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
8 results
Filters
Advanced Search
Filter by
Settings
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
Item Strategies to limit the impact of nematode pressure on sugarcane productivity in the Isis : final report 2013/071(BSES, 2015) Jakins, A; Quinn, B; Halpin, N; Ginns, STwo trials were done in this project. One was a continuation of work started under a previous GRDC/SRDC-funded activity, 'Strategies to improve the integration of legumes into cane based farming systems'. This trial aimed to assess the impact of trash and tillage management options and nematicide application on nematodes and crop performance. Methods and results are contained in the following publication: Halpin NV, Stirling GR, Rehbein WE, Quinn B, Jakins A, Ginns SP. The impact of trash and tillage management options and nematicide application on crop performance and plant-parasitic nematode populations in a sugarcane/peanut farming system. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 37, 192-203. Nematicide application in the plant crop significantly reduced total numbers of plant parasitic nematodes (PPN) but there was no impact on yield. Application of nematicide to the ratoon crop significantly reduced sugar yield. The study confirmed other work demonstrating that implementation of strategies like reduced tillage reduced populations of total PPN, suggesting that the soil was more suppressive to PPN in those treatments. The second trial, a variety trial, demonstrated the limited value of nematicide application in sugarcane farming systems. This study has highlighted that growers shouldn’t view nematicides as a ‘cure all’ for paddocks that have historically had high PPN numbers. Nematicides have high mammalian toxicity, have the potential to contaminate ground water (Kookana et al. 1995) and are costly. The cost of nematicide used in R1 was approx. $320 - $350/ha, adding $3.50/t of cane in a 100 t/ha crop. Also, our study demonstrated that a single nematicide treatment at the application rate registered for sugarcane is not very effective in reducing populations of nematode pests. There appears to be some levels of resistance to nematodes within the current suite of varieties available to the southern canelands. For example the soil in plots that were growing Q183 had 560% more root knot nematodes / 200mL soil compared to plots that grew Q245. The authors see great value in investment into a nematode screening program that could rate varieties into groups of susceptibility to both major sugarcane nematode pests. Such a rating could then be built into a decision support ‘tree’ or tool to better enable producers to select varieties on a paddock by paddock basis.Item A monitoring-based system to enhance canegrub control best management practice for Isis sugarcane growers : final report GGP056(BSES, 2013) Stanley, W; Chandler, KThe 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.Item Increasing productivity and profitablity in soldierfly-affected crops in the Pioneer Valley : SRDC Grower Group innovation project(BSES, 2008) Argent, PThe aim of our project is to find a way to reduce the effect soldier fly has on a sugar cane crop and to reduce soldier fly numbers. On farm trials are being conducted after consulting entomologists that have experience with soldier fly as well as researching past research conducted on soldier fly. The group then decided on what would have the best chance of reducing soldier fly numbers and reduce there effect on sugarcane crops. Of the chemicals trialed in ratoon crops by the group Clothianidin was the only chemical that showed any real promise. In 2006 Clothianidin was trialed in old ratoons at a rate of 10Lt/ Ha and 5 Lt/ Ha . Only the 10 Lt/Ha rate produced a reduction of soldier fly numbers. It was then decided to engage Peter Samson (BSES) to conduct more detailed trials with the chemical Clothianidin, to see if the results could be replicated from the initial trial. Four different rates, and 2 different application methods were trialed. Results from these trials so far do not demonstrate any efficacy of Clothianidin against soldier fly, except perhaps at 10Lt/Ha rate. This was not statistically significant. Further sampling of these trials is required. Another trial conducted was maize and soyabean seed treated with different chemicals. Results of these trials show there was a highly significant difference in the number of live soldier fly among treatments. In the absence of insecticidal seed treatment, there was no significant difference in the number of soldier fly among plots with sprayed-out sugarcane, maize or soyabean. Among the crop/insecticide combinations, the lowest number of live soldier fly was in plots planted with maize or soybean treated with clothianidin, imidacloprid, or with thiamethoxam (Cruiser). However, results of seed treatment with imidacloprid were inconsistent. Although soldier fly numbers were reduced it did not eradicate all soldier fly. Variety trials were established, no results from these trials yet. Ecolock Plus (Growth enhancer) trials did not show any increase in crop yields. The group now knows how to take core samples from trials, have learnt how to establish trials that produce creditable results, and has learnt more about the habits of soldier fly. Additionally, the group has learnt what will not control soldier fly.Item An integrated approach to nutgrass control : SRDC final report NFS002(BSES, 2010) Aitken, RL; Munro, AJ; McGuire, PJThis project aimed to formulate and promote an integrated approach to nutgrass control in sugarcane cropping systems. The project was a Grower Group Research Project undertaken from July 2007 to June 2010 by the NSW Farming Systems Group Inc. and BSES Limited extension officers in NSW.Item SRDC Grower Group Innovation Project final report Precision spot spraying system: it works in grains will it work in cane?(BSES, 2009) Linton, JThis project set out to test the suitability of new technology for precision herbicide application in sugarcane. WeedSeeker® sensors have been successfully used in broadacre situations; with individual case studies reporting herbicide reductions of more than 80%. Since most sugarcane fields have patches of grass and weeds, along with large areas that are weed-free, this technology offers an opportunity to reduce input costs and reduce our environmental footprint. Our trial results showed that the WeedSeeker® sensor technology can work successfully in sugarcane crops. The WeedSeeker® technology did reduce herbicide usage and, just as importantly, it detected weeds and effectively sprayed them. Savings in herbicide usage will vary from field to field, depending on weed pressure. Obviously the fewer the weeds the more savings will be made. Despite problems with the crop deflectors, the trials consistently showed herbicide usage of less than 50% compared to the standard GC shield, which sprayed the entire target area. Apart from the obvious saving in herbicide costs, other significant benefits of reduced labour, through reduced fill-ups as one tank will cover at least twice or three times the area, and larger areas able to be sprayed per day providing more timely weed control, should also be realised. A simple economic study which only considered the herbicide cost saving, and not benefits from lower labour costs or the benefit to cane yield through more timely weed control, was undertaken. It is more likely that large farmers, or spray contractors, would be able to justify the cost to purchase the equipment. The longer payback period for a farmer with a small area may deter them from making the investment. One of the benefits arising from the early modifications to the spray rig design, and sensor placement, was to reduce the number of WeedSeeker® sensors per shield from four to three. Clearly, the group under-estimated the effort required to modify the shields and crop deflectors. The current design of the crop deflectors is forcing a small number of cane leaves under the shield, and, as such, the WeedSeeker® sensors turn on herbicide at the wrong time. However, the group feels this is a problem than can be rectified and does not detract from the effectiveness of the precision technology.Item Mulgrave cane growers strategic grub management; implementing BSES decision-making tools : SRDC Grower Group innovation project(BSES, 2010) Day, JThis 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.Item 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 GroupOf 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.Item SRDC Grower Group Innovation Project final report Herbert cane growers strategic grub management implementing BSES decision making tools(BSES, 2013) Morley, GThis 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.