Analysis of the serological variability of Lettuce mosaic virus using monoclonal antibodies and surface plasmon resonance technology

A panel of 19 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) was used to study the immunological variability of Lettuce mosaic virus (LMV), a member of the genus Potyvirus, and to perform a first epitope characterization of this virus. Based on their specificity of recognition against a panel of 15 LMV isolates, the mAbs could be clustered in seven reactivity groups. Surface plasmon resonance analysis indicated the presence, on the LMV particles, of at least five independent recognition/binding regions, correlating with the seven mAbs reactivity groups. The results demonstrate that LMV shows significant serological variability and shed light on the LMV epitope structure. The various mAbs should prove a new and efficient tool for LMV diagnostic and field epidemiology studies.

Net radiation dynamics: performance of 20 daily net radiation models as related to model structure and intricacy in two climates.

We compared daily net radiation (Rn) estimates from 19 methods with the ASCE-EWRI Rn estimates in two climates: Clay Center, Nebraska (sub-humid) and Davis, California (semi-arid) for the calendar year. The performances of all 20 methods, including the ASCE-EWRI Rn method, were then evaluated against Rn data measured over a non-stressed maize canopy during two growing seasons in 2005 and 2006 at Clay Center. Methods differ in terms of inputs, structure, and equation intricacy. Most methods differ in estimating the cloudiness factor, emissivity (e), and calculating net longwave radiation (Rnl). All methods use albedo (a) of 0.23 for a reference grass/alfalfa surface. When comparing the performance of all 20 Rn methods with measured Rn, we hypothesized that the a values for grass/alfalfa and non-stressed maize canopy were similar enough to only cause minor differences in Rn and grass- and alfalfa-reference evapotranspiration (ETo and ETr) estimates. The measured seasonal average a for the maize canopy was 0.19 in both years. Using a = 0.19 instead of a = 0.23 resulted in 6% overestimation of Rn. Using a = 0.19 instead of a = 0.23 for ETo and ETr estimations, the 6% difference in Rn translated to only 4% and 3% differences in ETo and ETr, respectively, supporting the validity of our hypothesis. Most methods had good correlations with the ASCE-EWRI Rn (r2 > 0.95). The root mean square difference (RMSD) was less than 2 MJ m-2 d-1 between 12 methods and the ASCE-EWRI Rn at Clay Center and between 14 methods and the ASCE-EWRI Rn at Davis. The performance of some methods showed variations between the two climates. In general, r2 values were higher for the semi-arid climate than for the sub-humid climate. Methods that use dynamic e as a function of mean air temperature performed better in both climates than those that calculate e using actual vapor pressure. The ASCE-EWRI-estimated Rn values had one of the best agreements with the measured Rn (r2 = 0.93, RMSD = 1.44 MJ m-2 d-1), and estimates were within 7% of the measured Rn. The Rn estimates from six methods, including the ASCE-EWRI, were not significantly different from measured Rn. Most methods underestimated measured Rn by 6% to 23%. Some of the differences between measured and estimated Rn were attributed to the poor estimation of Rnl. We conducted sensitivity analyses to evaluate the effect of Rnl on Rn, ETo, and ETr. The Rnl effect on Rn was linear and strong, but its effect on ETo and ETr was subsidiary. Results suggest that the Rn data measured over green vegetation (e.g., irrigated maize canopy) can be an alternative Rn data source for ET estimations when measured Rn data over the reference surface are not available. In the absence of measured Rn, another alternative would be using one of the Rn models that we analyzed when all the input variables are not available to solve the ASCE-EWRI Rn equation. Our results can be used to provide practical information on which method to select based on data availability for reliable estimates of daily Rn in climates similar to Clay Center and Davis.

Best management practices for sustainable and safe playing surface of Australian Football League sports fields

In 2002, AFL Queensland and the Brisbane Lions Football Club approached the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (Queensland) for advice on improving their Premier League sports fields. They were concerned about player safety and dissatisfaction with playing surfaces, particularly uneven turf cover and variable under-foot conditions. They wanted to get the best from new investments in ground maintenance equipment and irrigation infrastructure. Their sports fields were representative of community-standard, multi-use venues throughout Australia; generally ‘natural’ soil fields, with low maintenance budgets, managed by volunteers. Improvements such as reconstruction, drainage, or regular re-turfing are generally not affordable. Our project aimed to: (a) Review current world practice and performance benchmarks; (b) Demonstrate best-practice management for community-standard fields; (c) Adapt relevant methods for surface performance testing; (d) Assess current soils, and investigate useful amendments; (e) Improve irrigation system performance; and (e) Build industry capacity and encourage patterns for ongoing learning. Most global sports field research focuses on elite, sand-based fields. We adjusted elite standards for surface performance (hardness, traction, soil moisture, evenness, sward cover/height) and maintenance programs, to suit community-standard fields with lesser input resources. In regularly auditing ground conditions across 12 AFLQ fields in SE QLD, we discovered surface hardness (measured by Clegg Hammer) was the No. 1 factor affecting player safety and surface performance. Other important indices were turf coverage and surface compaction (measured by penetrometer). AFLQ now runs regularly audits affiliated fields, and closes grounds with hardness readings greater than 190 Gmax. Aerating every two months was the primary mechanical practice improving surface condition and reducing hardness levels to < 110 Gmax on the renovated project fields. With irrigation installation, these fields now record surface conditions comparable to elite fields. These improvements encouraged many other sporting organisations to seek advice / assistance from the project team. AFLQ have since substantially invested in an expanded ground improvement program, to cater for this substantially increased demand. In auditing irrigation systems across project fields, we identified low maintenance (with < 65% of sprinklers operating optimally) as a major problem. Retrofitting better nozzles and adjusting sprinklers improved irrigation distribution uniformity to 75-80%. Research showed that reducing irrigation frequency to weekly, and preparedness to withhold irrigation longer after rain, reduced irrigation requirement by 30-50%, compared to industry benchmarks of 5-6 ML/ha/annum. Project team consultation with regulatory authorities enhanced irrigation efficiency under imposed regional water restrictions. Laboratory studies showed incorporated biosolids / composts, or topdressed crumb rubber, improved compaction resistance of soils. Field evaluations confirmed compost incorporation significantly reduced surface hardness of high wear areas in dry conditions, whilst crumb rubber assisted turf persistence into early winter. Neither amendment was a panacea for poor agronomic practices. Under the auspices of the project Trade Mark Sureplay®, we published > 80 articles, and held > 100 extension activities involving > 2,000 participants. Sureplay® has developed a multi-level curator training structure and resource materials, subject to commercial implementation. The partnerships with industry bodies (particularly AFLQ), frequent extension activities, and engagement with government/regulatory sectors have been very successful, and are encouraged for any future work. Specific aspects of sports field management for further research include: (a) Understanding of factors affecting turf wear resistance and recovery, to improve turf persistence under wear; (b) Simple tests for pinpointing areas of fields with high hardness risk; and (c) Evaluation of new irrigation infrastructure, ‘water-saving’ devices, and irrigation protocols, in improving water use and turf cover outcomes.