Search

The variation in field pea grain yield and competitiveness with annual ryegrass due to crop density, row spacing and cultivar was determined to enable farmers to better manage weeds with cultural control tactics. Crop density varied with seeding rate, cultivar, row spacing and year. Higher seeding rates were required to reach equivalent plant densities in cv. Dinkum (short, semi-leafless) compared with cv. Dundale (tall, conventional-leaf), and at 36 cm compared with 18 cm row spacing. Field pea grain yield was reduced more at low crop densities, in Dinkum, at 36 cm row spacing, and in the presence of weeds. Percentage yield losses from weed competition were similar in both cultivars (about 70?80%) at a low density of 10 plants/m2 in 2 seasons. At higher crop densities Dinkum had a larger loss than Dundale (i.e. at 30 plants/m2 losses were 60 and 35%, respectively, compared with 50 and 5% at 60 plants/m2). Seasonal variation influenced the effect of crop density on yield loss from weeds. The percentage yield loss from weeds in 1993 ranged from about 90 to 40% at plant densities of 10 to 40 plants/m2, in contrast to 1995 when 40% yield loss occurred at all these densities. Ryegrass dry weight was reduced with increasing field pea density in both years, and in the tall more than the short cultivar in 1 year. Maintaining recommended field pea seeding rates has considerable financial benefits in both weed-free (around $100/ha) and weed-affected crops (to $400/ha). In weedy situations, integrating cultural practices such as higher seeding rates and choice of cultivar that enhance crop competitiveness will improve weed management in south-eastern Australia.

Vulpia is a widespread weed of temperate Australian pastures, and readily replaces more productive species. Short-term management of vulpia is possible with herbicides but densities rapidly increase in poorly competitive pastures after herbicide application. A field experiment at Wagga Wagga, NSW, examined the effect of 2 fertility levels and 4 pasture types [subterranean clover sown at 1, 25, 100 kg/ha, and subterranean clover (25 kg/ha) + annual ryegrass (20 kg/ha)] on 2 densities of vulpia (50,5 500 plants/m2) from 1990 to 1994. Initially vulpia plant density was inversely related to sowing rate of subterranean clover, but over time this effect declined as the subterranean clover populations converged. Presence of annual ryegrass always resulted in lower vulpia plant, panicle and seed densities compared with treatments where subterranean clover only was present. Respective densities per m2 in 1993 for the average of the subterranean clover monocultures and for annual ryegrass plus subterranean clover were: plant 1315 v. 265; panicle 6700 v. 130; seed 542 400 v. 3460. The effect of drought in 1994 and presence of annual ryegrass were shown to significantly lower the sustainable population of vulpia at Wagga Wagga from 5000?6000 to <1000 plants/m2. The short-term nature of herbicide application for control, and the need to ensure that competitive species were present to slow recruitment of vulpia in any long-term management strategy, were highlighted.

NSW Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI) has responded to robust evaluation information and included the principles of supply chain management into a statewide communication strategy. Based on this, strategic relationships with our primary clients and staff has improved and improved their capacity to achieve good weed management outcomes for NSW. Historically, NSW DPI has a strong role in providing information resources to assist local government in the implementation of the NSW Noxious Weeds Act 1993. In 2004, NSW DPI conducted a client needs analysis to identify the barriers for NSW DPI staff in producing publications, the perception of our external clients to our current information resources and the issues associated with accessing them efficiently. The findings allowed NSW DPI to develop a range of systems, processes and services to better meet the needs of our staff and clients, improve our performance in knowledge management and provide a clear evaluation of the outcomes achieved by our capacity building programs to our funding body. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]