Reliability and Precision of the Nana Protocol to Assess Body Composition Using Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry

The Nana positioning protocol is widely used to position participants to minimize technical error when undertaking body composition scanning and analysis with a Dual energy X-Ray absorptiometry (DXA) machine. Once biological and technical errors are accounted for, the only variation in test–retest results is from statistical fluctuation or machine error. Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess the test–retest reliability of the Nana positioning protocol and establish the smallest real difference percentage (SRD%). A gender-balanced group of 30 participants (15 males, 15 females) underwent two scans in succession using the Nana positioning protocol, with repositioning between scans. Percentage change in mean with typical error, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC), and standard error measurement percentage (SEM%) were used to identify the test–retest reliability and error rate of these protocols. Additionally, SRD% was calculated to assess the point at which clinically important changes occurred in a participant. The reliabilities of the whole body and regional scans were excellent. Percentage change in mean ranged between 0.00% and 0.23%. High reproducibility of the Nana positioning protocol was evident through an ICC ranging between 0.966–1.000. Additionally, typical error, SEM%, and SRD% were all low. Interestingly, fat mass was associated with the largest fluctuations observed to be associated with any of the parameters assessed. When all sources of biological and technical errors have been accounted for, the Nana positioning protocol has excellent test–retest reliability and produces low SEM% and SRD%

Fostering resilience: Empowering rural communities in the face of hardship

Australian rural communities are experiencing some of the worst climactic and economic conditions in decades. Unfortunately, the multiple government and non-government agency responses have reportedly been uncoordinated, sometimes losing sight of their consumers. This article describes a program designed to strengthen and empower resilience in small rural communities and summarises the outcomes, including needs and action planning undertaken. The 97 participants were from eight outer regional or remote towns and communities in the northern Riverina region of New South Wales, Australia. As groups representing their communities, they attended meetings and responded to a series of questions regarding issues arising from the drought, community needs, and actions their community could take to address these issues and needs. The study findings highlight the stress and strain of the climatic conditions and the insecurity of rural incomes, as well as problems with the high cost of transport. The communities recognised a degree of social disintegration but also expressed considerable hope that, by working together and better utilising social agencies, they could develop a social connectedness that would make their communities more resilient. Approaches that empower and facilitate community resilience are suggested as an effective model that governments and non-government agencies can use to encourage social groups that are struggling to build resilience

Prospectus, August 9, 2018

ANTHROPOLOGY STUDENTS MAKE MONTICELLO WOODS THEIR CLASSROOM; Farewell, Parkland!; Political climate affects college students nationwide; Excerpts from Honors Projects from Spring 2018 Honors Program Graduates; Cobras Athletes of the Year 2017-18https://spark.parkland.edu/prospectus_2018/1033/thumbnail.jp

Implementing telephone triage in general practice: a process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background: Telephone triage represents one strategy to manage demand for face-to-face GP appointments in primary care. However, limited evidence exists of the challenges GP practices face in implementing telephone triage. We conducted a qualitative process evaluation alongside a UK-based cluster randomised trial (ESTEEM) which compared the impact of GP-led and nurse-led telephone triage with usual care on primary care workload, cost, patient experience, and safety for patients requesting a same-day GP consultation. The aim of the process study was to provide insights into the observed effects of the ESTEEM trial from the perspectives of staff and patients, and to specify the circumstances under which triage is likely to be successfully implemented. Here we report perspectives of staff. Methods: The intervention comprised implementation of either GP-led or nurse-led telephone triage for a period of 2-3 months. A qualitative evaluation was conducted using staff interviews recruited from eight general practices (4 GP triage, 4 Nurse triage) in the UK, implementing triage as part of the ESTEEM trial. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with 44 staff members in GP triage and nurse triage practices (16 GPs, 8 nurses, 7 practice managers, 13 administrative staff). Results: Staff reported diverse experiences and perceptions regarding the implementation of telephone triage, its effects on workload, and on the benefits of triage. Such diversity were explained by the different ways triage was organised, the staffing models used to support triage, how the introduction of triage was communicated across practice staff, and by how staff roles were reconfigured as a result of implementing triage. Conclusion: The findings from the process evaluation offer insight into the range of ways GP practices participating in ESTEEM implemented telephone triage, and the circumstances under which telephone triage can be successfully implemented beyond the context of a clinical trial. Staff experiences and perceptions of telephone triage are shaped by the way practices communicate with staff, prepare for and sustain the changes required to implement triage effectively, as well as by existing practice culture, and staff and patient behaviour arising in response to the changes made. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20687662. Registered 28 May 2009

Reconciliation of essential process parameters for an enhanced predictability of Arctic stratospheric ozone loss and its climate interactions : (RECONCILE) ; activities and results

The international research project RECONCILE has addressed central questions regarding polar ozone depletion, with the objective to quantify some of the most relevant yet still uncertain physical and chemical processes and thereby improve prognostic modelling capabilities to realistically predict the response of the ozone layer to climate change. This overview paper outlines the scope and the general approach of RECONCILE, and it provides a summary of observations and modelling in 2010 and 2011 that have generated an in many respects unprecedented dataset to study processes in the Arctic winter stratosphere. Principally, it summarises important outcomes of RECONCILE including (i) better constraints and enhanced consistency on the set of parameters governing catalytic ozone destruction cycles, (ii) a better understanding of the role of cold binary aerosols in heterogeneous chlorine activation, (iii) an improved scheme of polar stratospheric cloud (PSC) processes that includes heterogeneous nucleation of nitric acid trihydrate (NAT) and ice on non-volatile background aerosol leading to better model parameterisations with respect to denitrification, and (iv) long transient simulations with a chemistry-climate model (CCM) updated based on the results of RECONCILE that better reproduce past ozone trends in Antarctica and are deemed to produce more reliable predictions of future ozone trends. The process studies and the global simulations conducted in RECONCILE show that in the Arctic, ozone depletion uncertainties in the chemical and microphysical processes are now clearly smaller than the sensitivity to dynamic variability

Beyond the limits of clinical governance? The case of mental health in English primary care

Background: Little research attention has been given to attempts to implement organisational initiatives to improve quality of care for mental health care, where there is a high level of indeterminacy and clinical judgements are often contestable. This paper explores recent efforts made at an organisational level in England to improve the quality of primary care for people with mental health problems through the new institutional processes of 'clinical governance'. Methods: Framework analysis, based on the Normalisation Process Model (NPM), of attempts over a five year period to develop clinical governance for primary mental health services in Primary Care Trusts (PCTs). The data come from a longitudinal qualitative multiple case-study approach in a purposive sample of 12 PCTs, chosen to reflect a maximum variety of organisational contexts for mental health care provision. Results: The constant change within the English NHS provided a difficult context in which to attempt to implement 'clinical governance' or, indeed, to reconstruct primary mental health care. In the absence of clear evidence or direct guidance about what 'primary mental health care' should be, and a lack of actors with the power or skills to set about realising it, the actors in 'clinical governance' had little shared knowledge or understanding of their role in improving the quality of mental health care. There was a lack of ownership of 'mental health' as an integral, normalised part of primary care. Conclusion: Despite some achievements in regard to monitoring and standardisation of prescribing practice, mental health care in primary care seems to have so far largely eluded the gaze of 'clinical governance'. Clinical governance in English primary mental health care has not yet become normalised. We make some policy recommendations which we consider would assist in the process normalisation and suggest other contexts to which our findings might apply

Holistic treatment response: an international expert panel definition and criteria for a new paradigm in the assessment of clinical outcomes of spinal cord stimulation

Background: Treatment response to spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is focused on the magnitude of effects on pain intensity. However, chronic pain is a multidimensional condition that may affect individuals in different ways and as such it seems reductionist to evaluate treatment response based solely on a unidimensional measure such as pain intensity. Aim: The aim of this article is to add to a framework started by IMMPACT for assessing the wider health impact of treatment with SCS for people with chronic pain, a ”holistic treatment response”. Discussion: Several aspects need consideration in the assessment of a holistic treatment response. SCS device data and how it relates to patient outcomes, is essential to improve the understanding of the different types of SCS, improve patient selection, long-term clinical outcomes, and reproducibility of findings. The outcomes to include in the evaluation of a holistic treatment response need to consider clinical relevance for patients and clinicians. Assessment of the holistic response combines two key concepts of patient assessment: (1) patients level of baseline (pre-treatment) unmet need across a range of health domains; (2) demonstration of patient-relevant improvements in these health domains with treatment. The minimal clinical important difference (MCID) is an established approach to reflect changes after a clinical intervention that are meaningful for the patient and can be used to identify treatment response to each individual domain. A holistic treatment response needs to account for MCIDs in all domains of importance for which the patient presents dysfunctional scores pre-treatment. The number of domains included in a holistic treatment response may vary and should be considered on an individual basis. Physiologic confirmation of therapy delivery and utilisation should be included as part of the evaluation of a holistic treatment response and is essential to advance the field of SCS and increase transparency and reproducibility of the findings

Crop Updates 2007 - Lupins, Pulses and Oilseeds

This session covers forty eight papers from different authors: 2006 REGIONAL ROUNDUP 1. South east agricultural region, Mark Seymour1 and Jacinta Falconer2, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2Cooperative Bulk Handling Group 2. Central agricultural region, Ian Pritchard, Department of Agriculture and Food 3. Great Southern and Lakes region, Rodger Beermier, Department of Agriculture and Food 4. Northern agricultural region, Wayne Parker and Martin Harries, Department of Agriculture and Food LUPINS 5. Development of anthracnose resistant and early flowering albus lupins (Lupinus albus L) in Western Australia, Kedar Adhikari and Geoff Thomas, Department of Agriculture and Food 6. New lupins adapted to the south coast, Peter White, Bevan Buirchell and Mike Baker, Department of Agriculture and Food 7. Lupin species and row spacing interactions by environment, Martin Harries, Peter White, Bob French, Jo Walker, Mike Baker and Laurie Maiolo, Department of Agriculture and Food 8. The interaction of lupin species row spacing and soil type, Martin Harries, Bob French, Laurie Maiolo and Jo Walker, Department of Agriculture and Food 9. The effects of row spacing and crop density on competitiveness of lupins with wild radish, Bob French and Laurie Maiolo, Department of Agriculture and Food 10. The effect of time of sowing and radish weed density on lupin yield, Martin Harries and Jo Walker, Department of Agriculture and Food 11. Interaction of time of sowing and weed management in lupins, Martin Harries and Jo Walker, Department of Agriculture and Food 12. Delayed sowing as a strategy to manage annual ryegrass, Bob French and Laurie Maiolo, Department of Agriculture and Food 13. Is delayed sowing a good strategy for weed management in lupins? Bob French, Department of Agriculture and Food 14. Lupins aren’t lupins when it comes to simazine, Peter White and Leigh Smith, Department of Agriculture and Food 15. Seed yield and anthracnose resistance of Tanjil mutants tolerant to metribuzin, Ping Si1, Bevan Buirchell1,2 and Mark Sweetingham1,2, 1Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, Australia; 2Department of Agriculture and Food 16. The effect of herbicides on nodulation in lupins, Lorne Mills1, Harmohinder Dhammu2 and Beng Tan1, 1Curtin University of Technology and 2Department of Agriculture and Food 17. Effect of fertiliser placements and watering regimes on lupin growth and seed yield in the central grain belt of Western Australia, Qifu Ma1, Zed Rengel1, Bill Bowden2, Ross Brennan2, Reg Lunt2 and Tim Hilder2, 1Soil Science & Plant Nutrition UWA, 2Department of Agriculture and Food 18. Development of a forecasting model for Bean Yellow Mosaic Virus in lupins, T. Maling1,2, A. Diggle1, D. Thackray1,2, R.A.C. Jones2, and K.H.M. Siddique1, 1Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, The University of Western Australia; 2Department of Agriculture and Food 19. Manufacturing of lupin tempe,Vijay Jayasena1,4, Leonardus Kardono2,4, Ken Quail3,4 and Ranil Coorey1,4, 1Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia, 2Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), Indonesia, 3BRI Australia Ltd, Sydney, Australia, 4Grain Foods CRC, Sydney, Australia 20. The impact of lupin based ingredients in ice-cream, Hannah Williams, Lee Sheer Yap and Vijay Jayasena, Curtin University of Technology, Perth WA 21. The acceptability of muffins substituted with varying concentrations of lupin flour, Anthony James, Don Elani Jayawardena and Vijay Jayasena, Curtin University of Technology, PerthWA PULSES 22. Chickpea variety evaluation, Kerry Regan1, Rod Hunter1, Tanveer Khan1,2and Jenny Garlinge1, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 23. Advanced breeding trials of desi chickpea, Khan, T.N.1, Siddique, K.H.M.3, Clarke, H.2, Turner, N.C.2, MacLeod, W.1, Morgan, S.1, and Harris, A.1, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, 3TheUniversity of Western Australia 24. Ascochyta resistance in chickpea lines in Crop Variety Testing (CVT) of 2006, Tanveer Khan1 2, Bill MacLeod1, Alan Harris1, Stuart Morgan1and Kerry Regan1, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 25. Yield evaluation of ascochyta blight resistant Kabuli chickpeas, Kerry Regan1and Kadambot Siddique2, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2Institute of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia 26. Pulse WA Chickpea Industry Survey 2006, Mark Seymour1, Ian Pritchard1, Wayne Parker1and Alan Meldrum2, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2Pulse Australia 27. Genes from the wild as a valuable genetic resource for chickpea improvement, Heather Clarke1, Helen Bowers1and Kadambot Siddique2, 1Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, 2Institute of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia 28. International screening of chickpea for resistance to Botrytis grey mould, B. MacLeod1, Dr T. Khan1, Prof. K.H.M. Siddique2and Dr A. Bakr3, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2The University of Western Australia, 3Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute 29. Balance® in chickpea is safest applied post sowing to a level seed bed, Wayne Parker, Department of Agriculture and Food, 30. Demonstrations of Genesis 510 chickpea, Wayne Parker, Department of Agriculture and Food 31. Field pea 2006, Ian Pritchard, Department of Agriculture and Food 32. Field pea variety evaluation, Kerry Regan1, Rod Hunter1, Tanveer Khan1,2 and Jenny Garlinge1, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 33. Breeding highlights of the Australian Field Pea Improvement Program (AFPIP),Kerry Regan1, Tanveer Khan1,2, Phillip Chambers1, Chris Veitch1, Stuart Morgan1 , Alan Harris1and Tony Leonforte3, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia, 3Department of Primary Industries, Victoria 34. Field pea germplasm enhancement for black spot resistance, Tanveer Khan, Kerry Regan, Stuart Morgan, Alan Harris and Phillip Chambers, Department of Agriculture and Food 35. Validation of Blackspot spore release model and testing moderately resistant field pea line, Mark Seymour, Ian Pritchard, Rodger Beermier, Pam Burgess and Leanne Young, Department of Agriculture and Food 36. Yield losses from sowing field pea seed infected with Pea Seed-borne Mosaic Virus, Brenda Coutts, Donna O’Keefe, Rhonda Pearce, Monica Kehoe and Roger Jones, Department of Agriculture and Food 37. Faba bean in 2006, Mark Seymour, Department of Agriculture and Food 38. Germplasm evaluation – faba bean, Mark Seymour1, Terri Jasper1, Ian Pritchard1, Mike Baker1 and Tim Pope1,2, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, , 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 39. Breeding highlights of the Coordinated Improvement Program for Australian Lentils (CIPAL), Kerry Regan1, Chris Veitch1, Phillip Chambers1 and Michael Materne2, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2Department of Primary Industries, Victoria 40. Screening pulse lentil germplasm for tolerance to alternate herbicides, Ping Si1, Mike Walsh2 and Mark Sweetingham1,3, 1Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, 2West Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative, 3Department of Agriculture and Food 41. Genomic synteny in legumes: Application to crop breeding, Phan, H.T.T.1, Ellwood, S.R.1, Hane, J.1, Williams, A.1, Ford, R.2, Thomas, S.3 and Oliver R1, 1Australian Centre of Necrotrophic Plant Pathogens, Murdoch University, 2BioMarka, University of Melbourne, 3NSW Department of Primary Industries 42. Tolerance of lupins, chickpeas and canola to Balanceâ(Isoxaflutole) and Galleryâ (Isoxaben), Leigh Smith and Peter White, Department of Agriculture and Food CANOLA AND OILSEEDS 43. The performance of TT Canola varieties in the National Variety Test (NVT),WA,2006,Katie Robinson, Research Agronomist, Agritech Crop Research 44. Evaluation of Brassica crops for biodiesel in Western Australia, Mohammad Amjad, Graham Walton, Pat Fels and Andy Sutherland, Department of Agriculture and Food 45. Production risk of canola in different rainfall zones in Western Australia, Imma Farré1, Michael Robertson2 and Senthold Asseng3, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, 3CSIRO Plant Industry 46. Future directions of blackleg management – dynamics of blackleg susceptibility in canola varieties, Ravjit Khangura, Moin Salam and Bill MacLeod, Department of Agriculture and Food 47. Appendix 1: Contributors 48. Appendix 2: List of common acronym

Crop Updates 2005 - Lupins and Pulses

This session covers sixty five papers from different authors: 1. 2004 LUPIN AND PULSE INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS, Peter White Department of Agriculture 2. BACKGROUND, Peter White Department of Agriculture 2004 REGIONAL ROUNDUP 3. Northern Agricultural Region, Martin Harries, Department of Agriculture 4. Central Agricultural Region, Ian Pritchard, Department of Agriculture 5. Great Southern and Lakes, Rodger Beermier, Department of Agriculture 6. Esperance Port Zone, Mark Seymour, Department of Agriculture, and David Syme, The Grain Pool of WA LUPIN AND PULSE PRODUCTION AGRONOMY AND GENETIC IMPROVEMENT 7. Lupin, Martin Harries, Department of Agriculture 8. Narrow-leafed lupin breeding, Bevan Buirchell, Department of Agriculture 9. Yellow lupin breeding in Western Australia, Kedar Adhikari, Mark Sweetingham and Bevan Buirchell, Department of Agriculture 10. WALAB2000 - First Anthracnose resistant albus lupins, Kedar Adhikari, Bevan Buirchell, MarkSweetingham and Geoff Thomas, Department of Agriculture 11. Improving lupin grain quality and yield through genetic manipulation of key physiological traits, Jon Clements1 and Bevan Buirchell2,1CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 2Department of Agriculture 12. Lupin alkaloids in four Australian species, Shao Fang Wang, Chemistry Centre (WA), CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 13. Improving lupin tolerance to herbicides of metribuzin, isoxaflutole and carfentrazone-ethyl, Ping Si1, Mark Sweetingham12, Bevan Buirchell12, David Bowran2 and Huaan Yang12 , 1CLIMA, The University of Western Australia, 2Department of Agriculture 14. Combined cultural and shielded sprayer herbicide application for weed management, Martin Harries and Mike Baker Department of Agriculture 15. Field testing of lupin seed of various sources with and without post maturity, pre harvest rain for field establishment, Martin Harries, Wayne Parker, Mike Baker, Department of Agriculture 16. Lupin seed rate by wide row spacing, Martin Harries, Bob French, Damien Owen D’arcy, Department of Agriculture 17. How environment influences row spacing response in lupins, Bob French, Department of Agriculture 18. The effect of wider row spacing on lupin architecture, growth and nutrient uptake dynamics, Bill Bowden and Craig Scanlan, Department of Agriculture 19. Fertiliser placement and application rate in wide rows, Martin Harries, Damien Owen D’arcy, Department of Agriculture 20. The pros and cons of cowing lupins in ‘wide’ rows, Wayne Parker, Bob French and Martin Harries, Department of Agriculture 21. Investigation into the influence of row orientation in lupin crops, Jeff Russell1 and Angie Roe2, 1Department of Agriculture, 2Farm Focus Consultants 22. Making the most of Mandelup, Greg Shea and Chris Matthews, Department of Agriculture 23. The effect of wild radish density and lupin cultivars on their competition at Merredin, Shahab Pathan, Abul Hashem and Bob French, Department of Agriculture 24. The potential of pearl lupin (Lupinus mutabilis) for southern Australia, Jon Clements1, Mark Sweetingham2, Bevan Buirchell2, Sofia Sipsas2, Geoff Thomas2, John Quealy1, Roger Jones2, Clive Francis1, Colin Smith2 and Gordon Francis1, 1CLIMA, University of Western Australia 2Department of Agriculture 25. Field pea, Mark Seymour, Department of Agriculture 26. Breeding highlights, Tanveer. Khan and Bob French, Department of Agriculture 27. Variety evaluation, Tanveer Khan, Kerry Regan, Jenny Garlinge and Rod Hunter, Department of Agriculture 28. Large scale field pea variety trials, Martin Harries, Department of Agriculture 29. Kaspa demonstrations, Rodger Beermier, Mark Seymour, Ian Pritchard, Graham Mussell, Department of Agriculture 30. Field pea harvesting demonstration at Merredin, Glen Riethmuller, Greg Shea and Bob French, Department of Agriculture 31. Does Kaspa respond differently to disease, fungicides, time of sowing or seed rate, Mark Seymour, Department of Agriculture 32. Field pea response to foliar Manganese in mallee district, Mark Seymour, Department of Agriculture 33. Kaspa harvesting observations 2004, Mark Seymour, Ian Pritchard, Glen Riethmuller, Department of Agriculture 34. ‘Blackspot Manager’ for understanding blackspot of peas and ascochyta blight management, Moin Salam and Jean Galloway, Department of Agriculture 35. 250,000 ha of field pea in WA – Is it sustainable? Larn McMurray1 and Mark Seymour2, 1South Australian Research and Development Institute, 2Department of Agriculture 36. Desi chickpea, Wayne Parker, Department of Agriculture 37. Breeding highlights, Tanveer Khan1,2 and Kadambot Siddique2,1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 38. Variety evaluation, Tanveer Khan, Kerry Regan, Jenny Garlinge and Rod Hunter, Department of Agriculture 39. Large scale variety testing of desi chickpeas, Martin Harries, Greg Shea, Mike Baker, Dirranie Kirby, Department of Agriculture 40. Desi variety chickpea trial, Martin Harries and Murray Blyth, Department of Agriculture 41. Seeding rates and row spacing of chickpea desi, Martin Harries, MurrayBlyth, Damien Owen D’arcy, Department of Agriculture 42. Molecular characterisation of chickpea wild relatives, Fucheng Shan, Heather Clarke and Kadambot Siddique, CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 43. Plant phosphorus status has a limited influence on the concentration of phosphorus-mobilising carboxylates in the rhizosphere of chickpea, Madeleine Wouterlood, Hans Lambers and Erik Veneklaas, The University of Western Australia 44. Kabuli chickpea, Kerry Regan, Department of Agriculture, and CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 45. ‘Kimberly Large’ A high quality and high yielding new variety for the Ord River Irrigation Area, Kerry Regan1,2, Kadambot Siddique2, Peter White1,2, Peter Smith1 and Gae Plunkett1,1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, University of Western Australia 46. Development of ascochyta resistant and high quality varieties for Australia, Kadambot Siddique1, Kerry Regan1,2, Tim Pope1 and Mike Baker2, 1CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 2Department of Agriculture 47. Towards double haploids in chickpeas and field pea, Janine Croser, Julia Wilson and Kadambot Siddique, CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 48. Crossing chickpea with wild Cicer relatives to introduce resistance to disease and tolerance to environmental stress, Heather Clarke and Kadambot Siddique, CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 49. Faba bean, Peter White, Department of Agriculture 50. Germplasm evaluation, Peter White1,2, Kerry Regan1,2, Tim Pope2, Martin Harries1, Mark Seymour1, Rodger Beermier1 and Leanne Young1, 1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 51. Lentil, Kerry Regan, Department of Agriculture, and CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 52. Variety and germplasm evaluation, Kerry Regan1,2, Tim Pope2, Leanne Young1, Martin Harries1, Murray Blyth1 and Michael Materne3, 1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, University of Western Australia, 3Department of Primary Industries, Victoria 53. Lathyrus species, Kadambot Siddique1, Kerry Regan2, and Colin Hanbury2, 1CLIMA, the University of Western Australia, 2Department of Agricultur

Crop Updates 2006 - Lupins and Pulses

This session covers sixty six papers from different authors: 2005 LUPIN AND PULSE INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS 1. Lupin Peter White, Department of Agriculture 2. Pulses Mark Seymour, Department of Agriculture 3. Monthly rainfall at experimental sites in 2005 4. Acknowledgements Amelia McLarty EDITOR 5. Contributors 6. Background Peter White, Department of Agriculture 2005 REGIONAL ROUNDUP 7. Northern agricultural region Wayne Parker, Department of Agriculture 8. Central agricultural region Ian Pritchard and Bob French, Department of Agriculture 9. Great southern and lakes Rodger Beermier, Department of Agriculture 10. South east region Mark Seymour, Department of Agriculture LUPIN AND PULSE PRODUCTION AGRONOMY AND GENETIC IMPROVEMENT 11. Lupin Peter White, Department of Agriculture 12. Narrow-leafed lupin breeding Bevan Buirchell, Department of Agriculture 13. Progress in the development of pearl lupin (Lupinus mutabilis) for Australian agriculture, Mark Sweetingham1,2, Jon Clements1, Geoff Thomas2, Roger Jones1, Sofia Sipsas1, John Quealy2, Leigh Smith1 and Gordon Francis1 1CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 2Department of Agriculture 14. Molecular genetic markers and lupin breeding, Huaan Yang, Jeffrey Boersma, Bevan Buirchell, Department of Agriculture 15. Construction of a genetic linkage map using MFLP, and identification of molecular markers linked to domestication genes in narrow-leafed lupin (Lupinus augustiflolius L) Jeffrey Boersma1,2, Margaret Pallotta3, Bevan Buirchell1, Chengdao Li1, Krishnapillai Sivasithamparam2 and Huaan Yang1 1Department of Agriculture, 2The University of Western Australia, 3Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics, South Australia 16. The first gene-based map of narrow-leafed lupin – location of domestication genes and conserved synteny with Medicago truncatula, M. Nelson1, H. Phan2, S. Ellwood2, P. Moolhuijzen3, M. Bellgard3, J. Hane2, A. Williams2, J. Fos‑Nyarko4, B. Wolko5, M. Książkiewicz5, M. Cakir4, M. Jones4, M. Scobie4, C. O’Lone1, S.J. Barker1, R. Oliver2, and W. Cowling1 1School of Plant Biology, The University of Western Australia, 2Australian Centre for Necrotrophic Fungal Pathogens, Murdoch University, 3Centre for Bioinformatics and Biological Computing, Murdoch University, 4School of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, SABC, Murdoch University,5Institute of Plant Genetics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poznań, Poland 17. How does lupin optimum density change row spacing? Bob French and Laurie Maiolo, Department of Agriculture 18. Wide row spacing and seeding rate of lupins with conventional and precision seeding machines Martin Harries, Jo Walker and Murray Blyth, Department of Agriculture 19. Influence of row spacing and plant density on lupin competition with annual ryegrass, Martin Harries, Jo Walker and Murray Blyth, Department of Agriculture 20. Effect of timing and speed of inter-row cultivation on lupins, Martin Harries, Jo Walker and Steve Cosh, Department of Agriculture 21. The interaction of atrazine herbicide rate and row spacing on lupin seedling survival, Martin Harries and Jo Walker Department of Agriculture 22. The banding of herbicides on lupin row crops, Martin Harries, Jo Walker and Murray Blyth, Department of Agriculture 23. Large plot testing of herbicide tolerance of new lupin lines, Wayne Parker, Department of Agriculture 24. Effect of seed source and simazine rate of seedling emergence and growth, Peter White and Greg Shea, Department of Agriculture 25. The effect of lupin row spacing and seeding rate on a following wheat crop, Martin Harries, Jo Walker and Dirranie Kirby, Department of Agriculture 26. Response of crop lupin species to row spacing, Leigh Smith1, Kedar Adhikari1, Jon Clements2 and Patrizia Guantini3, 1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia, 3University of Florence, Italy 27. Response of Lupinus mutabilis to lime application and over watering, Peter White, Leigh Smith and Mark Sweetingham, Department of Agriculture 28. Impact of anthracnose on yield of Andromeda lupins, Geoff Thomas, Kedar Adhikari and Katie Bell, Department of Agriculture 29. Survey of lupin root health (in major production areas), Geoff Thomas, Ken Adcock, Katie Bell, Ciara Beard and Anne Smith, Department of Agriculture 30. Development of a generic forecasting and decision support system for diseases in the Western Australian wheatbelt, Tim Maling1, Art Diggle1,2, Debbie Thackray1, Kadambot Siddique1 and Roger Jones1,2 1CLIMA, The University of Western Australia, 2Department of Agriculture 31.Tanjil mutants highly tolerant to metribuzin, Ping Si1, Mark Sweetingham1,2, Bevan Buirchell1,2 and Huaan Yang l,2 1CLIMA, The University of Western Australia, 2Department of Agriculture 32. Precipitation pH vs. yield and functional properties of lupin protein isolate, Vijay Jayasena1, Hui Jun Chih1 and Ken Dods2 1Curtin University of Technology, 2Chemistry Centre 33. Lupin protein isolation with the use of salts, Vijay Jayasena1, Florence Kartawinata1,Ranil Coorey1 and Ken Dods2 1Curtin University of Technology, 2Chemistry Centre 34. Field pea, Mark Seymour, Department of Agriculture 35. Breeding highlights Kerry Regan1,2, Tanveer Khan1,2, Stuart Morgan1 and Phillip Chambers1 1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 36. Variety evaluation, Kerry Regan1,2, Tanveer Khan1,2, Jenny Garlinge1 and Rod Hunter1 1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 37. Days to flowering of field pea varieties throughout WA Mark Seymour1, Ian Pritchard1, Rodger Beermier1, Pam Burgess1 and Dr Eric Armstrong2 Department of Agriculture, 2NSW Department of Primary Industries, Wagga Wagga 38. Semi-leafless field peas yield more, with less ryegrass seed set, in narrow rows, Glen Riethmuller, Department of Agriculture 39. Swathing, stripping and other innovative ways to harvest field peas, Mark Seymour, Ian Pritchard, Rodger Beermier and Pam Burgess, Department of Agriculture 40. Pulse demonstrations, Ian Pritchard, Wayne Parker, Greg Shea, Department of Agriculture 41. Field pea extension – focus on field peas 2005, Ian Pritchard, Department of Agriculture 42. Field pea blackspot disease in 2005: Prediction versus reality, Moin Salam, Jean Galloway, Pip Payne, Bill MacLeod and Art Diggle, Department of Agriculture 43. Pea seed-borne mosaic virus in pulses: Screening for seed quality defects and virus resistance, Rohan Prince, Brenda Coutts and Roger Jones, Department of Agriculture, and CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 44. Yield losses from sowing field peas infected with pea seed-borne mosaic virus, Rohan Prince, Brenda Coutts and Roger Jones, Department of Agriculture, and CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 45. Desi chickpea, Wayne Parker, Department of Agriculture 46. Breeding highlights, Tanveer Khan 1,2, Pooran Gaur3, Kadambot Siddique2, Heather Clarke2, Stuart Morgan1and Alan Harris1, 1Department of Agriculture2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia, 3International Crop Research Institute for Semi Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India 47. National chickpea improvement program, Kerry Regan1, Ted Knights2 and Kristy Hobson3,1Department of Agriculture, 2Agriculture New South Wales 3Department of Primary Industries, Victoria 48. Chickpea breeding lines in CVT exhibit excellent ascochyta blight resistance, Tanveer Khan1,2, Alan Harris1, Stuart Morgan1 and Kerry Regan1,2, 1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 49. Variety evaluation, Kerry Regan1,2, Tanveer Khan1,2, Jenny Garlinge2 and Rod Hunter2, 1CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 2Department of Agriculture 50. Desi chickpeas for the wheatbelt, Wayne Parker and Ian Pritchard, Department of Agriculture 51. Large scale demonstration of new chickpea varieties, Wayne Parker, MurrayBlyth, Steve Cosh, Dirranie Kirby and Chris Matthews, Department of Agriculture 52. Ascochyta management with new chickpeas, Martin Harries, Bill MacLeod, Murray Blyth and Jo Walker, Department of Agriculture 53. Management of ascochyta blight in improved chickpea varieties, Bill MacLeod1, Colin Hanbury2, Pip Payne1, Martin Harries1, Murray Blyth1, Tanveer Khan1,2, Kadambot Siddique2, 1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 54. Botrytis grey mould of chickpea, Bill MacLeod, Department of Agriculture 55. Kabuli chickpea, Kerry Regan, Department of Agriculture, and CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 56. New ascochyta blight resistant, high quality kabuli chickpea varieties, Kerry Regan1,2, Kadambot Siddique2, Tim Pope2 and Mike Baker1, 1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 57. Crop production and disease management of Almaz and Nafice, Kerry Regan and Bill MacLeod, Department of Agriculture, and CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 58. Faba bean,Mark Seymour, Department of Agriculture 59. Germplasm evaluation – faba bean, Mark Seymour1, Tim Pope2, Peter White1, Martin Harries1, Murray Blyth1, Rodger Beermier1, Pam Burgess1 and Leanne Young1,1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 60. Factors affecting seed coat colour of faba bean during storage, Syed Muhammad Nasar-Abbas1, Julie Plummer1, Kadambot Siddique2, Peter White 3, D. Harris4 and Ken Dods4.1The University of Western Australia, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia, 3Department of Agriculture, 4Chemistry Centre 61. Lentil,Kerry Regan, Department of Agriculture, and CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 62. Variety and germplasm evaluation, Kerry Regan1,2, Tim Pope2, Leanne Young1, Phill Chambers1, Alan Harris1, Wayne Parker1 and Michael Materne3, 1Department of Agriculture 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia, 3Department of Primary Industries, Victoria Pulse species 63. Land suitability for production of different crop species in Western Australia, Peter White, Dennis van Gool, and Mike Baker, Department of Agriculture 64. Genomic synteny in legumes: Application to crop breeding, Huyen Phan1, Simon Ellwood1, J. Hane1, Angela Williams1, R. Ford2, S. Thomas3 and Richard Oliver1,1Australian Centre of Necrotrophic Plant Pathogens, Murdoch University 2BioMarka, School of Agriculture and Food Systems, ILFR, University of Melbourne 3NSW Department of Primary Industries 65. ALOSCA – Development of a dry flow legume seed inoculant, Rory Coffey and Chris Poole, ALOSCA Technologies Pty Ltd 66. Genetic dissection of resistance to fungal necrotrophs in Medicago truncatula, Simon Ellwood1, Theo Pfaff1, Judith Lichtenzveig12, Lars Kamphuis1, Nola D\u27Souza1, Angela Williams1, Emma Groves1, Karam Singh2 and Richard Oliver1 1Australian Centre of Necrotrophic Plant Pathogens, Murdoch University, 2CSIRO Plant Industry APPENDIX I: LIST OF COMMON ACRONYM