Effect of sugarcane cropping systems on herbicide losses in surface runoff

Herbicide runoff from cropping fields has been identified as a threat to the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem. A field investigation was carried out to monitor the changes in runoff water quality resulting from four different sugarcane cropping systems that included different herbicides and contrasting tillage and trash management practices. These include (i) Conventional - Tillage (beds and inter-rows) with residual herbicides used; (ii) Improved - only the beds were tilled (zonal) with reduced residual herbicides used; (iii) Aspirational - minimum tillage (one pass of a single tine ripper before planting) with trash mulch, no residual herbicides and a legume intercrop after cane establishment; and (iv) New Farming System (NFS) - minimum tillage as in Aspirational practice with a grain legume rotation and a combination of residual and knockdown herbicides. Results suggest soil and trash management had a larger effect on the herbicide losses in runoff than the physico-chemical properties of herbicides. Improved practices with 30% lower atrazine application rates than used in conventional systems produced reduced runoff volumes by 40% and atrazine loss by 62%. There were a 2-fold variation in atrazine and >10-fold variation in metribuzin loads in runoff water between reduced tillage systems differing in soil disturbance and surface residue cover from the previous rotation crops, despite the same herbicide application rates. The elevated risk of offsite losses from herbicides was illustrated by the high concentrations of diuron (14mugL-1) recorded in runoff that occurred >2.5months after herbicide application in a 1st ratoon crop. A cropping system employing less persistent non-selective herbicides and an inter-row soybean mulch resulted in no residual herbicide contamination in runoff water, but recorded 12.3% lower yield compared to Conventional practice. These findings reveal a trade-off between achieving good water quality with minimal herbicide contamination and maintaining farm profitability with good weed control.

Nitrogen use efficiency in summer sorghum grown on clay soils

Nitrogen fertilizer inputs dominate the fertilizer budget of grain sorghum growers in northern Australia, so optimizing use efficiency and minimizing losses are a primary agronomic objective. We report results from three experiments in southern Queensland sown on contrasting soil types and with contrasting rotation histories in the 2012-2013 summer season. Experiments were designed to quantify the response of grain sorghum to rates of N fertilizer applied as urea. Labelled 15N fertilizer was applied in microplots to determine the fate of applied N, while nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions were continuously monitored at Kingaroy (grass or legume ley histories) and Kingsthorpe (continuous grain cropping). Nitrous oxide is a useful indicator of gaseous N losses. Crops at all sites responded strongly to fertilizer N applications, with yields of unfertilized treatments ranging from 17% to 52% of N-unlimited potential. Maximum yields ranged from 4500 (Kupunn) to 5450 (Kingaroy) and 8010 (Kingsthorpe) kg/ha. Agronomic efficiency (kg additional grain produced/kg fertilizer N applied) at the optimum N rate on the Vertosol sites was 23 (80 N, Kupunn) to 25 (160N, Kingsthorpe), but 40-42 on the Ferrosols at Kingaroy (70-100N). Cumulative N2O emissions ranged from 0.44% (Kingaroy legume) to 0.93% (Kingsthorpe) and 1.15% (Kingaroy grass) of the optimum fertilizer N rate at each site, with greatest emissions from the Vertosol at Kingsthorpe. The similarity in N2O emissions factors between Kingaroy and Kingsthorpe contrasted markedly with the recovery of applied fertilizer N in plant and soil. Apparent losses of fertilizer N ranged from 0-5% (Ferrosols at Kingaroy) to 40-48% (Vertosols at Kupunn and Kingsthorpe). The greater losses on the Vertosols were attributed to denitrification losses and illustrate the greater risks of N losses in these soils in wet seasonal conditions.

Virus diseases of chickpeas and pulse crops in Australia

Accurate identification of viruses is critical for resistance breeding and for development of management strategies. To this end, we are developing PCR diagnostics for the luteoviruses / poleroviruses that commonly affect chickpea and pulse crops in Australia. This is helping to overcome the shortfalls in virus identifications that often result from cross reactions of viruses to some antibodies. We compared these PCR tests with antibody based Tissue blot immune-assay (TBIA) in virus surveys of chickpea and pulse crops from eastern Australia. We used a multiplex PCR for Beet western yellows virus (BWYV), Bean leaf roll virus (BLRV), Phasey bean virus (PhBV – a new polerovirus species) and Soybean dwarf virus (SbDV) to investigate the importance of each virus and their host range from different locations. Important alternative hosts included Malva parviflora which was commonly found to be infected with BWYV from many locations and Medicago polymorpha was a host for BLRV, PhBV and SbDV. Using the virus species-specific PCR, 49 virus affected plants (mostly crop plants) from surveys in 2013 were screened, revealing the following infections; 38 SbDV, 5 PhBV, 3 BWYV, 2 BLRV and 1 mixed SbDV/BWYV. From the 45 samples that were not BWYV by PCR, 33 were false-positives in the BWYV TBIA. This demonstrates the BWYV antibody used was not useful for identifying BWYV and PCR indicated that SbDV was the dominant virus from the samples tested from the 2013 season. Preliminary results from the 2014 season indicate a significant change, with SbDV being only a minor component of the total virus population. Further work to clarify the Australian luteovirus complex through molecular techniques is in progress.

Erratum to "Optimization of resin extraction from an Australian arid grass 'Triodia pungens' and its preliminary evaluation as an anti-termite timber coating" [Ind. Crops Prod. 59 (2014) 241–247]

The publisher regrets to inform the readers that the image that is appearing for Fig. 8 is incorrect and that the Supplementary material is missing on the published paper. The correct image for Fig. 8 and the Supplementary files are provided below: Fig. 8. (a) Timber blocks covered by invented plastic container bottom open, (b) timber blocks in the field after trial, (c) and (d) comparison between resin-coated blocks without termite damage and control blocks which were severely damaged by termites.