VG07023 Driving better vegetable irrigation through profitable practice change

Despite recent flooding in eastern Australia, the availability/quality of irrigation water is a long-term issue for Australian vegetable growers. To survive, producers are told to implement new technologies. However, there is often little practical information investigating which improvements could make a real difference, and keep production profitable. In an Horticulture Australia Ltd three year project, scientists from the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (QLD), CSIRO, Department of Industry and Investment (NSW), and the National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture, evaluated practical irrigation improvements. We conducted experiments and case studies on farms in southern Queensland and Riverina vegetable districts, with over 100 extension events, including irrigation workshops, conferences, and field days.

Performance of Pinus elliottii, Pinus caribaea, their F-1, F-2 and backcross hybrids and Pinus taeda to 10 years in the Mesopotamia region, Argentina

Performances of Pinus taxa were studied to 10 years of age in two trials in each of Misiones and Entre Rios provinces across the Mesopotamia region of Argentina. Taxa comprised 22 populations from sources in Argentina, Australia, Brazil and Zimbabwe including Pinus elliottii var. elliottii (Pee), Pinus caribaea var. hondurensis (Pch), their four, inter-specific hybrids (F-1, F-2 and backcrosses from F-1 to Pch and to Pee-all as broadly based bulks); other Pee and Pinus taeda (Pt) comprised narrower or unspecified bulks. Variable numbers of taxa were missing at each site. Mean survival across sites at age 10 years ranged 53.2-91.3% averaging 74.2%. Analysis of variance of plot means indicated population effect was statistically significant (p < 0.05) for all or most growth and quality traits at all sites. However, significant differences from the nominated check seedlot at the Entre Rios sites (Pee, Australia) were extremely rare, while quite common at the northern, Misiones sites (check seedlot a Pt population). In the Misiones trials, F-1, F-2 and both backcross hybrids showed better stem straightness than Pee and Pt from Argentina, generally with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). Pt showed lowest forking scores (desirable). Taxon x environment interaction was statistically significant (p < 0.01) for growth traits only (p > 0.05). However, this interaction contributed an average of only 34.1% of the taxon variance suggesting a lack of practical importance. Taxa most suitable for deployment in the Mesopotamia region, Argentina are suggested.

Multijurisdictional fisheries performance reporting: How Australia’s nationally standardised approach to assessing stock status compares

Australian marine wild-capture fisheries are managed by eight separate jurisdictions. Traditionally, fishery status reports have been produced separately by most of these jurisdictions, assessing the fish stocks they manage, and reporting on the effectiveness of their fisheries management. However, the format, the type of stock status assessments, the thresholds and terminology used to describe stock status and the classification frameworks have varied over time and among jurisdictions. These differences complicate efforts to understand stock status on a national scale. They also create potential misunderstanding among the wider community about how to interpret information on the status of fish stocks, and the fisheries management and science processes more generally. This is especially true when considering stocks that are shared across two or more jurisdictional boundaries. A standardised approach was developed in 2011 leading to production of the first national Status of key Australian fish stocks reports in 2012, followed by a second edition in 2014 (www.fish.gov.au). Production of these reports was the first step towards a broader national approach to reporting on the performance of Australian fisheries for target species and for wider ecosystem and socioeconomic consequences. This paper outlines the challenges associated with moving towards national performance reporting for target fish stocks and Australia’s successes so far. It also outlines the challenges ahead, in particular those relating to reporting more broadly on the status of entire fisheries. Comparisons are drawn between Australia and New Zealand and more broadly between Australia and other countries.

Multijurisdictional fisheries performance reporting: How Australia’s nationally standardised approach to assessing stock status compares

Australian marine wild-capture fisheries are managed by eight separate jurisdictions. Traditionally, fishery status reports have been produced separately by most of these jurisdictions, assessing the fish stocks they manage, and reporting on the effectiveness of their fisheries management. However, the format, the type of stock status assessments, the thresholds and terminology used to describe stock status and the classification frameworks have varied over time and among jurisdictions. These differences complicate efforts to understand stock status on a national scale. They also create potential misunderstanding among the wider community about how to interpret information on the status of fish stocks, and the fisheries management and science processes more generally. This is especially true when considering stocks that are shared across two or more jurisdictional boundaries. A standardised approach was developed in 2011 leading to production of the first national Status of key Australian fish stocks reports in 2012, followed by a second edition in 2014 (www.fish.gov.au). Production of these reports was the first step towards a broader national approach to reporting on the performance of Australian fisheries for target species and for wider ecosystem and socioeconomic consequences. This paper outlines the challenges associated with moving towards national performance reporting for target fish stocks and Australia’s successes so far. It also outlines the challenges ahead, in particular those relating to reporting more broadly on the status of entire fisheries. Comparisons are drawn between Australia and New Zealand and more broadly between Australia and other countries.

Borate protection of softwood from Coptotermes acinaciformis (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) damage: Variation in protection thresholds explained

Laboratory and field data reported in the literature are confusing with regard to “adequate” protection thresholds for borate timber preservatives. The confusion is compounded by differences in termite species, timber species and test methodology. Laboratory data indicate a borate retention of 0.5% mass/mass (m/m) boric acid equivalent (BAE) would cause >90% termite mortality and restrict mass loss in test specimens to ≤5%. Field data generally suggest that borate retentions appreciably >0.5% m/m BAE are required. We report two field experiments with varying amounts of untreated feeder material in which Coptotermes acinaciformis (Froggatt) (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) responses to borate-treated radiata (Monterey) pine, Pinus radiata D. Don, were measured. The apparently conflicting results between laboratory and field data are explained by the presence or absence of untreated feeder material in the test environment. In the absence of untreated feeder material, wood containing 0.5% BAE provided adequate protection from Coptotermes sp., whereas in the presence of untreated feeder material, increased retentions were required. Furthermore, the retentions required increased with increased amounts of susceptible material present. Some termites, Nasutitermes sp. and Mastotermes darwiniensis Froggatt, for example, are borate-tolerant and borate timber preservatives are not a viable management option with these species. The lack of uniform standards for termite test methodology and assessment criteria for efficacy across the world is recognized as a difficulty with research into the performance of timber preservatives with termites. The many variables in laboratory and field assays make “prescriptive” standards difficult to recommend. The use of “performance” standards to define efficacy criteria (“adequate” protection) is discussed.