Predicting the cost of eradication for 41 Class 1 declared weeds in Queensland

The feasibility of state-wide eradication of 41 invasive plant taxa currently listed as ‘Class 1 declared pests’ under the Queensland Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 was assessed using the predictive model ‘WeedSearch’. Results indicated that all but one species (Alternanthera philoxeroides) could be eradicated, provided sufficient funding and labour were available. Slightly less than one quarter (24.4%) (n = 10) of Class 1 weed taxa could be eradicated for less than $100 000 per taxon. An additional 43.9% (n = 18) could be eradicated for between $100 000 and $1M per taxon. Hence, 68.3% of Class 1 weed taxa (n = 28) could be eradicated for less than $1M per taxon. Eradication of 29.3% (n = 12) is predicted to cost more than $1M per taxon. Comparison of these WeedSearch outputs with either empirical analysis or results from a previous application of the model suggests that these costs may, in fact, be underestimates. Considering the likelihood that each weed will cost the state many millions of dollars in long-term losses (e.g. losses to primary production, environmental impacts and control costs), eradication seems a wise investment. Even where predicted costs are over $1M, eradication can still offer highly favourable benefit:cost ratios. The total (cumulative) cost of eradication of all 41 weed taxa is substantial; for all taxa, the estimated cost of eradication in the first year alone is $8 618 000. This study provides important information for policy makers, who must decide where to invest public funding.

Construction timbers in Queensland. Book 1 and Book 2: Properties and specifications for satisfactory performance of construction timbers in Queensland. Class 1 and Class 10 buildings (houses, carports, garages, greenhouses and sheds). 2013 edition.

This publication lists the more important wood properties of commercial timbers used for construction in Queensland. It also provides requirements and conditions of use for these timbers to provide appropriate design service life in various construction applications. The correct specification of timber considers a range of timber properties including, but not limited to, stress grade; durability class; moisture content and insect resistance. For the specification of timber sizes and spans, relevant Australian Standards and design manuals should be consulted—e.g. Australian Standard AS 1684 series Residential timber—framed construction parts 2 and 3 (Standards Australia 2006a;b.) Book 1 explains the terms used; with reference to nomenclature; origin and timber properties presented under specific column headings in the schedules (Book 2). It also explains target design life; applications and decay hazard zones; presented in the Book 2 Schedules. Book 2 consists of reference tables; presented as schedules A; B and C: • Schedule A contains commercial mixtures of unidentified timbers and of some Australian and imported softwoods. Index numbers 1–10 • Schedule B contains Australian-grown timber species; including both natural forests and plantations. Index numbers 11–493 • Schedule C contains timbers imported into Australia from overseas. Index numbers 494–606 Each schedule has two parts presenting data in tables. • Part 1: Nomenclature, origin and properties of imported timber species • Part 2: Approved uses for commercial mixtures of imported timber species The recommendations made in this publication assume that good building practice will be carried out.

Weed control in dry direct-seeded rice using tank mixtures of herbicides in South Asia

Dry direct-seeded rice (DSR) faces with complex weed problems particularly when farmers missed pre-emergence herbicide applications. Thus, an effective and strategic weed control in DSR is often required with available options of post-emergence herbicides. In such situations, tank mixtures of herbicides may provide broad spectrum weed control in DSR. Field experiments were conducted in the wet seasons of 2013 and 2014 to study weed control in response to tank mixtures of herbicides currently applied in DSR in South Asia. Results revealed that the tank mixtures of the currently available herbicides (azimsulfuron plus bispyribac or fenoxaprop, bispyribac plus fenoxaprop, and azimsulfuron plus bispyribac plus fenoxaprop; all applied as post-emergence) rarely resulted in antagonistic effects. Highest weed control efficiency (∼98%) was recorded with the tank mixture of azimsulfuron plus bispyribac plus fenoxaprop during both the years. This treatment also produced highest grain yield (7.2 t ha−1 in 2013 and 7.9 t ha−1in 2014), which was similar to the grain yield in the plots treated with the tank mix of azimsulfuron plus fenoxaprop, pendimethalin (applied as pre-emergence) followed by (fb) bispyribac, pendimethalin fb fenoxaprop, as well as pendimethalin fb azimsulfuron. Plots treated with the post-emergence application of single herbicide (i.e., azimsulfuron, bispyribac, or fenoxaprop) had lower grain yield (3.0–5.2 t ha−1 in 2013 to 3.5–6.1 t ha−1in 2014) than all the sequential herbicide treatments and tank mixtures (azimsulfuron plus fenoxaprop and azimsulfuron plus bispyribac), owing to a broad spectrum weed control. The study suggested that if farmers missed the pre-emergence application of herbicides (e.g., pendimethalin) due to erratic rains or due to other reasons, good weed control and high yield can still be obtained with tank mix applications of azimsulfuron plus fenoxaprop or azimsulfuron plus bispyribac plus fenoxaprop in DSR.

Small-scale capture, transport and tank adaptation of live, medium-sized Scombrids using "Tuna Tubes"

The transport of live fish is a crucial step to establish fish culture in captivity, and is especially challenging for species that have not been commonly cultured before, therefore transport and handling methods need to be optimized and tailored. This study describes the use of tuna tubes for small-scale transport of medium-sized pelagic fish from the Scombridae family. Tuna tubes are an array of vertical tubes that hold the fish, while fresh seawater is pumped up the tubes and through the fish mouth and gills, providing oxygen and removing wastes. In this study, 19 fish were captured using rod and line and 42% of the captured fish were transported alive in the custom-designed tuna tubes to an on-shore holding tank: five mackerel tuna (Euthynnus affinis) and three leaping bonito (Cybiosarda elegans). Out of these, just three (15.8% of total fish) acclimatized to the tank's condition. Based on these results, we discuss an improved design of the tuna tubes that has the potential to increase survival rates and enable a simple and low cost method of transporting of live pelagic fish.