Nitrogen use for high productivity and sustainability in cashew.

Interest in cashew production in Australia has been stimulated by domestic and export market opportunities and suitability of large areas of tropical Australia. Economic models indicate that cashew production is profitable at 2.8 t ha-1 nut-in-shell (NIS). Balanced plant nutrition is essential to achieve economic yields in Australia, with nitrogen (N) of particular importance because of its capacity to modify growth, affect nut yield and cause environmental degradation through soil acidification and off-site contamination. The study on a commercial cashew plantation at Dimbulah, Australia, investigated the effect of N rate and timing on cashew growth, nut production, N leaching and soil chemical properties over five growth cycles (1995-1999). Nitrogen was applied during the main periods of vegetative (December-April) and reproductive (June-October) growth. Commercial NIS yields (up to 4.4 t ha-1 from individual trees) that exceeded the economic threshold of 2.8 t ha-1 were achieved. The yield response was mainly determined by canopy size as mean nut weight, panicle density and nuts per panicle were largely unaffected by N treatments. Nitrogen application confined to the main period of vegetative growth (December-April) produced a seasonal growth pattern that corresponded most consistently with highest NIS yield. This N timing also reduced late season flowering and undesirable post-November nut drop. Higher yields were not produced at N rates greater than 17 g m-2 of canopy surface area (equating to 210 kg N ha-1 for mature size trees). High yields were attained when N concentrations in Mveg leaves in May-June were about 2%, but this assessment occurs at a time when it is not feasible to correct N deficiency. The Mflor leaf of the preceding November, used in conjunction with the Mveg leaf, was proposed as a diagnostic tool to guide N rate decisions. Leaching of nitrate-N and acidification of the soil profile was recorded to 0.9 m. This is an environmental and sustainability hazard, and demonstrates that improved methods of N management are required.

Assessment of functional forms of crop yield loss models of invasive plant species applied in decision support tools and bioeconomic modelling

AbstractObjectives Decision support tools (DSTs) for invasive species management have had limited success in producing convincing results and meeting users' expectations. The problems could be linked to the functional form of model which represents the dynamic relationship between the invasive species and crop yield loss in the DSTs. The objectives of this study were: a) to compile and review the models tested on field experiments and applied to DSTs; and b) to do an empirical evaluation of some popular models and alternatives. Design and methods This study surveyed the literature and documented strengths and weaknesses of the functional forms of yield loss models. Some widely used models (linear, relative yield and hyperbolic models) and two potentially useful models (the double-scaled and density-scaled models) were evaluated for a wide range of weed densities, maximum potential yield loss and maximum yield loss per weed. Results Popular functional forms include hyperbolic, sigmoid, linear, quadratic and inverse models. Many basic models were modified to account for the effect of important factors (weather, tillage and growth stage of crop at weed emergence) influencing weed–crop interaction and to improve prediction accuracy. This limited their applicability for use in DSTs as they became less generalized in nature and often were applicable to a much narrower range of conditions than would be encountered in the use of DSTs. These factors' effects could be better accounted by using other techniques. Among the model empirically assessed, the linear model is a very simple model which appears to work well at sparse weed densities, but it produces unrealistic behaviour at high densities. The relative-yield model exhibits expected behaviour at high densities and high levels of maximum yield loss per weed but probably underestimates yield loss at low to intermediate densities. The hyperbolic model demonstrated reasonable behaviour at lower weed densities, but produced biologically unreasonable behaviour at low rates of loss per weed and high yield loss at the maximum weed density. The density-scaled model is not sensitive to the yield loss at maximum weed density in terms of the number of weeds that will produce a certain proportion of that maximum yield loss. The double-scaled model appeared to produce more robust estimates of the impact of weeds under a wide range of conditions. Conclusions Previously tested functional forms exhibit problems for use in DSTs for crop yield loss modelling. Of the models evaluated, the double-scaled model exhibits desirable qualitative behaviour under most circumstances.