An analysis of assessment outcomes from eight years' operation of the Australian border weed risk assessment system

The majority of Australian weeds are exotic plant species that were intentionally introduced for a variety of horticultural and agricultural purposes. A border weed risk assessment system (WRA) was implemented in 1997 in order to reduce the high economic costs and massive environmental damage associated with introducing serious weeds. We review the behaviour of this system with regard to eight years of data collected from the assessment of species proposed for importation or held within genetic resource centres in Australia. From a taxonomic perspective, species from the Chenopodiaceae and Poaceae were most likely to be rejected and those from the Arecaceae and Flacourtiaceae were most likely to be accepted. Dendrogram analysis and classification and regression tree (TREE) models were also used to analyse the data. The latter revealed that a small subset of the 35 variables assessed was highly associated with the outcome of the original assessment. The TREE model examining all of the data contained just five variables: unintentional human dispersal, congeneric weed, weed elsewhere, tolerates or benefits from mutilation, cultivation or fire, and reproduction by vegetative propagation. It gave the same outcome as the full WRA model for 71% of species. Weed elsewhere was not the first splitting variable in this model, indicating that the WRA has a capacity for capturing species that have no history of weediness. A reduced TREE model (in which human-mediated variables had been removed) contained four variables: broad climate suitability, reproduction in less or than equal to 1 year, self-fertilisation, and tolerates and benefits from mutilation, cultivation or fire. It yielded the same outcome as the full WRA model for 65% of species. Data inconsistencies and the relative importance of questions are discussed, with some recommendations made for improving the use of the system.

Chemical phytotoxicity testing facility for warm-season turfgrasses

The registration of new agricultural chemicals (particularly herbicides) for turf use requires supporting data on their possible phytotoxic effects across a representative range of turfgrass species and cultivars. This process has been streamlined by the establishment of dedicated phytotoxicity testing site. This facility has enabled phytotoxicity screening of new chemicals to be conducted more quickly, thoroughly and economically than the previous piecemeal ad hoc approach. During the three years of this project, 39 products were screened on the site.

Extension of Chemical Phytotoxicity Testing Facility for Warm-Season Turfgrasses

The turf industry needs to access a range of more selective, effective and environmentally acceptable pesticides, which will help to address environmental concerns while maintaining the industry's internationally competitive status. This includes both new pesticides being developed globally for turf use and older generic chemicals previously registered for other agricultural purposes and now requiring extension of that registration for use in turf.

TU10025 Erosion control - turf research and development facility

The aim of this project is to construct a large-scale erosion control education and demonstration facility at Redland Research Station. This will be done in collaboration with the Australian turf industry (as members of the steering committee) and consultant researcher Dr Rob Loch (project partner). The project will employ a part-time industry development officer (IDO) for Turf Australia to increase engagement with the project by the target audience. The project’s main strategy is to extend the research results from HAL funded project Optimising Turf Use to Minimise Soil Erosion on Construction Sites TU08033 so that the maximum return on investment can be derived for the turf levy payers and HAL from that study.

A multisite managed environment facility for targeted trait and germplasm phenotyping

Field evaluation of germplasm for performance under water and heat stress is challenging. Field environments are variable and unpredictable, and genotype x environment interactions are difficult to interpret if environments are not well characterised. Numerous traits, genes and quantitative trait loci have been proposed for improving performance but few have been used in variety development. This reflects the limited capacity of commercial breeding companies to screen for these traits and the absence of validation in field environments relevant to breeding companies, and because little is known about the economic benefit of selecting one particular trait over another. The value of the proposed traits or genes is commonly not demonstrated in genetic backgrounds of value to breeding companies. To overcome this disconnection between physiological trait breeding and uptake by breeding companies, three field sites representing the main environment types encountered across the Australian wheatbelt were selected to form a set of managed environment facilities (MEFs). Each MEF manages soil moisture stress through irrigation, and the effects of heat stress through variable sowing dates. Field trials are monitored continuously for weather variables and changes in soil water and canopy temperature in selected probe genotypes, which aids in decisions guiding irrigation scheduling and sampling times. Protocols have been standardised for an essential core set of measurements so that phenotyping yield and other traits are consistent across sites and seasons. MEFs enable assessment of a large number of traits across multiple genetic backgrounds in relevant environments, determine relative trait value, and facilitate delivery of promising germplasm and high value traits into commercial breeding programs.