitability for camelina adoption. Between the Biobío and Los Lagos regions, 49.0% of the land (471,203 ha) is in the category of no thermic restrictions, with mild water restrictions, and mild soil restrictions or without information, which can be used for camelina production. The Los Ríos region has 21.4% surface area (321,176 ha) with some level of suitability for camelina, the most suitable region to establish this crop in Chile. This research has provided valuable information applicable to new species and geographic areas which facilitate the adaptation of agricultural and forestry production to global changes.
Keywords: bioenergy; Camelina sativa; energy crops; agro-climatic suitability; biodiesel bioenergy; Camelina sativa; energy crops; agro-climatic suitability; biodiesel

1. Introduction

Camelina (Camelina sativa L.) is a member of the Brassicaceae family [1]. It has been cultivated for centuries as an oilseed crop for human food [2]. The high oil content in camelina seeds increases the plant’s potential as a new source of biofuel [3,4]. Camelina is an annual herbaceous plant, which can sometimes act as if it is biennial. In its maturity, it can measure between 60 and 120 cm in height [1,5]. Its fruit is a pear-shaped, indehiscent silique [1] and can reach between 5 and 6 mm in diameter. Each silique contains between eight and 15 seeds, each of which is very small, measures around 2 mm in length, and has a golden or brown color [1,5].
Camelina seeds contain between 30% and 45% oil, and over 80% of the fatty acids in this oil are unsaturated [6,7]. Of these fatty acids, the main fatty acids are linolenic (27.9%–39.7%), linoleic (13.5%–18.7%), oleic (14.2%–17.5%) and gondoic (15.1%–16.4%). Erucic, palmitic, oleic, arachidic, eicosadienoic, and eicosatrienoic acids are also found [6,7]. Camelina oil has characteristics that distinguish it from other vegetable oils; above all, it has high α-linolenic acid content, which is an essential fatty acid and is added to foods [8]. However, camelina oil also contains erucic acid, which can have negative effects on animal growth and development [6]. The presence of erucic acid has led to improved rapeseed varieties, obtaining the canola variety (with low erucic acid and glucosinolate contents) in the 1970s [9].
The geographic origin of camelina is not precisely known, though its predecessors existed in three distribution areas: the region surrounding the Mediterranean Sea, Northern Europe, and East Asia [1]. It was an important oilseed until the mid-20th century and was produced in several European countries, particularly in the central and northern continent, though its production declined afterward [2,6]. Recently, interest in this species has grown and many diverse studies have been undertaken to evaluate its adaptability in different agro-climatic conditions [2,10,11,12,13,14,15].
Zubr [2] tested seven summer varieties in different locations of Northern Europe and Scandinavia, and found that the results were more influenced by climate and soil conditions than by the origin or strain used. The average oil content in camelina varieties was 42.1% and the average protein content was 43.3% [2]. Angelini et al. [10] evaluated camelina in a Mediterranean climate, in Pisa, Central Italy, and it reached a maximum oil content of 33%. This case showed that the oil content dramatically decreases when high temperature/low precipitation events exist, reaching 23.6%. Despite this, seeds with a high oil content (41.4%) have successfully been produced in Maricopa, Arizona, as a winter crop for the Northern Hemisphere [11]. In this case, the yield per hectare was low, reaching approximately 1000 kg·ha−1 [11], which is much lower than that obtained by Vollmann et al. [12], who found over 2200 kg·ha−1.
Winter [13], spring [14,15], and autumn-sown [15] varieties have been evaluated in the northern United States as low-cost productive alternatives. Gesch and Cermak [13] conducted their studies in Morris, Minnesota, sowing two winter varieties between September and October. They reached seed yields of up to 1300 kg·ha−1, with oil contents between 28.2% and 42.0%. Meanwhile, Gesch [14] obtained between 780 and 1800 kg·ha−1, with oil contents between 37.7% and 41.6%, using the same study location, but sowing spring cultivars between April and June. Guy et al. [15] tested 18 distinct genotypes, sown during different seasons (spring and autumn) and in different locations. They obtained 25% higher yields when camelina was sown in spring compared to autumn sowing. In addition, they determined that camelina is sensitive to drought. When precipitation was lower than 200 mm·year−1, the yield was 127 kg·ha−1, whereas when precipitation was 580 mm·year−1, the yield was 3300 kg·ha−1.
In Chile, three spring varieties were planted in the central southern regions with five different locations and sowing dates. The highest average yields were obtained in Los Angeles and Osorno, with 1600 kg·ha−1 and 1552 kg·ha−1, respectively, though Osorno gave the highest absolute yield of 2314 kg·ha−1 when sown in May. Oil production was between 39.8% and 45.8% [5], close to the maximum oil production value of 48%, obtained via elite ecotype selection [12].
Camelina has low nutritional requirements. The oil content of its seeds decreases as it releases nitrogen into the soil, and it is not replenished after fertilization with phosphorus and sulfur [16]. Camelina has a higher tolerance to drought, frost, and heat, and is less susceptible to pests and disease when compared to canola [15,17]. It is also more adaptable to marginal soils [16] and has lower production costs [4], contributing to environmental sustainability and climate change mitigation [18].
Camelina is appreciated for its high adaptability to diverse conditions, though it varies depending on the variety used and the harvest season, as well as the local soil and climate conditions. In Chile, high experimental productivity has been achieved, with high oil contents, making it an interesting productive alternative that could contribute to second-generation biofuel production. The present study determined the Chilean territory potential for camelina cultivation, considering its climate and soil requirements, as well as the availability of existing territory in Chile, avoiding competition with current land uses.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

Climate mapping used was based on the Bioclimatic Atlas of Chile [19]. The maps of soil orders were obtained from the Soil Map of the World [20]. The current land use, protected wilderness areas, and other data were obtained from the Environmental Information National System [21].

2.2. Climate Adaptable Ranges

A bibliographic review was made in the area where camelina naturally develops, as well as where it has been introduced and produced successfully, and the presence of climate data was determined for each location where the species is registered. The following variables were considered: Monthly average minimum temperature (°C), monthly average maximum temperature (°C), relative average monthly humidity (%), and monthly precipitation (mm). This information was recorded and later used to determine the variables derived from degree days (DD, Equation (1)), potential evapotranspiration with Ivanov’s method (ETp, Equation (2)) [22,23] and water deficit (WD, Equation (3)).
D D =   i = m n = m f { n d i × [ ( t x i + t n i 2 ) t u ] }
where DD are degree days; m is the month of the period under consideration; mf is the final month of the period under consideration; ndi is the number of days in month i; txi is the average maximum temperature of month i (°C); tni is the minimum average temperature of month i (°C); and tu is the threshold temperature (°C). The threshold temperature depends on the altitude and latitude where the registered specimen is found, which can be 5 °C (latitude above 46° and altitude above 2000 m), 7 °C (latitude between 28° and 46° and altitude between 1500 and 2000 m) or 10 °C (latitude below 38° and altitude below 1500 m).
E T p = i = m n = m f 0.0018 × { [ 25 + ( t x i + t n i 2 ) ] 2 } × ( 100 R H i )
where ETp is the potential evapotranspiration (mm·year−1); m is the first month of the year; mf is the last month of the year; txi is the maximum average temperature of month i (°C); tni is the minimum average temperature of month i (°C); and RHi is the relative humidity of month i (%).
W D = P E T p
where WD is the water deficit (mm·year−1); ETp is the potential evapotranspiration (mm·year−1); and P is the average annual precipitation (mm·year−1).
Camelina’s adaptable ranges were subsequently determined for each climatic variable.

2.3. Soil Adaptable Ranges

A scientific publication review was realized for establishing locations of production with information about soil characteristics (according to United State Department of Agriculture (USDA) or Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) classifications), and yields achieved were indicated for each site. These were classified based on production levels registered by soil type, and labeled as without restriction, mild restriction, moderate restriction, and restricted. The “without information” label was used for cases where there were no existing production records regarding different soil types.

2.4. Agro-Ecological Zoning

Agro-ecological zoning was determined according to the guidelines for land evaluation given by FAO [24] and Rossiter [25]. National territory suitability was determined, selecting attributes and establishing different aptitude levels for camelina development. These are considered factors associated with climatic and soil requirements of camelina with their respective ranges or levels of aptitude, in addition to limiting associated with land use, altitude, and geomorphological position.
Factors were analyzed according to level of restriction that they present (without restriction, mild restriction, moderate restriction, and restricted), whereas limiting was evaluated by maintaining the level of restriction or by removing the possibility of using this territory via multiplication of the maps [25,26].
This information was processed using Geographic Information System (GIS), ArcGIS® 10 (Esri, Redland, CA, USA,, through decision rules based on Boolean operators using top-down logic [27]. A map with different aptitude levels was obtained according to a combination using restriction levels of every factor and its limiting.

3. Results

3.1. Climatic Information

The presence of camelina was registered in 27 locations for which climatic information was available (thermic and water; Table 1), including where it occurs naturally and where it has been introduced for productive purposes. The information obtained from these 27 locations was used to determine the critical factors for camelina adaptation.
The factors considered for camelina adaptation were: maximum temperature of the warmest month (TMX), January and July in the Southern and Northern Hemispheres, respectively; degree days during the productive cycle (DD), considered to be 221 days in the trials run in Chile [5]; and water deficit (WD, Table 2).

3.2. Thermic Factors

The intersection of thermic factors (TMX and DD) determined the existence of over 30 million ha nationwide with varying levels of thermic suitability (Figure 1a). Lands without thermic restriction were 92.3% of the total area with thermic suitability, which are mainly located in north central Chile (65.1% of the total area without restriction). The Coquimbo and Valparaíso regions possess the greatest surface area with some level of suitability, between 73.1% and 73.7% of the total regional territory. In the O’Higgins region, 98.7% of the land area with some level of suitability is classified as without restriction. Additionally, the Aysén and Magallanes regions did not present territory with any level of suitability, while only 6.1% of the Los Lagos regional territory has any degree of suitability for camelina cultivation, 2.8% of which is labeled as without restriction.

3.3. Water Availability Factors

Contrary to what occurred with the intersection of thermic factors, the water availability factor showed a tendency toward south Chile. The national territory includes over 44 million ha with various levels of hydric suitability (Figure 1b). Territory that qualifies as without restriction equates to 39.2% of the total hectares, with some level of suitability, while the mild restriction territory makes up 44.8%, and the moderate restriction territory accounts for 16.1%. Territory without restriction is concentrated in the Aysén region, which holds 59.3% of the total land without restriction, followed by the Magallanes and Los Lagos regions, which account for 23.6% and 13.9% of the total land. However, the Los Ríos and Los Lagos regions hold all regional surfaces with some degree of suitability for camelina adoption. The Coquimbo region only presents soils with moderately restricted suitability, equating to 9.2% of the regional surface area.

3.4. Edaphic Factors

Examples of camelina presence and production were found in 15 locations, four of which correspond to the same soil type (Typic Haploxerands), and the registered production of each location was averaged [5,15,16,17]. The Typic Dystrandepts and Humic Haploxerand [5,16] soil types were considered as Humic Andosol for our purposes, and Xeric Haplocambids [15,17] was considered as Cambisol, grouping all similar soil types in Chile. Finally, 15 locations and 11 soil types were used for soil zoning (Table 3). Suitability levels were determined according to the yield obtained from each of the soils, where soils without a known history were considered in the without information category (Table 4).
Little information exists about soils where camelina is grown; therefore, it was not possible to evaluate territory suitability for its production, and a large portion of the national soils were classified as without information (Table 4). Chromic Luvisol and Haplic Kastanozem were considered to be the best soils for camelina development, as the average production in these cases was 2049 kg·ha−1 [34] and 1913 kg·ha−1 [15,17], respectively.

3.5. Soil Zoning

Soil zoning determined that over 13 million ha exist in Chile with different levels of adaptability, while there are over 57 million ha of soils without information (Figure 2). The soils without restriction are equal to 31.5% of the total soils with some degree of suitability, while soils with mild restriction are most relevant at the national level, accounting for 68.4% of the total soils with some degree of suitability. The Coquimbo region presented the largest amount of soil without restrictions, with 34.9%, followed by the Valparaíso (17.8%) and Maule (15.6%) regions. Moderate restriction soils were found only in the Tarapaca region, equaling 0.02% of the total soils with some degree of suitability. The Atacama region was not found to have soils with any degree of suitability for camelina establishment.

3.6. Limitations

Variables that act as limitations for camelina cultivation were considered for agro-ecological zoning, and the use of limiting did not correspond to the usual method for zoning. Usually zoning considers only climatic information [37,38]. Current land use, geomorphology, and altitude were considered as limitations (Table 5). It was determined that 61.1% the national territory is suitable given that it has no altitude limitations (Figure 3a). The regions in the extreme north have the greatest altitude restrictions, where 30.6% of the combined surface area of Tarapacá, Arica and Parinacota, Antofagasta, and Atacama showed aptitude for producing camelina, while the Antofagasta region is the most restricted, with 86.1% being unusable. The opposite occurred in the southern regions of Magallanes and Los Ríos, where 90% of the regional surface can be used for camelina production.
Geomorphology limitations determined that 43.8% of the national territory can be used for camelina production (Figure 3b). In contrast to the altitude results, the Antofagasta region has the greatest possibility for camelina adoption, as 67.9% of the regional surface area is usable for cultivation. Conversely, the Coquimbo region has the lowest possibility for camelina adoption, as only 22.2% of its surface area allows for camelina production.
Current land use was the greatest limiting factor for camelina cultivation in Chile, where 25.7% of the total national land allows for the introduction of camelina (Figure 3c). The Coquimbo region has the fewest land use limitations, as 76.5% of the surface is available for camelina introduction. In the Aysén region, only 10.7% of its surface showed potential for camelina introduction, and it has the lowest total amount of available land.
The combination of limitations under consideration for camelina zoning determined that 9.21% of national land can host camelina as a crop. The Magallanes region has the greatest amount of land for camelina development, and represents 35.8% of the suitable surface area, as opposed to the Antofagasta region, where only 0.004% of the territory allows for camelina (Figure 3d).

3.7. Agro-Ecological Zoning

Suitable lands for camelina, after agro-ecological zoning, were concentrated between the Coquimbo and Los Lagos regions. The furthest regions did not show suitability for camelina due to water limitations in the extreme north (between Arica and Parinacota, and Atacama) and for thermic reasons in the extreme south (Aysén and Magallanes regions) (Figure 4).
At the country level, 1.3% of the national territory showed some level of suitability for camelina adaptation as a productive alternative. The Los Ríos region had the greatest camelina production potential, as 21.4% of the regional surface showed some level of suitability, followed by the Araucanía and Los Lagos regions, with 7.3% and 5.1%, respectively, in relation to the total regional surface (Figure 4; Table 6). In the Los Ríos and Los Lagos regions, lands without restriction and with mild restriction were found for all of the variables studied (thermic, water, and soil) except for 3 ha with moderate water restrictions in the Los Ríos region (Table 6), which is negligible, as it corresponds to less than 0.001% of the suitable land area.

4. Discussion

In Chile, Santibañez et al. [37] determined bioclimatic adaptability for moringa (Moringa oleifera Lam.); they used the minimum and maximum temperature, degree days and days with frost. Zoning was carried out through bioclimatic analogies, where the conditions among locations from South Africa and Kenya were different with bioclimatic conditions of the country, reducing potential areas.
Falasca et al. [38] carried out a climate zoning for camelina in Argentine territory. They used annual precipitation, precipitation during the productive period (August–December) and average temperatures during periods of vegetative and reproductive growth as factors in evaluating camelina suitability. The use of variables relevant for camelina production seasons permit greater specificity regarding land suitability; however, it is also necessary to consider variety in use, especially if there are certain cultivars for different seasons [7,13,15] in which case variable ranges must be considered according to the cultivar in use. The present work considers generic ranges for the selected variables, where information was used for existing cultivars. It is a first approximation for camelina production in Chile, which can be used as a tool to support decision-making and to evaluate the species’ introduction as a raw material for biodiesel production or other industrial products.
The present work considered the entire productive period for degree day calculation, which in Chile was 221 days for spring cultivars [5]. Gesch [14] determined productive cycles that oscillate between 75 and 100 days between sowing and harvest for spring cultivars sown in Morris, Minnesota, in the north central United States. Gesch and Cermak [13] used winter cultivars, also in Morris, Minnesota, but had a productive cycle around 226 days between sowing and blooming.
It was determined that, with a water deficit greater than 500 mm annually, the area was considered to be restricted during water zoning (Table 2). This is manageable, because there are irrigation alternatives that must be developed for industrial crops, especially regarding biofuel production. In the north of Chile, where water and agriculturally viable soil are scarce [18], use of treated wastewater could be an effective option to habilitate territory for non-food crops [39]. Only one [11] of the 27 locations considered in this study has an arid climate. French et al. [11] evaluated camelina production in Maricopa, Arizona, United States, where they found productivity of up to 1500 kg·ha−1, with approximately 2900 degree days. This way, applying irrigation for camelina production in arid climates can be an alternative, for which future studies can evaluate the possibility of growing camelina in the northern territory of Chile using irrigation with treated wastewater.
Soil zoning in Chile is complicated, due to the scarcity of existing information. Soil type data was only obtainable from Chile and the United States, and even then, only for 11 types of soils. In addition, not all of these soils are registered in the country, so a large part of the national territory is categorized as without information during soil zoning (Figure 2). Information on soil resources is still insufficient for accurate zoning. Soil type and quality are relevant parameters for agricultural production, since crops depend on these factors to develop favorably [40].
The agro-ecological zoning results obtained are in accordance with those published by Berti et al. [5] and Solis et al. [16], who conducted studies between the Biobío and Los Lagos regions, and determined that south central Chile possesses adequate conditions for camelina production. These precise regions possess the most land surface area for camelina production. The Biobío, Araucanía, Los Ríos and Los Lagos regions hold 93.1% of suitable lands, where 49.0% of land is without thermic restriction, mild water restriction, and mild soil restriction or without information (Table 6).

5. Conclusions

Considering the available soil and climate information for camelina production for biodiesel, it is concluded that the Araucanía, Los Ríos and Los Lagos regions present the greatest potential for camelina adoption. These regions together possess 80.5% of the national territory with potential for camelina production. The Los Ríos region, as well as the Araucanía region to a lesser extent, showed the greatest suitability (without thermic restriction, mild water restriction, soil with mild restriction or without information) at a national level. Camelina can be an interesting alternative for non-agricultural soils in Chile, especially considering that studies have already been conducted, with successful results regarding productivity.
The model and agro-climatic ranges used in this study could be replicated in other countries, especially because there is information from different locations where camelina grows. Additionally, the accuracy of agro-climatic ranges can be improved according to newly published papers or information regarding the grow and yield of camelina in other locations.

Author Contributions

Celián Román Figueroa, Juan Manuel Uribe and Manuel Paneque conceived and designed this study; Rodrigo Padilla and Juan Manuel Uribe executed the methodology for obtain the maps; Celián Román-Figueroa, Rodrigo Padilla and Manuel Paneque wrote the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


  1. Román, C.; Vásquez, K.; Martínez, G.; Lillo, G.; Fuster, R.; de la Fuente, A.; Uribe, J.M.; Faúndez, L.O.; Paneque, M. Cultivos Energeticos una Apuesta de Futuro; Universidad de Chile: Santiago, Chile, 2012. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
  2. Zubr, J. Qualitative variation of Camelina sativa seed from different locations. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2003, 17, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bernardo, A.; Howard-Hildige, R.; O’Connell, A.; Nichol, R.; Ryan, J.; Rice, B.; Roche, E.; Leahy, J.J. Camelina oil as a fuel for diesel transport engines. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2003, 17, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Frohlich, A.; Rice, B. Evaluation of Camelina sativa oil as a feedstock for biodiesel production. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2005, 21, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Berti, M.T.; Wilckens, R.; Fischer, S.; Solis, A.; Johnson, B.L. Seeding date influence on camelina seed yield, yield components, and oil content in Chile. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2011, 34, 1358–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Budin, J.T.; Breene, W.M.; Putnam, D.H. Some compositional properties of camelina (Camelina sativa L. Crantz) seeds and oils. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 1995, 72, 309–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zubr, J.; Matthäus, B. Effects of growth conditions on fatty acids and tocopherols in Camelina sativa oil. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2002, 15, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Eidhin, D.N.; Burke, J.; Lynch, B.; O’Beirne, D. Effects of dietary supplementation with camelina oil on porcine blood lipids. J. Food Sci. 2003, 68, 671–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Przybylski, R.; Mag, T.; Eskin, N.A.M.; McDonald, B.E. Canola oil. In Bailey’s Industrial Oil and Fat Products; Shahidi, F., Ed.; Wiley-Interscience: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 61–121. [Google Scholar]
  10. Angelini, L.G.; Moscheni, E.; Colonna, G.; Belloni, P.; Bonari, E. Variation in agronomic characteristics and seed oil composition of new oilseed crops in central Italy. Ind. Crop. Prod. 1997, 6, 313–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. French, A.N.; Hunsaker, D.; Thorp, K.; Clarke, T. Evapotranspiration over a camelina crop at Maricopa, Arizona. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2009, 29, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Vollmann, J.; Moritz, T.; Kargl, C.; Baumgartner, S.; Wagentristl, H. Agronomic evaluation of camelina genotypes selected for seed quality characteristics. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2007, 26, 270–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gesch, R.W.; Cermak, S.C. Sowing Date and Tillage Effects on Fall-Seeded Camelina in the Northern Corn Belt. Agron. J. 2011, 103, 980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gesch, R.W. Influence of genotype and sowing date on camelina growth and yield in the north central U.S. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2014, 54, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Guy, S.O.; Wysocki, D.J.; Schillinger, W.F.; Chastain, T.G.; Karow, R.S.; Garland-Campbell, K.; Burke, I.C. Camelina: Adaptation and performance of genotypes. Field Crop. Res. 2014, 155, 224–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Solis, A.; Vidal, I.; Paulino, L.; Johnson, B.L.; Berti, M.T. Camelina seed yield response to nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus fertilizer in South Central Chile. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2013, 44, 132–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wysocki, D.J.; Chastain, T.G.; Schillinger, W.F.; Guy, S.O.; Karow, R.S. Camelina: Seed yield response to applied nitrogen and sulfur. Field Crop. Res. 2013, 145, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  18. Román-Figueroa, C.; Paneque, M. Ethics and Biofuel Production in Chile. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2015, 28, 293–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Uribe, J.M.; Cabrera, R.; de la Fuente, A.; Paneque, M. Atlas Bioclimático de Chile; Universidad de Chile: Santiago, Chile, 2012. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
  20. Food and Agriculture Organization. Mapa Mundial de Suelos; UNESCO: París, Francia, 1971. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
  21. Ministerio del Medio Ambiente. Sistema Nacional de Información Ambiental. 2014. Available online: (accesed on 13 April 2016). (In Spanish)
  22. Novak, V. Methods of Evapotranspiration Estimation. In Evapotranspiration in the Soil-Plant-Atmosphere System; Novák, V., Ed.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2005; pp. 165–215. [Google Scholar]
  23. Atroosh, K.B.; Mukred, A.W.O.; Moustafa, A.T. Water requirement of grape (Vitis vinifera) in the Northern highlands of Yemen. J. Agric. Sci. 2013, 5, 136–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Food and Agriculture Organization. A Framework for Land Evaluation; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  25. Rossiter, D.G. A theoretical framework for land evaluation. Geoderma 1996, 72, 165–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Labra, F. Zonificación Agroecológica Preliminar para el Establecimiento de Áreas Potenciales de Cultivo de Jatropha curcas L. con Fines Bioenergéticos Entre las Regiones de Antofagasta y Valparaíso; Universidad de Chile: Santiago, Chile, 2009. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
  27. Burrough, P.A.; McDonnell, R.A. Principles of Geographical Information Systems; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  28. Missouri Botanical Garden. Tropicos. 2016. Available online: (accessed on 7 March 2016).
  29. Malhi, S.S.; Johnson, E.N.; Hall, L.M.; May, W.E.; Phelps, S.; Nybo, B. Effect of nitrogen fertilizer application on seed yield, N uptake, and seed quality of Camelina sativa. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2014, 94, 35–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Abramovic, H.; Abram, V. Physico-chemical properties, composition and oxidative stability of Camelina sativa oil. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 2005, 43, 63–70. [Google Scholar]
  31. Pavlista, A.D.; Baltensperger, D.D.; Isbell, T.A.; Hergert, G.W. Comparative growth of spring-planted canola, brown mustard and camelina. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2012, 36, 9–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sintim, H.Y.; Zheljazkov, V.D.; Obour, A.K.; Garcia y Garcia, A.; Foulke, T.K. Influence of nitrogen and sulfur application on camelina performance under dryland conditions. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2015, 70, 253–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Karčauskienė, D.; Sendžikienė, E.; Makarevičienė, V.; Zaleckas, E.; Repšienė, R.; Ambrazaitienė, D. False flax (Camelina sativa L.) as an alternative source for biodiesel production. Zemdirbyste 2014, 101, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hunsaker, D.J.; French, A.N.; Clarke, T.R.; El-Shikha, D.M. Water use, crop coefficients, and irrigation management criteria for camelina production in arid regions. Irrig. Sci. 2011, 29, 27–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jha, P.; Stougaard, R.N. Camelina (Camelina sativa) tolerance to selected preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 2013, 27, 712–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chen, C.; Bekkerman, A.; Afshar, R.K.; Neill, K. Intensification of dryland cropping systems for bio-feedstock production: Evaluation of agronomic and economic benefits of Camelina sativa. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2015, 71, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Santibáñez, F.; Mendoza, J.; Muñoz, C.; Caroca, C.; Santibañez, P.; Prat, L. Systems to establish bioclimatic analogies to predict the area of adaptability of plant species to new environments: The case of Moringa oleifera Lam. in Chile. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2015, 75, 425–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Falasca, S.L.; Fresno, M.C.; Waldman, C. Developing an agro-climatic zoning model to determine potential growing areas for Camelina sativa in Argentina. QScience Connect 2014, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zema, D.A.; Bombino, G.; Andiloro, S.; Zimbone, S.M. Irrigation of energy crops with urban wastewater: Effects on biomass yields, soils and heating values. Agric. Water Manag. 2012, 115, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Astier-Calderón, M.; Maass-Moreno, M.; Etchevers-Barra, J. Derivación de indicadores de calidad de suelos en el contexto de la agricultura sustentable. Agrociencia 2002, 36, 605–620. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Suitability zoning for camelina in Chile: (a) thermic; (b) water; and (c) climatic.
Figure 1. Suitability zoning for camelina in Chile: (a) thermic; (b) water; and (c) climatic.
Sustainability 09 00154 g001
Figure 2. Soil suitability zoning for camelina in Chile.
Figure 2. Soil suitability zoning for camelina in Chile.
Sustainability 09 00154 g002
Figure 3. Territory considered to be a limitation for camelina adoption: (a) altitude; (b) geomorphology; (c) current land use; and (d) synthesis of limitations, considering altitude, geomorphology, and current land use.
Figure 3. Territory considered to be a limitation for camelina adoption: (a) altitude; (b) geomorphology; (c) current land use; and (d) synthesis of limitations, considering altitude, geomorphology, and current land use.
Sustainability 09 00154 g003
Figure 4. Agro-climatic zoning for camelina in Chile.
Figure 4. Agro-climatic zoning for camelina in Chile.
Sustainability 09 00154 g004
Table 1. Cities or towns where camelina is present, which were used to determine the soil and climate requirements for its development.
Table 1. Cities or towns where camelina is present, which were used to determine the soil and climate requirements for its development.
CountryCity/TownGeographic Coord.Reference
United StatesRosemount44°44′N093°07′O[6]
United StatesMaricopa33°03′N112°02′O[11]
AustriaGross Enzersdorf48°11′N016°33′E[12]
United StatesMorris45°35′N095°54′O[14]
United StatesLewiston46°23′N116°58′O[15]
United StatesPendleton45°43′N118°37′O[17]
United StatesCass38°38′N094°21′O[28]
United StatesJackson39°06′N094°30′O[28]
United StatesSaint Louis38°38′N090°14′O[28]
CanadaSwift Current50°17′N107°47′O[29]
United StatesScottsbluff41°50′N103°41′O[31]
United StatesWyarno44°48′N106°46′O[32]
Table 2. Critical thermic and water ranges for camelina adoption in Chile.
Table 2. Critical thermic and water ranges for camelina adoption in Chile.
ParametersAptitudeRange of Aptitude
TMX (°C)Restricted<21; >31
Mild restriction21–23.5; 28.5–31
Without restriction23.5–28.5
Mild restriction500–750
Without restriction>750
WD (mm)Restricted<–500
Moderate restriction–500–(–250)
Mild restriction–250–0
Without restriction>0
TMX: Maximum temperature of the warmest month; DD: Degree days; WD: Water deficit.
Table 3. Cities or towns where camelina is present, which were used to determine the soil requirements for its development.
Table 3. Cities or towns where camelina is present, which were used to determine the soil requirements for its development.
CountryCity/TownSoil TypeReferences
ChileEl CarmenTypic HaploxerandVitric Andosol[5,16]
ChileLos ÁngelesTypic HaploxerandVitric Andosol[5,16]
ChileOsornoTypic HaploxerandVitric Andosol[5,16]
ChileGorbeaTypic DystrandeptsHumic Andosol[5,16]
ChileChillánHumic HaploxerandHumic Andosol[5,16]
United StatesMaricopaTypic NatrargidsOrthic Solonetz[11,34]
United StatesMorrisCalcic HapludollsCalcic Chernozem[13]
United StatesPendletonTypic HaploxerandVitric Andosol[15,17]
United StatesLindXeric HaplocambidsCambisol *[15,17]
United StatesMoscow-PullmanUltic HaploxerollsHaplic Kastanozem[15,17]
United StatesCorvalisUltic ArgixerollsLuvic Phaeozem[15,17]
United StatesSheridanUstic HaplargidsLuvic Xerosol[32]
United StatesKalispellTypic HaplustollsHaplic Chernozem[35]
United StatesHuntleyAridic HaplustalfsChromic Luvisol[35]
United StatesMocasinTypic CalciustollsCalcaric Phaeozem[36]
* No specific information was found on the corresponding type of Cambisol, so the entire group was considered.
Table 4. Soil suitability level for camelina adaptation in Chile.
Table 4. Soil suitability level for camelina adaptation in Chile.
SoilWithout restrictionChromic Luvisol–Haplic Kastanozem
Mild restrictionHaplic Chernozem–Luvic Phaeozem–Vitric Andosol
Moderate restrictionHumic Andosol–Orthic Solonetz–Calcic Chernozem–Cambisol–Calcaric Phaeozem–Luvic Xerosol
Without informationAll remaining soil types
RestrictionGlaciars (Gelisoles o Criosoles)
Table 5. Limiting variables for camelina adaptation in Chile.
Table 5. Limiting variables for camelina adaptation in Chile.
Soil UsesUnsuitableUrban Areas–Forests–Wetlands–Bodies of Water–Snow and Glaciers–SNASPE–Agricultural Terrain
SuitableGrasslands and Shrublands–Areas without vegetation–Areas without information
GeomorphologyUnsuitableMountainous terrain–Steep slopes
SuitableFlat terrain–Mildly inclined
Table 6. Regional surface area with adaptation potential for camelina as a national oilseed crop (ha).
Table 6. Regional surface area with adaptation potential for camelina as a national oilseed crop (ha).
Los Ríos00013,06434,6933000103,100170,315321,176
Los Lagos000134,84494,75300005397513235,507
1: Thermic-Mild Restriction/Hydric-Moderate Restriction/Soil-Mild Restriction; 2: Thermic-Mild Restriction/Hydric-Moderate Restriction/Soil-Moderate Restriction; 3: Thermic-Mild Restriction/Hydric-Moderate Restriction/Soil-Without Information; 4: Thermic-Mild Restriction/Hydric-Minor Restriction/Soil-Mild Restriction; 5: Thermic-Mild Restriction/Hydric-Mild Restriction/Soil-Without Information; 6: Thermic-Mild Restriction/Hydric-Without Restriction/Soil-Without Information; 7: Thermic-Without Restriction/Hydric-Moderate Restriction/Soil-Mild Restriction; 8: Thermic-Without Restriction/Hydric-Moderate Restriction/Soil-Without Restriction; 9: Thermic-Without Restriction/Hydric-Moderate Restriction/Soil-Without Information; 10: Thermic-Without Restriction/Hydric-Mild Restriction/Soil-Mild Restriction; 11: Thermic-Without Restriction/Hydric-Mild Restriction/Soil-Without Information.
Back to TopTop