Pest, disease and weed management

Permanent URI for this collectionhttp://elibrary2.sugarresearch.com.au/handle/11079/13843

Research outcomes: A comprehensive RD&E program that addresses existing and emerging pests, diseases and weeds, allowing sugarcane growers to manage their crops efficiently with minimal environmental impacts. An enhanced industry capacity to deal with incursions of exotic pests, diseases and weeds.

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 13

A monitoring-based system to enhance canegrub control best management practice for Isis sugarcane growers : final report GGP056
(BSES, 2013) Stanley, W; Chandler, K
The aim of GGP-056 was for growers to experience the effectiveness and practical value of monitoring canegrub risk as the basis for more cost-effective and efficient canegrub management: - taking the most appropriate option, including the most suitable insecticide treatment if and when and where needed, as opposed to current routines that are in the main effective but not as efficient as possible.
Management strategies for rhyparida in southern Queensland : SRDC final report BSS236
(BSES, 2002) Fischer, TWA; Allsopp, PG
Larvae of rhyparida beetles bore into the bases of newly ratooning shoots, causing dead hearts. Very minor damage will kill 'surplus' shoots. More intense damage appears to set plant growth back and cause some yield loss. Prolonged attack will kill all shoots and kill the stool, leaving large gaps and necessitating replanting. No insecticide is registered for control of the pest and the efficacy of cultural controls is unknown.The project developed a better understanding of the phenology of Rhyparida nitida ? this species has a one-year life cycle with extended oviposition over summer, slow development of small larvae during autumn and winter, and more rapid development of larger larvae during spring. The extended oviposition means that each generation has individuals of widely varying ages.Extension of outcomes to stakeholders took place through grower discussion groups, on-farm participatory trials, and newsletters.
Summary of effectiveness of Lambda-cyhalothrin for control of sugarcane stemborers; preparedness for borer incursion
(BSES, 2002) Sallam, MN
Following a search of the literature, lambda-cyhalothrin (Karate 2.5EC) was identified as a potential candidate insecticide for emergency use in Australia following an incursion of a stemborer.Lambda-cyhalothrin is a stomach and contact pyrethroid used to control a wide range of pests. The insecticide (as Karate?) is registered against Sesamia grisescens in Papua New Guinea and Eldana saccharina in South Africa. It is also used against Busseola fusca in Ethiopia, Chilo partellus in Pakistan, and Ostrinia nubilalis in Poland.Lambda-cyhalothrin is an essential management component that fits well within an overall Integrated Pest Management program for stemborer pests. Data on its chemical structure and physiochemical properties are presented in this report.
Mulgrave cane growers strategic grub management; implementing BSES decision-making tools : SRDC Grower Group innovation project
(BSES, 2010) Day, J
This project was a continuation of previous SRDC/BSES GrubPlan projects in which the importance of a thorough grub monitoring program was highlighted. Essentially, the need for more grower involvement led to the creation of the Mulgrave Cane Grub Management Group through this Grower Group project, and this concept has proven to be very successful due to the active involvement of interested growers in actual data gathering and result interpretation which facilitated adequate decision making. 20 Mulgrave growers participated in this monitoring project, of which 4 growers were heavily involved (Jeff Day, John Ferrando, Jim Dillon and Ron Downing). Christine Hancock from Mulgrave CANGROWERS was also involved, as well as staff from Mulgrave Productivity Service (Allan Hopkins, Richie Falla and David Wallis). The actual field work and data gathering were mainly conducted by BSES entomologist Dr Nader Sallam and the entomology research team at BSES Meringa. 42 sugarcane plots were used to monitor and predict greyback cane grub population dynamics and potential damage in Mulgrave over two consecutive seasons (2008-2009). Particular emphasis on “Whole Farm Planning” was given to the farms of the 4 previously mentioned growers, where prediction of future population dynamics and potential damage levels were conducted for the whole farm not only the plots monitored. This was also carried out with other keen growers who expressed high interest in this work, where a “Whole Farm Plan” could be drafted and recommendation for pesticide application and other activities were discussed with the grower on a ‘plot-by-plot’ basis. Predicting future grub dynamics and damage levels was made possible through prediction models that were developed by Dr. Frank Drummond, Maine University, USA. Dr. Drummond who used monitoring results generated through previous GrubPlan projects to build forecast models. During the 2 seasons, the selected farms were dug for grubs and all grubs collected were bred in the laboratory at Meringa and checked for diseases. Several factors were also monitored and recorded (these are mentioned in detail under the methodology section) and results were entered into the prediction models. Model-generated predictions and damage estimates for the following season were conveyed to growers through GrubPlan meetings and face-to-face discussions. Growers’ actions and whether they accepted BSES’s recommendations or not were all recorded.
Utilising a predictive model for the monitoring and management of canegrubs in the Mackay region by the Mount Kinchant Growers Group : SRDC Grower Group innovation project
(BSES, 2010) Mount Kinchant Growers Group
Of the nineteen canegrub species in Australia, greyback canegrub which occurs from Plane Creek northwards is the most important. Growers rely heavily on insecticides for greyback canegrub management, and effective insecticidal treatments are now available for both plant crops and ratoons. However these treatments are expensive, and there is no system that allows growers to strategically apply insecticides to only those fields which really need treatment. The aim of this project was to test a system which would allow growers to vary their treatment decisions as circumstances changed. In a previous SRDC-funded project (BSS257), BSES Limited developed a set of models which predict numbers of greyback canegrubs one year ahead. Required information includes canegrub numbers in the current year and presence of visible grub damage in canefields. The Mt Kinchant Grower Group engaged BSES as a consultant to implement this system on Group farms, to test the predictive system and evaluate the costs and benefits of a grub-management consultancy that could be used by other growers in the industry. BSES monitored each of the 10 farms within the Group from 2008-2010. Canefields were sampled for canegrubs by BSES in April-May of each year – 78 fields in 2008, 80 in 2009 and 46 in 2010. Twenty stools were dug in most of these fields and grubs identified and counted. A sample of at least 50 grubs was then reared to adult and causes of any deaths were diagnosed (identifiable pathogens are Adelina, Metarhizium and milky disease); disease levels were very low in both 2008 and 2009 while grubs from 2010 are still being reared. Fields were inspected before harvest and any visible damage recorded; aerial photographs were taken in 2008 and 2009 to help locate grub damage. Gappy ratoons that may indicate grub damage were recorded after harvest. The locations of grub-infested stools and grub damage were recorded in a GIS layer. Maps were printed showing the status of fields on each farm in terms of current insecticidal protection, grub numbers (for sampled fields) and visible damage (for all fields on the farm). The risk of grub attack in the following year was quantified using the predictive models. Group members received a package each year that included the field-status maps, farm report and treatment recommendations. There was general agreement between trends of actual and predicted grub numbers in 2009 and 2010 but with a lot of unexplained variation, particularly in 2010. Treatment decisions tended to err on the conservative side, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Damage was low on most farms during the project. Unexpected damage was only observed in a small number of fields, and that damage was localised and light in almost all cases. This project allowed the Group to have input into the type of information that growers require from a canegrub-management service, and has allowed the service to be costed and its functionality evaluated. Data collected in the project will be used to fine-tune the predictive models.
SRDC Grower Group Innovation Project final report Herbert cane growers strategic grub management implementing BSES decision making tools
(BSES, 2013) Morley, G
This project was a continuation of previous SRDC/BSES grub monitoring projects in Mulgrave and Mackay, and aimed to value add the previous findings of the very high importance of thorough grub monitoring Grower involvement to spread the message was identified as a key factor in grub management, so the Herbert Cane Grub Management Group was formed through this Grower Group Project. This concept has proven to be very successful due to the active grower involvement, grower feedback and data collection, which aided in data interpretation, decision making and dissemination of information to the wider growing community beyond the actual growers in the project. 15 Herbert growers initially participated in the project , with six growers (Geoff Morley, Mario Porta and his two farm managers, Bert Bonassi, Frank and Alan White and Darren Harragon) being very actively involved. Staff from Herbert Productivity Services Ltd ( Graeme Holzberger, Lawrence Di Bella, Ash Benson and Ron Kerkwyk) as well as BSES Ltd was heavily involved. The actual field work and data collection was carried out by HCPSL and BSES staff with BSES entomologist Dr Nader Sallam and his entomology research team, processing and interpreting data and also making the district and farm predictions. 41 sugarcane blocks were used to monitor grub numbers and damage levels as well as to predict greyback cane grub numbers and potential damage across the Herbert district over 3 consecutive years (2010-2012). Some of these blocks were not sampled in 2011 due to the effects of 5 flood events and as many blocks had been left as standover in 2010.Due to the extreme weather associated events (cyclone Yasi and the we prolonged wet weather coupled with low grub numbers in dug fields which made the predicted grub numbers and the likely area that may be damaged the following year less reliable an extension of the project was requested and granted so data could be collected for the whole of the 2012 calendar year Emphasis had been placed on “Managing Grubs across the Whole Farm”. The growers mentioned above plus others in predicted “Likely damage Areas” had their predictions of future population dynamics and potential damage levels conducted for their whole farms. Strip trials with new product formulations, and comparing existing products were also undertaken after discussions with the growers within the grower group. Predicting the future grub dynamics and damage levels was made possible through the prediction models developed by Dr Frank Drummond, Maine University, USA. Dr Drummond used monitoring results generated through previous GrubPlan projects to build and develop the models. During the 3 seasons the selected blocks were dug for grubs. All grubs found were identified and recorded and then raised in the laboratory in the Herbert and Meringa and regularly checked for diseases. Various other factors were recorded (these are recorded in the methodology section) and results entered into the prediction models. The predictions and damage estimates that were generated for each season were discussed with growers at GrubPlan meetings and during one on one extension activities. Grower’s actions for managing their farms grub issues were recorded and compared to the BSES recommendations. This project proved to be very successful as it engaged the growers in a planned approach to grub management, reinforced the need for continual monitoring of population dynamics, and also raised the profile and awareness of grub levels and damage across the whole Herbert region. Previous to this, management tended to be reactionary with the rise and fall in insecticide treatment following the rise and fall in area damaged. This project has let to growers and indeed whole of districts treating to prevent grub damage, based on the predictions of increasing grub damage. Most Herbert growers can see the benefits of the current project in assisting to predict grub damage as well as assist in selecting areas at highest risk to treat, and seek to continue this work as a part of the district work program.
GrubPlan 2; developing improved risk-assessment and decision-support systems for managing greyback canegrub : SRDC final report BSS257
(BSES, 2008) Samson, PR
The vision of the project was to provide industry with refined greyback canegrub management systems complete with risk-assessment and decision-support models that could ultimately be deployed at a commercial consultancy level. The outputs of the project would allow proactive management of greyback canegrub by growers and their advisors.The specific objectives were to:1.Continue to develop and refine pest management packages for greyback canegrubs, incorporating regional forecasting, farm monitoring, on-farm risk assessment, decision aids and economic analysis, with groups of growers or individuals.2.Design and implement regional systems to monitor trends in greyback damage and management.3.Develop and validate models that predict the probability of greyback infestations from one year to the next.4.Determine the market acceptance and value of a greyback canegrub risk assessment and management program.
Overseas sugarcane quarantine and emergency response planning : SRDC final report BSS280
(BSES, 2005) Sallam, MN
The aim of this trip was for Dr Mohamed Sallam, BSES entomologist, to gain experience in sugarcane biosecurity and to learn about sugarcane pest and disease problems in the United States. In addition Dr Sallam participated in the International Conference on Lepidopterous Cereal Stem and Cob Borers in Africa, Kenya. Dr Sallam promoted Australian sugarcane research work and highlighted the role of BSES/SRDC biosecurity initiatives. Scientists from all parts of the world commended the Australian approach in dealing with exotic threats, and future opportunities for further cooperation with LSU, ICIPE and the South African Sugarcane Research Institute (SASRI) have been created.
Implementation of management strategies for control of sugarcane weevil borer in far north Queensland : SRDC final report BSS224
(BSES, 2002) Telford, D; McAvoy, K
Sugarcane weevil borers are an introduced pest of sugarcane from New Guinea. They cause significant losses to ccs and may contribute to production of poor quality sugar crystals. The adoption of pre-harvest burning of cane in the 1940s saw a reduction of borer damage to low levels. This remained until the widespread adoption of green cane harvesting and trash blanketing in the 1980s.Early studies have shown ways to reduce borer damage through the use of resistant varieties, improved farm hygiene (reduced cane loss and improved rat control), and chemical control. A reduction in borer damage will enhance viability of the northern sugar industry.This project was designed to have a participatory approach with stakeholders affected by borers in the Queensland sugar industry and to demonstrate the effectiveness of implementing borer management strategies.
Expanded registration for Metarhizium strains against canegrubs : SRDC final project report BSS246
(BSES, 2002) Samson, P; Milner, J; Bullard, G
Eight fungicides and three liquid insecticides are registered in Queensland for application to sugarcane at planting, and these may come into contact with Metarhizium during application from cane planters. Seven of the chemicals were tested for deleterious effects on two Metarhizium isolates, FI-147 and FI-1045 (BioCane?), in laboratory and field experiments.In growth studies on medium, the fungicides Cane Strike? and Sportak? were about 10 times more toxic than Shirtan? and Tilt?, while toxicity of the latter fungicides was about 100 times that of the three insecticides Lorsban?, Talstar? and Regent? (based on active ingredient). When the amount of active ingredient in each product and field application rates are considered, the expected order of harmfulness in commercial use would be Regent < Talstar < Lorsban < Cane Strike < Tilt < Shirtan < Sportak.In a field experiment where Metarhizium granules were sprayed with each chemical (except Regent) at very high rates and then covered with soil, only Shirtan showed any toxic effect on spore viability, with a reduction from 82% to 69%. No harmful effect of any chemical was detected in counts of colony-forming units in soil samples or in bioassays of treated soil using negatoria and greyback canegrubs. No reduction was found in viability of FI-1045 on nine farms, where BioCane granules were applied though commercial planters with fungicide, compared with granules buried in untreated soil. Thus, we believe that BioCane is compatible with these chemicals in practice, and a label change for BioCane to include application at planting has been drafted with Bio-Care Technology Pty Ltd.

Pest, disease and weed management

Browse

Filters

Advanced Search

Filter by

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results