Numerical simulation of explosive volcanism and its effects on the atmosphere

This is the final report of a one-year, Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) project at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The objective of this project was to begin work on combining two modeling approaches in order to advance the state-of-the-art in simulating and predicting explosive volcanic eruption dynamics and their effects. The authors began applying the CFDLIB family of codes for the near field (high temperature, velocity, and particle concentration) region of an explosive eruption. The authors also applied the RAMS meteorological code to model the far-field dynamics of eruption clouds and ash fallout. Initial test runs were conducted in preparation for full-scale simulations that would eventually couple the two models for the most comprehensive volcano simulation tool to date. Eventual applications include aviation hazards, risk assessment, and extension to atmospheric collateral effects of conventional and nuclear weapons

Maar-diatreme geometry and deposits: Subsurface blast experiments with variable explosion depth

Basaltic maar-diatreme volcanoes, which have craters cut into preeruption landscapes (maars) underlain by downward-tapering bodies of fragmental material commonly cut by hypabyssal intrusions (diatremes), are produced by multiple subsurface phreatomagmatic explosions. Although many maar-diatremes have been studied, the link between explosion dynamics and the resulting deposit architecture is still poorly understood. Scaled experiments employed multiple buried explosions of known energies and depths within layered aggregates in order to assess the effects of explosion depth, and the morphology and compaction of the host on the distribution of host materials in resulting ejecta, the development of subcrater structures and deposits, and the relationships between them. Experimental craters were 1–2 m wide. Analysis of high-speed video shows that explosion jets had heights and shapes that were strongly influenced by scaled depth (physical depth scaled against explosion energy) and by the presence or absence of a crater. Jet properties in turn controlled the distribution of ejecta deposits outside the craters, and we infer that this is also reflected in the diverse range of deposit types at natural maars. Ejecta were dominated by material that originated above the explosion site, and the shallowest material was dispersed the farthest. Subcrater deposits illustrate progressive vertical mixing of host materials through successive explosions. We conclude that the progressive appearance of deeper-seated material stratigraphically upward in deposits of natural maars probably records the length and time scale for upward mixing through multiple explosions with ejection by shallow blasts, rather than progressive deepening of explosion sites in response to draw down of aquifers

Crop Updates - 2003 Oilseeds

This session covers fifteen papers from different authors ACKNOWLEDGMENTS VARIETIES Large scale canola varietal evaluation in WA, Peter Nelson, Oilseeds WA Performance of IT and TT canola varieties in the medium and high rainfall agzones of WA 2001-02, Graham Walton, Hasan Zaheer and Paul Carmody, Department of Agriculture QUALITY Reproductive biology, cotyledon development and oil accumulation in canola, J.A. Fortescue and D.W. Turner, School of Plant Biology, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Western Australia Plant and environmental factors affecting oil concentration in canola – a mini-review, D.W. Turner, School of Plant Biology, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Western Australia Potential benefits from interspecific crosses between canola and ‘near canola’ quality Indian mustard, Janet Wroth, School of Plant Biology, The University of Western Australia (UWA), Wallace Cowling, School of Plant Biology, UWA and CBWA Pty Ltd, Anh-Van Pham, School of Mathematics and Statistics, UWA NUTRITION, AGRONOMY AND MACHINERY Timing of nitrogen application for producing canola grain and oil, R. F. Brennan, Department of Agriculture Managing canola for soil type and moisture stress, Paul Carmody and Hasan Zaheer Department of Agriculture Machinery lessons from 2002 – canola establishment, Glen Riethmuller, Greg Hamilton and Jo Hawksley, Department of Agriculture Machinery lessons from 2002 – harvesting short crops, Glen Riethmuller, Department of Agriculture Does increasing canola seeding rate reduce the competitiveness of grass weeds? Zaicou-Kunesch, C.M., Zaheer, S.H. and Eksteen, D, Department of Agriculture PESTS AND DISEASES Aphid damage to canola – not all cultivars are equal, Françoise A. Berlandier and Christiaan Valentine, Department of Agriculture Should we be worried about developing insecticide resistance in aphids? Owain Edwards, CSIRO Entomology Benefits provided by treating canola seed with imidacloprid seed dressing, Roger Jones, Brenda Coutts, Lisa Smith and Jenny Hawkes, Department of Agriculture, and Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture Blackleg levels in canola in 2002, Ravjit Khangura1, Moin Salam1, Art J Diggle1 and Martin J Barbetti1,2 1Department of Agriculture, 2University of Western Australia DBM in canola, Kevin Walden, Department of Agricultur

Crop Updates 2001 - Oilseeds

ABSTRACT This session covers twenty five papers from different authors: FORWARD, Mervyn McDougall, CHAIRMAN, PULSES AND OILSEEDS PARTNERSHIP GROUP PLENARY 1. Implications of the ‘green-bridge’ for viral and fungal disease carry-over between seasons, Debbie Thackray, Agriculture Western Australia and Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture 2. Insect pest development in WA via the ‘green-bridge’, Kevin Walden, Agriculture Western Australia VARIETIES 3. Performance of new canola varieties in AGWEST variety trials, G. Walton, Crop Improvement Institute, Agriculture Western Australia 4. New herbicide tolerant varieties in WA, Kevin Morthorpe, Stephen Addenbrooke, Pioneer Hi-Bred Australia P/L 5. IT v’s TT – Head to head, Paul Carmody, Centre for Cropping Systems, Agriculture Western Australia ESTABLISHMENT 6. Effect of stubble, seeding technique and seed size on crop establishment and yield of canola, Rafiul Alam, Glen Riethmuller and Greg Hamilton, Agriculture Western Australia 7. Canola establishment survey 2000, Rafiul Alam, Paul Carmody, Greg Hamilton and Adrian Cox, Agriculture Western Australia 8. Tramline farming for more canola, Paul Blackwell, Agriculture Western Australia NUTRITION 9. Comparing the phosphorus requirement of canola and wheat in WA, M.D.A. Bolland and M.J. Baker, Agriculture Western Australia 10. Will a rainy summer affect nitrogen requirement: Tailoring your fertiliser decisions using the new nitrogen calculator, A.J. Diggle, Agriculture Western Australia 11. Canola – More response to lime, Chris Gazeyand Paul Carmody, Centre for Cropping Systems, Agriculture Western Australia AGRONOMY 12. Hormone manipulation of canola development, Paul Carmody and Graham Walton, Agriculture Western Australia 13. Yield penalties with delayed sewing of canola, Imma Farre, CSIRO Plant Industry, Michael J. Robertson, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Graham H. Walton, Agriculture Western Australia, Senthold Asseng, CSIRO Plant Industry 14. Dry matter and oil accumulation in developing seeds of canola varieties at different sowing dates, Ping Si1, David Turner1 and David Harris2 , 1Plant Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia, 2Chemistry Centre of Western Australia 13. Simulating oil concentrations in canola – virtually just the beginning, David Turner1 and Imma Farré2, 1Plant Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia, 2CSIRO Plant Industry, Centre for Mediterranean Agricultural Research PESTS AND DISEASES 14. Further evidence that canola crops are resilient to damage by aphids, Françoise Berlandier and Christiaan Valentine, Entomology, Agriculture Western Australia 15. Management of Diamondback moth (DBM) in canola, David Cook, Peter Mangano, David Cousins, Françoise Berlandier, and Darryl Hardie, Crop Improvement Institute,Agriculture Western Australia 16. Effect of time of sowing in conjunction with fungicides on blackleg and yield of canola, Ravjit Khangura and Martin Barbetti, Agriculture Western Australia 17. Further developments in forecasting aphid and virus risk in canola, Debbie Thackray, Jenny Hawkes and Roger Jones, Agriculture Western Australia and Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture 18. Efficiency of selected insecticides for the use on Diamondback Moth in canola, Kevin Walden, Agriculture Western Australia 19. Impact® applied ‘in furrow’ controls blackleg in canola, Cameron Weeks and Erin Hasson, Mingenew-Irwin Group Inc. 20. Effect of time of sowing and Impact® on canola yield, Esperance, Dave Eksteen, Agriculture Western Australia 21. Australian Plague Locust Campaign 2000, Kevin Walden, Agriculture Western Australia WEED CONTROL 22. New herbicide options for canola, John Moore and Paul Matson, Agriculture Western Australia HARVESTING 23. Effects of time of swathing and desiccant application on the seed yield and oil content of canola, Carla Thomas and Lionel Martin, Muresk Institute of Agriculture, Curtin University of Technology DECISION SUPPORT AND ADOPTION 24. Using canola monitoring groups to understand factors affecting canola production in Esperance, Dave Eksteen, Agriculture Western Australia 25. Nitrogen and canola, Dave Eksteen, Agriculture Western Australi

Crop Updates 2002 - Oilseeds

This session covers twenty seven papers from different authors: 1. Forward and acknowledgements, Dave Eksteen, ACTING MANAGER OILSEEDS PRODUCTIVITY AND INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT Department of Agriculture PLENARY SESSION 2. GMO canola - Track record in Canada, K. Neil Harker and George W. Clayton,Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lacombe Research Centre, Lacombe, Alberta, R. Keith Downey, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon Research Centre, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan 3. GMO canola – Prospects in Western Australia farming systems, Keith Alcock, Crop Improvement Institute, Department of Agriculture 4. Diamondback moth (DBM) in canola, Kevin Walden, Department of Agriculture CANOLA AGRONOMY 5. Getting the best out of canola in the low rainfall central wheatbelt, Bevan Addison and Peter Carlton, Elders Ltd 6. Canola variety performance in Western Australia, Kevin Morthorpe, Stephen Addenbrooke and Alex Ford, Pioneer Hi-Bred Australia P/L 7. Relative performance of new canola varieties in Department of Agriculture variety trials in 2000 and 2001, S. Hasan Zaheer, GSARI, Department of Agriculture, G. Walton, Crop Improvement Institute, Department of Agriculture 8. Which canola cultivar should I sow? Imma Farré, CSIRO Plant Industry, Floreat, Bill Bowden,Western Australia Department of Agriculture 9. The effect of seed generation and seed source on yield and quality of canola, Paul Carmody, Department of Agriculture 10. The accumulation of oil in Brassica species, J.A. Fortescue and D.W. Turner, Plant Biology, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Western Australia, B. Tan, PO Box 1249, South Perth 11. Potential and performance of alternative oilseeds in WA, Margaret C. Campbell, Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture 12. Comparison of oilseed crops in WA, Ian Pritchard and Paul Carmody, Department of Agriculture, Centre for Cropping Systems, Margaret Campbell, Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture 13. Identifying constraints to canola production, Dave Eksteen, Canola Development Officer, Department of Agriculture 14. Boron – should we be worried about it? Richard W. BellA, K. FrostA, Mike WongB, and Ross BrennanC , ASchool of Environmental Science, Murdoch University, BCSIRO Land and Water, CDepartment of Agriculture PEST AND DISEASE 15. Yield losses caused when Beet Western Yellows Virus infects canola, Roger Jones and Jenny Hawkes, Department of Agriculture, and Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture 16. Influence of climate on aphid outbreaks and virus epidemics in canola, Debbie Thackray, Jenny Hawkes and Roger Jones, Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture and Department of Agriculture 17. The annual shower of blackleg ascospores in canola: Can we predict and avoid it? Moin U. Salam, Ravjit K. Khangura, Art J. Diggle and Martin J. Barbetti, Department of Agriculture 18. Environmental influences on production and release of ascospores of blackleg and their implications in blackleg management in canola, Ravjit K. Khangura, Martin J. Barbetti , Moin U. Salam and Art J. Diggle, Department of Agriculture 19. WA blackleg resistance ratings on canola varieties form 2002, Ravjit Khangura, Martin J. Barbetti and Graham Walton, Department of Agriculture 20. Bronzed field beetle management in canola, Phil Michael, Department of Agriculture 21. DBM control in canola: Aerial versus boom application, Paul Carmody, Department of Agriculture 22. Effect of single or multiple spray trearments on the control of Diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) and yield of canola at Wongan Hills, Françoise Berlandier, Paul Carmody and Christiaan Valentine, Department of Agriculture ESTABLISHMENT 23. GrainGuardÔ - A biosecurity plan for the canola industry, Greg Shea, Department of Agriculture 24. Large canola seed is best, particularly for deep sowing, Glen Riethmuller, Rafiul Alam, Greg Hamilton and Jo Hawksley, Department of Agriculture 25. Canola establishment with seed size, tines and discs, with and without stubble, Glen Riethmuller, Rafiul Alam, Greg Hamilton and Jo Hawksley, Department of Agriculture WEEDS 26. Role of Roundup ReadyÒ canola in the farming system, Art Diggle1, Patrick Smith2, Paul Neve3, Felicity Flugge4, Amir Abadi5, Stephen Powles3 1Department of Agriculture, 2CSIRO, Sustainable Ecosystems, 3Western Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative, University of Western Australia, 4Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, University of Western Australia, 5Touchstone Consulting, Mt Hawthorn FEED 27. Getting value from canola meals in the animal feed industries: Aquaculture, Brett Glencross and John Curnow, Department of Fisheries - Government of Western Australia and Wayne Hawkins, Department of Agricultur

Comparison of LFP-Based and Spike-Based Spectro-Temporal Receptive Fields and Cross-Correlation in Cat Primary Auditory Cortex

Multi-electrode array recordings of spike and local field potential (LFP) activity were made from primary auditory cortex of 12 normal hearing, ketamine-anesthetized cats. We evaluated 259 spectro-temporal receptive fields (STRFs) and 492 frequency-tuning curves (FTCs) based on LFPs and spikes simultaneously recorded on the same electrode. We compared their characteristic frequency (CF) gradients and their cross-correlation distances. The CF gradient for spike-based FTCs was about twice that for 2–40 Hz-filtered LFP-based FTCs, indicating greatly reduced frequency selectivity for LFPs. We also present comparisons for LFPs band-pass filtered between 4–8 Hz, 8–16 Hz and 16–40 Hz, with spike-based STRFs, on the basis of their marginal frequency distributions. We find on average a significantly larger correlation between the spike based marginal frequency distributions and those based on the 16–40 Hz filtered LFP, compared to those based on the 4–8 Hz, 8–16 Hz and 2–40 Hz filtered LFP. This suggests greater frequency specificity for the 16–40 Hz LFPs compared to those of lower frequency content. For spontaneous LFP and spike activity we evaluated 1373 pair correlations for pairs with >200 spikes in 900 s per electrode. Peak correlation-coefficient space constants were similar for the 2–40 Hz filtered LFP (5.5 mm) and the 16–40 Hz LFP (7.4 mm), whereas for spike-pair correlations it was about half that, at 3.2 mm. Comparing spike-pairs with 2–40 Hz (and 16–40 Hz) LFP-pair correlations showed that about 16% (9%) of the variance in the spike-pair correlations could be explained from LFP-pair correlations recorded on the same electrodes within the same electrode array. This larger correlation distance combined with the reduced CF gradient and much broader frequency selectivity suggests that LFPs are not a substitute for spike activity in primary auditory cortex

Crop Updates 2003 - -Katanning

This session covers sixteen papers from different authors Breeding Cereals for Rust Resistance – are we losing the battle? Robert F. Park, University of Sydney Stripe rust – where to now for the WA wheat industry? Robert Loughman, Department of Agriculture, Colin Wellings, University of Sydney, Greg Shea, Department of Agriculture Oaten hay production, Jocelyn Ball, Natasha Littlewood and Lucy Creagh, Department of Agriculture Don’t rely on ‘Spray and Pray’ Alex Douglas, Department of Agriculture Seasonal outlook: What is in store for 2003, David Stephens, Department of Agriculture No-till copper, phosphorus and zinc experiments, Ross Brennan and Mike Bolland, Department of Agriculture Wheat nutrition in the high rainfall zone, Narelle Hill, Department of Agriculture Aphid damage to cereal grain crops, Phil Michael, Department of Agriculture Aphid damage to canola – not all cultivars are equal, Francoise A. Berlandier and Christiaan Valentine, Department of Agriculture Overcropping Lucerne, Roy Latta, Department of Agriculture Future direction of field pea varieties, M. Rodger Beermier, Department of Agriculture Selecting the right pasture for the job, Keith Devenish, Department of Agriculture Topping up pasture seedbanks, Keith Devenish, Department of Agriculture Baudin and Hamlin New generation of malting barleys, Blakely Paynter, Roslyn Jettner and Kevin Young, Department of Agriculture Wheat variety performance in 2002 compared to the long term, Robin Wilson, Ian Barclay Robyn McLean, Robert Loughman, Jenny Garlinge, Bill Lambe, Neil Venn and Peter Clarke, Department of Agriculture The role of green manure crops in renovating poor performing paddocks: What’s it worth? Francis Hoyle, Leanne Schulz and Judith Devenish, Department of Agricultur

Safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of a COVID-19 vaccine (NVX-CoV2373) co-administered with seasonal influenza vaccines: an exploratory substudy of a randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background: Safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines when co-administered with influenza vaccines have not yet been reported. Methods: A sub-study on influenza vaccine co-administration was conducted as part of the phase 3 randomised trial of NVX-CoV2373’s safety and efficacy; ~400 participants meeting main study entry criteria, with no contraindications to influenza vaccination, were enroled. After randomisation to receive NVX-CoV2373 or placebo, sub-study participants received an open-label influenza vaccine at the same time as the first dose of NVX-CoV2373. Reactogenicity was evaluated for 7 days post-vaccination plus monitoring for unsolicited adverse events (AEs), medically-attended AEs (MAAEs), and serious AEs (SAEs). Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 was assessed. Findings: Sub-study participants were younger (median age 39; 6.7 % ≥65 years), more racially diverse, and had fewer comorbid conditions than main study participants. Reactogenicity events more common in co-administration group included tenderness (70.1% vs 57.6%) or pain (39.7% vs 29.3%) at injection site, fatigue (27.7% vs 19.4%), and muscle pain (28.3% vs 21.4%). Rates of unsolicited AEs, MAAEs, and SAEs were low and balanced between the two groups. Co-administration resulted in no change to influenza vaccine immune response, while a reduction in antibody responses to the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine was noted. Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 was 87.5% (95% CI: -0.2, 98.4) in those 18-<65 years in the sub-study while efficacy in the main study was 89.8% (95% CI: 79.7, 95.5).  Interpretation: This is the first study to demonstrate safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of a COVID-19 vaccine when co-administered with influenza vaccines