Modelling the manager: Representing rule-based management in farming systems simulation models

We trace the evolution of the representation of management in cropping and grazing systems models, from fixed annual schedules of identical actions in single paddocks toward flexible scripts of rules. Attempts to define higher-level organizing concepts in management policies, and to analyse them to identify optimal plans, have focussed on questions relating to grazing management owing to its inherent complexity. “Rule templates” assist the re-use of complex management scripts by bundling commonly-used collections of rules with an interface through which key parameters can be input by a simulation builder. Standard issues relating to parameter estimation and uncertainty apply to management sub-models and need to be addressed. Techniques for embodying farmers' expectations and plans for the future within modelling analyses need to be further developed, especially better linking planning- and rule-based approaches to farm management and analysing the ways that managers can learn.

How accurate are the marker orders in crop linkage maps generated from large marker datasets?

Marker ordering during linkage map construction is a critical component of QTL mapping research. In recent years, high-throughput genotyping methods have become widely used, and these methods may generate hundreds of markers for a single mapping population. This poses problems for linkage analysis software because the number of possible marker orders increases exponentially as the number of markers increases. In this paper, we tested the accuracy of linkage analyses on simulated recombinant inbred line data using the commonly used Map Manager QTX (Manly et al. 2001: Mammalian Genome 12, 930-932) software and RECORD (Van Os et al. 2005: Theoretical and Applied Genetics 112, 30-40). Accuracy was measured by calculating two scores: % correct marker positions, and a novel, weighted rank-based score derived from the sum of absolute values of true minus observed marker ranks divided by the total number of markers. The accuracy of maps generated using Map Manager QTX was considerably lower than those generated using RECORD. Differences in linkage maps were often observed when marker ordering was performed several times using the identical dataset. In order to test the effect of reducing marker numbers on the stability of marker order, we pruned marker datasets focusing on regions consisting of tightly linked clusters of markers, which included redundant markers. Marker pruning improved the accuracy and stability of linkage maps because a single unambiguous marker order was produced that was consistent across replications of analysis. Marker pruning was also applied to a real barley mapping population and QTL analysis was performed using different map versions produced by the different programs. While some QTLs were identified with both map versions, there were large differences in QTL mapping results. Differences included maximum LOD and R-2 values at QTL peaks and map positions, thus highlighting the importance of marker order for QTL mapping

Tools to manage climate risk in cropping (Australia).

Because of the variable and changing environment, advisors and farmers are seeking systems that provide risk management support at a number of time scales. The Agricultural Production Systems Research Unit, Toowoomba, Australia has developed a suite of tools to assist advisors and farmers to better manage risk in cropping. These tools range from simple rainfall analysis tools (Rainman, HowWet, HowOften) through crop simulation tools (WhopperCropper and YieldProphet) to the most complex, APSFarm, a whole-farm analysis tool. Most are derivatives of the APSIM crop model. These tools encompass a range of complexity and potential benefit to both the farming community and for government policy. This paper describes, the development and usage of two specific products; WhopperCropper and APSFarm. WhopperCropper facilitates simulation-aided discussion of growers' exposure to risk when comparing alternative crop input options. The user can readily generate 'what-if' scenarios that separate the major influences whilst holding other factors constant. Interactions of the major inputs can also be tested. A manager can examine the effects of input levels (and Southern Oscillation Index phase) to broadly determine input levels that match their attitude to risk. APSFarm has been used to demonstrate that management changes can have different effects in short and long time periods. It can be used to test local advisors and farmers' knowledge and experience of their desired rotation system. This study has shown that crop type has a larger influence than more conservative minimum soil water triggers in the long term. However, in short term dry periods, minimum soil water triggers and maximum area of the various crops can give significant financial gains.