Migration of feral pigs (Sus scrofa) in rainforests of north Queensland: fact or fiction?

The Wet Tropics bioregion of north Queensland has been identified as an area of global significance. The world-heritage-listed rainforests have been invaded by feral pigs (Sus scrofa) that are perceived to cause substantial environmental damage. A community perception exists of an annual altitudinal migration of the feral-pig population. The present study describes the movements of 29 feral pigs in relation to altitudinal migration (highland, transitional and lowland areas). Feral pigs were sedentary and stayed within their home range throughout a 4-year study period. No altitudinal migration was detected; pigs moved no more than a mean distance of 1.0 km from the centre of their calculated home ranges. There was no significant difference between the mean (+/- 95% confidence interval) aggregate home ranges for males (8.7 +/- 4.3 km², n = 15) and females (7.2 +/- 1.8 km², n = 14). No difference in home range was detected among the three altitudinal areas: 7.2 +/- 2.4 km² for highland, 6.2 +/- 3.9 km² for transitional and 9.9 +/- 5.3 km² for lowland areas. The aggregate mean home range for all pigs in the present study was 8.0 +/- 2.4 km². The study also assessed the influence seasons had on the home range of eight feral pigs on the rainforest boundary; home ranges did not significantly vary in size between the tropical wet and dry seasons, although the mean home range in the dry season (7.7 +/- 6.9 km²) was more than twice the home range in the wet season (2.9 +/- 0.8 km²). Heavier pigs tended to have larger home ranges. The results of the present study suggest that feral pigs are sedentary throughout the year so broad-scale control techniques need to be applied over sufficient areas to encompass individual home ranges. Control strategies need a coordinated approach if a long-term reduction in the pig population is to be achieved.

Best management practices for sustainable and safe playing surface of Australian Football League sports fields

In 2002, AFL Queensland and the Brisbane Lions Football Club approached the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (Queensland) for advice on improving their Premier League sports fields. They were concerned about player safety and dissatisfaction with playing surfaces, particularly uneven turf cover and variable under-foot conditions. They wanted to get the best from new investments in ground maintenance equipment and irrigation infrastructure. Their sports fields were representative of community-standard, multi-use venues throughout Australia; generally ‘natural’ soil fields, with low maintenance budgets, managed by volunteers. Improvements such as reconstruction, drainage, or regular re-turfing are generally not affordable. Our project aimed to: (a) Review current world practice and performance benchmarks; (b) Demonstrate best-practice management for community-standard fields; (c) Adapt relevant methods for surface performance testing; (d) Assess current soils, and investigate useful amendments; (e) Improve irrigation system performance; and (e) Build industry capacity and encourage patterns for ongoing learning. Most global sports field research focuses on elite, sand-based fields. We adjusted elite standards for surface performance (hardness, traction, soil moisture, evenness, sward cover/height) and maintenance programs, to suit community-standard fields with lesser input resources. In regularly auditing ground conditions across 12 AFLQ fields in SE QLD, we discovered surface hardness (measured by Clegg Hammer) was the No. 1 factor affecting player safety and surface performance. Other important indices were turf coverage and surface compaction (measured by penetrometer). AFLQ now runs regularly audits affiliated fields, and closes grounds with hardness readings greater than 190 Gmax. Aerating every two months was the primary mechanical practice improving surface condition and reducing hardness levels to < 110 Gmax on the renovated project fields. With irrigation installation, these fields now record surface conditions comparable to elite fields. These improvements encouraged many other sporting organisations to seek advice / assistance from the project team. AFLQ have since substantially invested in an expanded ground improvement program, to cater for this substantially increased demand. In auditing irrigation systems across project fields, we identified low maintenance (with < 65% of sprinklers operating optimally) as a major problem. Retrofitting better nozzles and adjusting sprinklers improved irrigation distribution uniformity to 75-80%. Research showed that reducing irrigation frequency to weekly, and preparedness to withhold irrigation longer after rain, reduced irrigation requirement by 30-50%, compared to industry benchmarks of 5-6 ML/ha/annum. Project team consultation with regulatory authorities enhanced irrigation efficiency under imposed regional water restrictions. Laboratory studies showed incorporated biosolids / composts, or topdressed crumb rubber, improved compaction resistance of soils. Field evaluations confirmed compost incorporation significantly reduced surface hardness of high wear areas in dry conditions, whilst crumb rubber assisted turf persistence into early winter. Neither amendment was a panacea for poor agronomic practices. Under the auspices of the project Trade Mark Sureplay®, we published > 80 articles, and held > 100 extension activities involving > 2,000 participants. Sureplay® has developed a multi-level curator training structure and resource materials, subject to commercial implementation. The partnerships with industry bodies (particularly AFLQ), frequent extension activities, and engagement with government/regulatory sectors have been very successful, and are encouraged for any future work. Specific aspects of sports field management for further research include: (a) Understanding of factors affecting turf wear resistance and recovery, to improve turf persistence under wear; (b) Simple tests for pinpointing areas of fields with high hardness risk; and (c) Evaluation of new irrigation infrastructure, ‘water-saving’ devices, and irrigation protocols, in improving water use and turf cover outcomes.