3 research outputs found
Crop Updates 2000 - Pulses
This session covers fifty nine papers from different authors:
1.1999 PULSE INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS
2. CONTRIBUTORS
3. BACKGROUND
4. SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS RESULTS
5. 1999 REGIONAL ROUNDUP
6. Northern Agricultural Region, W. O’Neill, AGWEST
7. Central Agricultural Region J. Russell and R.J. French AGWEST
8. Great Southern and Lakes N. Brandon, C. Gaskin and N. Runciman, AGWEST
9. Esperance Mallee M. Seymour, AGWEST
PULSE PRODUCTION AGRONOMY AND GENETIC IMPROVEMENT
10. Faba Bean
11. Desi chickpea Traits associated with drought resistance in chickpea, J. Berger, N.C. Turner, CLIMA and CSIRO Plant Industry, R.J. French, AGWEST, R. Carpenter, C. Ludwig and R. Kenney, CSIRO Plant Industry
12. Genotype x environment analysis of chickpea adaptation, J. Berger and N. Turner, CLIMA and CSIRO Plant Industry, and K.H.M. Siddique, AGWEST
13. Carbon fixation by chickpea pods under terminal drought, Q. Ma, CLIMA, M.H. Behboudian, Massey University, New Zealand, N.C. Turner and J.A. Palta, CLIMA, and CSIRO Plant Industry
14. Influence of terminal drought on growth and seed quality, M.H. Behboudian, Massey University, New Zealand, Q. Ma, CLIMA, N.C. Turner and J.A. Palta, CSIRO Plant Industry
15. Resistance to chilling at flowering and to budworm, H. Clarke, CLIMA
Chickpea nodulation survey, J. Stott and J. Howieson, Centre for Rhizobium Studies, Murdoch University
16. Kabuli chickpea 17. Premium quality kabuli chickpea development in the ORIA, K.H.M. Siddique CLIMA and AGWEST, K.L. Regan, AGWEST, R. Shackles, AGWEST 18. International screening for Ascochyta blight resistance, K.H.M. Siddique CLIMA and AGWEST, C. Francis, CLIMA, K.L. Regan, AGWEST, N. Acikgoz and N. Atikyilmaz, AARI, Turkey and R.S. Malholtra, ICARDA, Syria 19. Agronomic evaluation of Ascochyta resistant kabuli germplasm in WA, K.H.M. Siddique CLIMA and AGWESTC. Francis, CLIMA, K.L. Regan and M. Baker, AGWEST 20. Field Pea 21. Lentil
22. ACIAR project J. Clements, K.H.M. Siddique CLIMA and AGWEST and C. Francis CLIMA
23. Vetch
24. Rust, M. Seymour, AGWEST
25. Narbon bean 26. Agronomy, M. Seymour, AGWEST
27. Lupinus species
28. Screening lupins for tolerance to alkaline/calcareous soils, C. Tang, CLIMA andUniversity of WAand J.D. Brand, WAITE, University of Adelaide
29. Lathyrus development, C. Hanbury and K.H.M. Siddique, CLIMA and AGWEST
30. Sheep feeding studies, C. White, CSIRO, Perth, C. Hanbury, CLIMA and K.H.M. Siddique, CLIMA and AGWEST 31. Lathyrus: a potential new ingredient in pig diets, B.P. Mullan, C.D. Hanbury and K.H.M. Siddique, AGWEST 32. Species comparison
33. Species for horticultural rotations, K.H.M. Siddique, AGWEST, R. Lancaster and I. Guthridge AGWEST
34. Marrow fat field pea shows promise in the southwest, K.H.M. Siddique, AGWEST, N. Runciman, AGWEST, and I. Pritchard, AGWEST,
35. Pulses on grey clay soils, P. Fisher, M. Braimbridge, J. Bignell, N. Brandon, R. Beermier, W. Bowden, AGWEST
36. Nutrient management of pulses 37. Summary of pulse nutrition studies in WA, M.D.A. Bolland, K.H.M. Siddique, G.P. Riethmuller, and R.F. Brennan, AGWEST 38. Pulse species response to phosphorus and zinc, S. Lawrence, Zed Rengel, University of WA, S.P. Loss, CSBP futurefarm, M.D.A. Bolland, .H.M. Siddique, W. Bowden, AGWEST 39. Gypsum
40. Antitranspirants
seed priming
DEMONSTRATION OF PULSES IN THE FARMING SYSTEM
41. Foliar and soil applied nutrients for field peas in the south coast mallee,M. Seymour, AGWEST, and P. Vedeniapine, Phosyn Ltd 42. Demonstration of pulse species at Kendenup, C. Kirkwood, Farmer, Katanning, R. Beermier, N. Runciman and N. Brandon, AGWEST 43. Kabuli chickpea demonstration at Gnowangerup, R. Beermier and N. Brandon, AGWEST 44. Lathyrus sativus demonstration at Mindarabin, N. Brandon and R. Beermier, AGWEST 45. New field pea varieties in the central eastern region, J. Russell, AGWEST
DISEASE AND PEST MANAGEMENT
46. Ascochyta blight of chickpea
47. Botrytis grey mould (BGM) of chickpea 48. Fungal disease diagnostics, Pulse disease diagnostics, D. Wright, AGWEST Plant Laboratories 49. Viruses in pulses, Luteovirus infection in field pea and faba bean crops, and viruses in seed, L. Latham, CLIMA and AGWEST, R. Jones, AGWEST 50. Screening of pulse species for pea seed-borne mosaic virus, L. Latham, CLIMAand AGWEST, and R. Jones, AGWEST 51. CMV in chickpea: effect of seed-borne sources on virus spread and seed yield, R. Jones, AGWEST and L. Latham, CLIMA and AGWEST
52. Insect pests 53. Evaluation of transgenic field pea against the pea weevil,M.J. de Sousa Majer, School of Environmental Biology, Curtin University of Technology,, D. Hardie, and N.C. Turner, CSIRO Division of Plant Industry 54. Development of a molecular marker for pea weevil resistance in field pea, Oonagh Byrne, CLIMA, Darryl Hardie, AGWEST and Penny Smith, UWA 55. Aphid feeding damage to faba bean and lentil crops, Françoise Berlandier, AGWEST 56. Taxonomy and control of bruchids in pulses, N. Keals, CLIMA, D. Hardie and R. Emery, AGWEST, 57. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 58. PUBLICATIONS BY PULSE PRODUCTIVITY PROJECT STAFF
59. VARIETIES PRODUCED AND COMMERCIALLY RELEASE
The conservation status of ant communities along the Wubin-Perenjori Corridor
The ant fauna in three farm paddocks, 16 road verges and three areas of native vegetation along the Wubin-Perenjori Road Conservation Corridor was assessed. Ninety-three species were found dUring the survey, most of which were represented along various regions of the road verge. Verges without native vegetation supported few more species than did the farm paddocks. The richness of the ant fauna was still low on narrow (5 m wide) verges, but on Wide (20 m) verges which supported nave vegetation there were as many species per plot as in similar areas of native vegetation. The relative composition of the different ant functional groups also differed With the condition and width of the road verge. These results have important implications for the conservation of invertebrates, the provision of food for insectivorous vertebrates and for the assessment of road verge environmental quality
Branchlet shaking: a method for sampling tree canopyarthropods under windy conditions
Chemical knockdown is a commonly used method for sampling canopy arthropods. The procedure is susceptible to high winds and in certain conditions may be virtually unusable. Here we introduce a new procedure, branchlet shaking, and compare it with chemical knockdown. Samples produced by branchlet shaking yield fewer arthropods per tree and tend to miss some larger (>l.Ocm) and some smaller (<O.2cm) animals. However, the two procedures generally produce data which can portray similar information about the canopy fauna. It is concluded that although chemical knockdown is a superior sampling procedure, branchlet shaking is a possible alternative for situations where chemical knockdown is impractical. Interpretation of the data must, however, take into account the limitations of the branchlet shaking procedure