Burdekin Grower Research Update Marian Davis – Burdekin harvester trials Ryan Turner – Water quality results from the Burdekin region Rob Magarey – Pest and disease updates and risks Julian Connellan – Burdekin nitrogen trial results George Piperidis – Plant breeding update and research Barry Salter – Burdekin farming systems research Andrew Ward – Wrap up and YCS update
Bur urde deki kin n Prod oductivity uctivity Servi vice ces Harvesting Project Update
Background ‣ 3 year project funded by SRA to examine the effect of harvester speed on subsequent ratooning and yield; also seeing if soil type or variety have any impact ‣ Shed meetings in 2013 identified harvester damage as a major constraint to productivity
‣ 6 sites Headland • BRIA – 2 x Q208, 2 cut for plants x Q183 • Delta – 1 x Q208, 1 T1 5km x Q183 Rep 1 T3 9km T2 7km ‣ At each site T3 9km Rep 2 T1 5km • 3 harvester speeds; 5-11 km/hr T2 7km • Replicated 3 times T1 5km Rep 3 T3 9km T2 7km plant cane
Measurements ‣ Year 1 (2014 harvest, plant) • At harvest • Stool and gap counts on 4 x 10m sections per plot • Mill yield and CCS results per plot • Data for economic analysis • After harvest • Shoot, stool and gap counts at 1, 3 and 6/7 months after harvest ‣ Years 2 and 3 • Mill yield and CCS • Data for economic analysis • Shoot, stool and gap counts at 1, 3 and 6/7 months post harvest
Results ‣ SRA biometricians 5.0 Lots of variation between have analysed the 4.5 sites, but not treatments data 4.0 3.5 Gaps >60cm per 10m ‣ In this first year 3.0 2.5 harvester speed has 2.0 had no impact on 1.5 yield, or shoot, 1.0 stool and gap 0.5 0.0 counts after harvest Preharvest 1 month 3 month Preharvest 1 month 3 month Preharvest 1 month 3 month Preharvest 1 month 3 month Preharvest 1 month 3 month Preharvest 1 month 3 month ‣ Not surprising as BRIA Q208 BRIA Q183 Delta Q183 BRIA Q183 Delta Q208 BRIA Q208 fairly conservative Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 speeds were used 5 7 9 11
‣ Shoot counts 300.0 250.0 200.0 Shoots per 10m 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 1 month 3 month 6 month 1 month 3 month 6 month 1 month 3 month 1 month 3 month 1 month 3 month 1 month 3 month BRIA Q208 BRIA Q183 Delta Q183 BRIA Q183 Delta Q208 BRIA Q208 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 5 7 9 11
‣ Harvesting costs decrease with speed Very short rows, 230m, Very long rows, 900m, harvesting one way harvesting one way Harvesting Costs ($/ha) 700.00 600.00 500.00 400.00 $/ha 300.00 200.00 100.00 0.00 BRIA Q208 BRIA Q183 Delta Q183 BRIA Q183 Delta Q208 BRIA Q208 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 5 7 9 11
Thank-you to the growers and harvesting crews who are involved Questions?
Water quality results from the Burdekin Basin Great Barrier Reef Catchment Loads Monitoring Program (GBRCLMP) BPS SRA Grower Research Update Tuesday 10 th March 2015 Michael Warne, Ryan Turner, Alexandra Garzon-Garcia, Rachael Smith, Rohan Wallace, Rae Huggins, David Orr, Richard Gardiner, Ben Ferguson ; Water Quality and Investigations - DSITI
Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area: • 2300 km long – Up to 250 km wide – 3000 reefs – 900 islands • Outstanding universal values http://www.smh.com.au
Reef Plan History
Reef Plan
Reef Plan - Targets
Paddock to Reef Program • Objective – To measure progress towards the Reef Plan goals and targets • A partnership involving over 20 organisations • Spatial coverage - Over 800,000 km 2 • The integration of monitoring and modelling from the paddock to reef scales • Strong policy – science interaction • Primary output – Great Barrier Reef Report Card.
Paddock to Reef Program
Objectives of the GBRCLMP Monitor and report on water quality constituents and annual loads of nutrients, sediments and pesticides exiting 14 “priority” Great Barrier Reef catchments as part of Reef Plan 2013. Provide high quality data to validate source catchment models that will be used to assess progress towards the Reef Plan water quality targets.
Monitoring sites 25 monitoring sites for TSS and nutrients • 14 catchments • 11 sub-catchments 15 monitoring sites for pesticides for • 14 catchments • 1 sub-catchment
Non-point source monitoring Monitoring • Diffuse rural contaminants • Event conditions • Ambient conditions Samples collected by • Automated samplers • Grab sampling • In-situ turbidity • Passive samplers
Example water quality monitoring - Tully River Auto sample Euramo Manual Sample Sampling Results Discharge (m3/s) 600 All Major 500 Events 400 First 300 Flush 200 100 0 5-Nov-09 25-Nov-09 15-Dec-09 4-Jan-10 24-Jan-10 13-Feb-10 5-Mar-10 25-Mar-10 14-Apr-10 Catchment Site Events Grab Samples Auto Samples Total Tully Tully R @ Euramo 9 81 129 210
A simplified load calculation Water Quality River Flow Sediments, Nutrients, Pesticides X
Total suspended solids load (t)
Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen load (t)
Managing water quality in Australia National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS) www.environment.gov.au/topics/water/water-quality/national-water-quality- management-strategy 1. Australian and New Zealand Water Quality (1) Guidelines (WQGs) 2. State WQGs e.g. Queensland (2) (3) 3. Regional WQGs e.g. Great Barrier Reef
What are trigger values? Trigger values are the quantitative limits (concentrations) below which there is a low risk of environmental harm occurring and above which there is a moderate to high risk of environmental risk occurring.
What are trigger values (TV)? Risk of harm occurring Action required Site-specific Moderate to high risk investigation or management action Trigger Values None Low risk
Why do we have multiple TVs? Water has many potential uses e.g. – ecosystem protection; – drinking water; – recreation; – aquaculture; – irrigation; and – livestock. • For each use there are TVs • TVs for potential uses differ due to variations in organism sensitivities
Diuron TVs Drinking water 20 µg/L Irrigation water 2 µg/L Ecosystem protection 0.2 µg/L Why do levels differ? • Humans do not photosynthesize – so toxicity is low • Generally, crops are larger than aquatic plants (algae) and herbicides may bind to the soil. • Diuron is a herbicide that blocks photosynthesis.
Consequences of exceedances • Three rules of thumb – the greater the exceedance the more severe the biological effects – the longer the duration of consecutive exceedances the more severe the biological effects – the more pulses (repeated exposures) the more severe the biological effects
Diuron concentrations over time – Burdekin River
Diuron concentrations over time – Haughton River
Diuron concentrations over time – Barratta Creek Suspension Permit 28 Nov 2011 per13874 Allowed phase out
Atrazine concentrations in Barratta Creek 2013 - 2014
Diuron concentrations in Barratta Creek 2013 - 2014
Atrazine concentrations in Barratta Creek 2014 - 2015
Diuron concentrations in Barratta Creek 2014 - 2015 Zoom
Diuron concentrations in Barratta Creek August 2014 to January 2015
The focus is still on five photosystem inhibiting (PSII) herbicides • Ametryn • Atrazine and two metabolites - desethyl atrazine + desisopropyl atrazine • Diuron • Hexazinone • Tebuthiuron
Loads 2012-13 Herbert River Barratta Creek Pioneer River Sandy Creek
Imidacloprid TVs Proposed ANZECC ARMCANZ 0.1 µg/L (Smith et al 2014) US EPA Banned Netherlands Environmental Risk Limits 0.067 µg/L Canadian water quality guidelines 0.23 µg/L
Imidacloprid concentration (n334) for the Tully River (ug L -1 ) Mann-Kendall trend test / Two-tailed test (Imidacloprid): 0.4 Kendall's tau 0.080 S 4298.000 0.35 Var(S) 4122670.667 p-value (Two-tailed) 0.034 alpha 0.05 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Jul/2009 Jan/2010 Aug/2010 Feb/2011 Sep/2011 Apr/2012 Oct/2012 May/2013 Nov/2013 Jun/2014 Dec/2014 Imidacloprid Canadian water quality guidelines Netherlands Environmental Risk Limits
Maximum Imidacloprid concentration (ug L -1 ) 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 Johnstone 0.6 Tully River Herbert River 0.5 Barratta Creek Pioneer River 0.4 Sandy Creek 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
Imidacloprid concentrations in Barratta Creek 2013 - 2014
Imidacloprid concentrations in Barratta Creek 2014 - 2015
Recommend
More recommend
