Getting the most from your liming program
[1]Project name
On-farm soil acidity and nutrient management (Watering WA – Clean Waterways)
Proving the effectiveness of agricultural lime
Results from a recently completed three-year project have shown the effectiveness of using agricultural lime to increase soil pH and highlighted the positive efforts made by growers in the Avon River Basin to address soil acidity.
The project, led by Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development research scientist Alice Butler, also helped growers assess the best method to apply lime for management of soil acidity into the future, with a focus on mixing or deeper incorporation of lime to accelerate the remediation of acidity (low pH) in subsurface soil.
The issue with soil acidity
Soil acidity has a significant impact on agricultural productivity due to its effect on plant root growth and nutrient-use efficiency.
It affects the availability of key nutrients in the topsoil (0-10 centimetres) and restricts crop root growth and access to moisture and nutrients in the subsurface layer (below 10cm).
To address this issue, agricultural lime is commonly used to increase soil pH and manage soil acidity, however the current lime usage in WA is only 60 per cent of what is estimated to be required annually to combat soil acidification.
Taking a trip down soil acidity lane
Between 2005 and 2012, DPIRD collaborated with Precision SoilTech and Wheatbelt NRM to collect and analyse a soil pHCa dataset for the WA grain growing region which offered insights into the state of soil acidity during that period.
That report found about 70 per cent of topsoils (0-10 cm) had a pH level (pHCa) below the recommended minimum target of 5.5, and about 50 per cent of subsoils (10-20cm and 20-30cm) had a pHCa below the recommended minimum target of 4.8, indicating higher acidity.
The 2013 report served as a benchmark for the recent work conducted on soil acidity.
Extensive sampling and positive improvements
Over the 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 soil sampling seasons, 182 farms were sampled, located from Dalwallinu in the north to Lake Grace in the south, and in total 40,470 soil samples were taken as part of the project from 13,359 individual sample sites.
The target pH for the topsoil (0-10cm) was above 5.5, with a critical pH above 5, while in the subsoil depths (10-50cm), the target pH was above 4.8, with a critical pH above 4.5.
Upon the completion of sampling, it was found that 44 per cent of topsoil samples were below the target pH level (pHCa), which represented an improvement compared to the 2005-2012 study where 70 per cent of topsoils were more acidic than the recommended pH level.
Similarly, there was improvement in subsoil pH levels, with 28 per cent of samples at 10-20cm and 22 per cent of samples at 20-30cm falling below the target pH level, compared to the previous study which found 50 per cent of subsoils did not meet the target pH of 4.8.
These results indicated the positive efforts made by growers in the Avon River Basin to address soil acidity.
Putting soil amelioration in the mix
While statistics of lime use in WA indicate growers have progressively adopted the application of lime to remediate the effects of soil acidification, until recently most of the lime has been applied to the soil surface and is below the level required to reach minimum targets for surface and subsurface soil pH.
Since the movement of lime from surface application is slow, researchers and growers have investigated mixing or deeper incorporation of lime to accelerate the remediation of acidification in subsurface soil.
This project worked collaboratively with four growers in the Avon River Basin to analyse their historic and future soil amelioration strategies using DPIRD’s iLime app.
Does it stack up economically?
Overall, surface soil pH improved when growers were applying lime, benefitting plant root growth, leading to improved access to water and nutrients and ultimately leading to increased returns for farmers. However, the subsurface soil pH increased at a much slower rate.
Incorporating lime into the subsurface soil via mechanical amelioration increased pH levels to the depth of incorporation and facilitated the movement of alkali deeper into the soil profile.
By modelling the soil pH change using the growers historical soil pH results and lime applications (date and amount applied) along with rotation, rainfall and yield within iLime, lime scenarios could be assessed economically.
All liming scenarios showed economic benefits compared to not liming.
When incorporation to 20cm was added into the analysis it did not provide additional economic gains over surface application, however it also did not show a reduction in cumulative net profit.
This indicated that the cost of incorporating lime to 20cm was no more expensive overall to the grower than surface spreading, but with more long-term benefits, especially within the subsoil.
In saying that, the study's comparisons were based on paddocks with previous lime applications and relatively higher subsurface pH levels.
Looking ahead, managing acidity will require a focus on higher lime application rates and strategic tillage in areas where it is economically feasible to effectively address subsurface acidity.
There are considerations to be made regarding the potential costs associated with recovering soil pH levels in more acidic subsurface soil in scenarios without or with only surface lime application.
Growers are encouraged to soil test to depth to ensure they understand soil acidity issues throughout the profile, allowing for the most economical method of management to be implemented.
Digging deep into the detail from 182 farms
In the topsoil, 56.5 per cent of samples were above the target pH, 26.9 per cent were between the target and critical pH, and 16.6 per cent were below the critical level.
For subsoil depths of 10-20cm, 72.2 per cent of samples were above target, 16.1 per cent were between target and critical, and 11.7 per cent were below critical.
In the 20-30cm samples, 77.9 per cent were above target, 11.2 per cent were between target and critical, and 10.9 per cent were below critical.
In the deeper subsoil depth of 30-40cm, 76 per cent of samples were above target, 6.7 per cent were between target and critical, and 17.2 per cent were below critical.
Lastly, for the 40-50 cm samples, 83.8 per cent were above target, 5.9 per cent were between target and critical, and 10.3 per cent were below critical.
Funding partners:
DPIRD and the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER).
More information:
- Grains Convo podcast: ‘How does liming change soil acidity over 20 years?’ on Apple Podcasts [2] and Spotify [3].
- Soil Acidity Report Card (2013) [4]
- iLime app [5]
Contact
Mission to identify an incognito weevil
[7]Project name and code
Furthering grower knowledge and understanding of the scientifically unidentified 'Dongara weevil'.
GRDC code: DAW2212-001RTX
Identifying the unknown
In a project that sounds like science fiction, researchers from the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD) are on a quest to identify the mysterious ‘Dongara weevil’.
Having initially been discovered in 2013 and despite having caused more than $100,000 in yield damage to a canola crop near Mingenew in 2021, the weevil has remained scientifically unidentified.
That is until now, with a team of researchers collaborating from DPIRD, Murdoch University and the Mingenew Irwin Group (MIG) to identify, describe or classify the critter by the end of the year.
How does identifying the species help growers
As well as identifying or describing the ‘Dongara weevil’, this project also aims to expand the understanding of the distribution of the weevil in WA and determine some of the factors influencing the incidence and severity of crop damage caused by this species.
Understanding the extent and distribution of the Dongara weevil aids in conserving Australia’s biosecurity and biodiversity status.
An understanding of the host and environmental preferences and the taxonomic classification of the pest is important for the development of tools and information to correctly identify the pest.
This information will be pivotal to assist with the development of effective management strategies for this unidentified crop pest.
Two years of extensive surveillance
Throughout the 2023 and 2024 seasons, surveillance will include a minimum of 20 paddocks sampled via pitfall traps within a 50-kilometre radius of known ‘Dongara weevil’ sites, four times during the season.
That surveillance should provide some preliminary observations on the soil type and crop hosts, crop/plant damage incidence and severity, and paddock histories.
The project is a collaborative effort, led by DPIRD research scientist Dustin Severtson and supported by MIG project officer Jacqui Meares and DPIRD staff who are doing the pitfall trapping.
It also involves taxonomic species description conducted by DPIRD entomologist Andras Szito and molecular analysis which is being overseen by Dr Wei Xu at Murdoch University.
By the end of this year, through the use of a combination of identification tools and technologies, the ‘Dongara weevil’ will be scientifically distinguished and described.
If the species is found to be new to science, the taxonomic description and associated findings will be published in an appropriate peer-reviewed scientific journal, whereas if it is determined to be exotic in origin, reporting will take place according to the appropriate biosecurity channels.
By the beginning of 2025, growers will have access to information on where the ‘Dongara weevil’ has been detected and caused damage to grain crops in the Wheatbelt.
A history dating back a decade
The weevil was first reported damaging a canola crop, which had been sowed to wheat the previous two seasons, at a property about 15 kilometres east of Dongara in 2013.
Shortly after, another report was received from a grower who had problems with weevils causing significant damage to a coriander crop, which had also followed a wheat crop, slightly west of the first sighting.
The damage was worse on heavier soils than sandy soils and about five hectares of the crop was lost to weevil damage.
In 2014, a local agronomist reported weevils had caused extensive damage to a canola seedling crop and a coriander crop on the same property, east of Dongara.
Two years later, another agronomist reported a weevil attacking a canola crop east of Dongara which appeared to be the same weevil that caused similar problems in 2013/14.
Flash forward to 2021 and photos were sent to DPIRD of two species of weevil which had caused widespread damage to a canola crop at a property north of Mingenew.
This was quickly followed up by further images from another consultant of similar weevils supposedly causing damage to a neighbouring property.
Last season, the original farmer from north Mingenew reported the same tiny black weevils were causing damage to his canola again.
Of particular concern was that growers were reporting the weevils were surviving commonly used rates of insecticides and resowing was required in some instances.
Follow-up by researchers was difficult in these cases as live weevils could not be collected following high rates of insecticides used to protect the seedling canola crops.
The few specimens that could be found have so far stumped national and international weevil taxonomists as to what it could be and whether it existed overseas as well.
It is hoped that enough live weevils can be trapped to be able to do some preliminary insecticide tolerance tests.
Funding partners
DPIRD and the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC).
Contact
Bang for your buck growing canola in the high rainfall zone
[10]Project name and code
Optimising high rainfall zone cropping for profit in the Western and Southern Regions
GRDC code: DAW1903-008RMX
Optimising nutrition for high rainfall zone canola
Applying 150 kilograms of nitrogen, 15kg of phosphorus and 30kg of sulfur per hectare is the basis for nutrition to maximise profitability in canola crops yielding more than three tonnes per hectare, according to recent research from the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD).
Along with leading the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) investment, which aims to reduce the gap between potential and realised yield in the high rainfall zone, DPIRD managed the Esperance port zone canola research, with a particular focus on the optimal nutritional strategies to increase yield and profitability.
Across four sites over three seasons, DPIRD found these reasonable, but not excessively high, rates of fertiliser appropriately balanced the nutritional requirements to alleviate deficiency at responsive sites without incurring excessive cost at non-responsive sites or under high fertiliser prices.
Three seasons of data
Four small plot field trials were established on the Esperance sandplain (at Gibson in 2020, 2021 and 2022, and at Condingup in 2022) to test the response of canola to high nitrogen (N) rates with and without phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and sulfur (S) applications.
All sites received above average rainfall, with 425 to 513 mm of growing season (April to October) rainfall and top yields of 3.5 to 4.3 t/ha across the sites.
Bite-sized findings
The project found that increasing nitrogen rates up to 150kg N/ha increased gross margins at all sites, with returns from higher applications being variable and profitability dependent on yield response, as well as fertiliser and grain prices.
Responses to phosphorus fertiliser were also variable but applying 15kg P/ha struck a balance in alleviating most of the deficiency at the responsive sites without excessive cost at the non-responsive sites.
Despite the Gibson 2021 site being the only site to show a yield response to sulfur, applications are still recommended due to the high risk of sulfur deficiency on sandy soils in the high rainfall zone.
Tissue tests showed muriate of potash applications increased plant potassium concentration, but no site showed a yield response to potassium given the adequate soil potassium levels, mostly above 45 mg/kg Colwell K throughout the topsoil.
Alternative nutrition strategies, including applications of manure or very high rates of synthetic fertiliser meted out over multiple post-emergent applications, increased grain yield to more than 4t/ha.
This indicated nutritional deficiencies were still limiting yield even with high rates of fertiliser applied.
Nitty gritty of nitrogen
Although all sites showed grain yield responses up to at least 200 kg N/ha, diminishing returns meant that these higher rates were not always profitable.
Gross margins were calculated based on standard and high fertiliser to grain prices.
The results showed that increasing the nitrogen rate from 100N to 150N always increased gross margin, regardless of the fertiliser pricing used.
Although increasing the nitrogen rate from 150N to 200N broke even or increased gross margin at all sites under standard fertiliser prices, this increase was only profitable at two sites under high fertiliser pricing.
Ultimately, these results indicated that applying 150 kg N/ha is suitable for the high rainfall zone, with applications above this generally justified where further significant yield responses are expected or under favourable grain and fertiliser prices.
These findings have important implications for farmers and consultants, as they provide guidance for optimal nitrogen fertiliser use that maximises profits and minimises environmental impact.
Solving sulfur deficiencies
All the sites had reasonably low soil sulfur levels, which could potentially lead to yield reductions if not addressed.
The 2021 Gibson site had the lowest soil sulfur levels (average of 5.3 milligrams per kg [KCl-40] through the top 30 centimetres soil) and was particularly high-risk for sulfur deficiency.
Waterlogged conditions during vegetative growth further exacerbated this risk and there was evident deficiency from the onset of flowering.
Overall, neglecting to apply top-dressed sulfur resulted in a yield penalty of 0.3t/ha at the 100N rate, which increased to more than 0.8t/ha at the 250N rate.
Despite relatively low soil sulfur levels at all sites, only one site showed a significant response to applied sulfur.
However, given the magnitude of this yield response (over 800 kg/ha), the relatively low cost of sulfur fertiliser, and the likelihood of responses to sulfur on sandy soils (especially in wet years), it is recommended that sulfur should be applied as part of high yielding canola nutrition packages.
Protecting phosphorus stores
Grain yield responses to phosphorus applications across the four sites varied from no response to over 1t/ha despite relatively similar soil Colwell P levels, especially at the Gibson sites.
Gibson 2022 showed the largest phosphorus response, at more than 1t/ha between treatments.
At the highest nitrogen rate (250N), most of the yield response (+672 kg/ha) came from the first 15P applied, with the next 16P increasing yield by 267kg/ha.
At the other sites, phosphorus responses were smaller or not significant.
The strategy of applying 15P at seeding alleviated major phosphorus deficiency at highly responsive sites (Gibson 2022) without unnecessarily increasing cost at the less responsive sites.
Overall, there was little evidence more than 15P was required to optimise canola profitability on the Esperance sandplain unless large responses to phosphorus are assured.
Although phosphorus is considered to be best applied banded at seeding, mono-ammonium phosphate (MAP) top-dressed in June (six-leaf stage) was able to completely alleviate phosphorus deficiency at both 2022 sites, yielding equivalently to the same rate applied banded at seeding.
Thinking outside the box
During the 2022 season, alternative methods of fertilisation were tested, including the incorporation of chicken manure and very high rates of synthetic fertilisers applied across multiple post-emergent applications.
The incorporation of chicken manure at seeding resulted in more vigorous growth during early development, which is expected to have been driven by phosphorus supply.
Compared to synthetic fertiliser alone (300N-31P-50K-30S), the addition of manure to this high rate of fertiliser increased yield by 207 kg/ha at Gibson and 304 kg/ha at Condingup.
To test whether this manure response could be replicated with synthetic fertiliser, the equivalent nutrition contained within the manure was applied in synthetic fertiliser applications from May to July.
This treatment produced equivalent yields to the high fertiliser plus chicken manure treatment at Gibson and increased yield by a further 360kg/ha at Condingup.
Alternative nutrition strategies, such as slow-release fertilisers, increasing frequency of post-emergent applications (including phosphorus), and the incorporation of organic forms of nutrition, are worthy of further research to determine whether they can be achieved in an economically feasible manner and provide means to improve nutrient uptake efficiency.
Funding partners
This project was a GRDC investment, led by DPIRD and conducted in partnership with CSIRO and FAR Australia.
More information:
- Grains Convo podcast: ‘Canola in the high rainfall zone and disease modelling tools’ on Apple Podcasts [11] and Spotify [12].
Contact
Discovering resistance to yellow spot
[15]Project name and code
Improved genetic solutions for management of yellow spot in wheat.
GRDC code: DAW00247
Testing levels of resistance
A team of Australian researchers have made a significant discovery regarding genetic resistance to yellow spot, also known as tan spot, which is a damaging foliar disease in wheat, having identified new sources of resistance to the disease.
The researchers, led by Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD) senior plant pathologist Dr Manisha Shankar, gathered a diverse group of wheat lines with different levels of resistance to yellow spot and studied the severity of the disease in these lines by analysing their genes and response to disease over two years and in multiple locations.
They found some lines showed fewer symptoms of yellow spot compared to other lines and although they didn't find major genes for resistance, they used a predictive model to identify several lines with broad genetic resistance to yellow spot in Australia.
These lines will be valuable for breeding new wheat varieties with improved resistance to yellow spot in the future.
The economic implication of yellow spot
Yellow spot is a disease, caused by a fungus called Pyrenophora tritici-repentis, which can lead to significant losses in wheat yield by reducing the weight of the kernels and the number of grains produced per head.
In Australia, it has been estimated that yellow spot can cause a reduction in wheat yield of up to three per cent and if there are significant rainfall events, the disease can spread rapidly, leading to yield losses of up to 50 per cent.
Factors within the local farming systems, such as stubble retention or minimum tillage, as well as cultivating wheat varieties susceptible to yellow spot, can also intensify the yield losses and when infected wheat residues are present in a newly sown field, young seedlings can be exposed to the disease early on.
These yield reductions result in billions of dollars in revenue losses globally.
To address these ongoing issues, developing and using wheat varieties that are resistant to yellow spot is a long-term solution.
Studying wheat lines from around the world
The researchers conducted a study using a diverse panel of 192 wheat lines from the Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), the International Centre for Agriculture in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) and Australian (AUS) wheat research programs.
They evaluated the lines over two years in multiple locations, assessing tan spot symptoms at different stages of plant development.
The analysis showed tan spot traits have a high heritability, with lines from ICARDA exhibiting the greatest resistance on average.
The researchers then performed a one-step whole-genome analysis, which identified many significant genetic markers associated with tan spot resistance, but with little repeatability across different traits.
To better understand the genetic resistance, they conducted a one-step genomic prediction combining the additive and non-additive genetic effects of the lines, revealing several lines from the CIMMYT with broad genetic resistance throughout different stages of plant development.
These findings provide valuable insights for Australian wheat breeding programs to enhance tan spot resistance in future varieties.
Funding partners and project collaborators
This was a national project with co-investment by the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) and led by DPIRD.
Other research partners included the University of Adelaide, Agriculture Victoria, University of Southern Queensland and Curtin University.
More information:
- Journal article: An international wheat diversity panel reveals novel sources of genetic resistance to tan spot in Australia [16].
Contact
Possible insecticide resistance to Desiantha weevil
[19]Project name
Investigating systems for control of Desiantha weevil in relation to resistance and biology in WA.
Developing management options
With reports of control failures on the rise across the Western Australian grain belt, a new study is aiming to determine if Desiantha weevil, a common pest of seedling canola, are becoming more tolerant to current insecticide applications.
Led by Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD) entomologist Svetlana Micic, the project will investigate if Desiantha populations across the Albany and Esperance port zones differ in susceptibility to insecticides to determine if insecticide resistance is the cause of spray failure.
In the second year of the project, the goal is to identify the crop host range for Desiantha weevil larvae to complete their life cycle and determine if Desiantha activity can be linked to environmental cues such as humidity, temperature, time of day/year to determine optimal spray windows.
This greater understanding of Desiantha weevil biology will lead to improved management options for WA growers, meaning control measures can be implemented early to prevent significant crop loss.
This is especially important as future climate projections in WA are for a shorter growing season, so there will not be a window for re-sowing crops, such as canola, if Desiantha weevil cause significant seedling loss.
The impact of Desiantha weevil
There are four main weevil pests of canola – vegetable weevil, Desiantha weevil, Fuller’s rose weevil and small lucerne weevil – which are estimated to cause WA canola growers $1.8 million loss in production annually.
Agronomists have reported Desiantha weevil as one of the most common weevil pests in canola crops, causing damage to canola crops from Geraldton to Esperance.
Between 2002-2004 only one report of Desiantha weevil causing damage to canola was received by the then Department of Agriculture’s PestFax Service.
However, twenty years later the number of reports received by the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD) PestFacts WA service of Desiantha weevil causing damage to canola increased 20-times.
Possible explanations for spray failure
While the problem of insects developing chemical resistance is not new, possible resistance in Desiantha weevil has never been investigated.
It is thought that spray failures for the control of Desiantha weevil could potentially be due to this pest developing resistance to synthetic pyrethroids insecticides, especially alpha-cypermethrin.
Or it could be due to spray applications not being applied when this pest is actively moving in paddocks, which means the pest is less likely to be exposed to the insecticide.
A better understanding of the tolerance of Desiantha weevil to insecticides and what time of day insecticides should be applied will lead to better management outcomes for Desiantha weevil.
Even so, more options, other than a chemical application, are needed for the management of this pest.
Funding partners
DPIRD and the Council of Grain Grower Organisations Limited (COGGO).
More information:
Contact
Breeding barley to withstand heat and frost
[23]The possible application of new and precise gene editing and RNA spraying technologies to counteract key abiotic stresses, such as drought, salinity and nutrient deficiency, has been highlighted by new research from the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD).
The research collated about 150 key genes associated with abiotic stress tolerance in barley and combined them into a single physical map for potential breeding practices.
Abiotic stresses in barley
A recent journal article, led by DPIRD research scientist Dr Yong Han, detailed the current challenges and opportunities for improving barley stress tolerance through gene editing, highlighting the stress-affected regions and corresponding economic losses.
Barley crops are a crucial crop in Western Australia, but they are severely impacted by abiotic stresses such as drought, heat, salinity, cold, and waterlogging.
These abiotic stresses limit barley production worldwide and prevent crops from achieving their full genetic potential while contributing to crop damage, lower yields, and high production costs.
“Traditional plant breeding techniques have been widely used to improve crop traits, and genetic modification (GM) has its own drawbacks due to safety and health perceptions,” Dr Han said.
“However, modern gene editing platforms such as CRISPR/Cas9 provide a robust and versatile tool for precise creation of mutations similar to those that might happen naturally in nature, hence providing an alternative pathway to achieve targeted trait improvement.”
The importance of barley crops
Dr Han said barley is one of the four major cereal crops produced worldwide and the demand for cereals is expected to increase by 35-56 per cent to feed a population of nearly ten billion by 2050.
Yet, abiotic stresses often prevent crops from achieving their full genetic potential.
Several barley genes have been exploited to address these different stress conditions, and elite stress-tolerant barley germplasms have also been identified through phenotype screening.
“However, these resources are scattered, and more research is required to introduce the tolerance to current commercial varieties with high yielding potential and grain quality,” Dr Han said.
Genetic resources for barley improvement
To mitigate the impact of abiotic stress on crop production, researchers have focused on identifying genes involved in stress defence, with the goal to understand how plants respond to stresses and to develop strategies for improving their resilience.
By conducting considerable studies and consolidating the results, researchers have identified a suite of genes that play a critical role in stress tolerance.
The gene list includes over 150 genes located across all seven barley chromosomes, with most of them induced by drought and salt stress.
The list also included genes involved in secondary traits that allow for stress escape, such as flowering time, and genes that help combat impaired growth due to abiotic stress.
By understanding the genetic mechanisms involved in plant abiotic stress protection, researchers hope to develop new techniques for fine-tuning plant genes and improving crop yields under stressful conditions.
These techniques could include gene editing, marker-assisted selection, and transient RNA spraying to enhance the resilience of crops to environmental stress.
The promise of gene editing
Gene editing refers to the precise modification of DNA sequences within a genome, intending to alter specific traits of an organism.
Gene editing tools like CRISPR/Cas9 have revolutionised the field of genetics, allowing scientists to make targeted changes to a genome with unprecedented accuracy and efficiency.
One of the main advantages of gene editing over traditional breeding methods is that it allows for the precise modification of specific genes, meaning scientists can target genes known to play a key role in stress tolerance or other desirable traits and make changes to those genes only without disturbing other agronomic characters.
“This precision enables faster and more efficient breeding, as it allows researchers to bypass the lengthy and unpredictable process of traditional breeding, which often involves crossing and selecting traits over multiple generations,” Dr Han said.
Another advantage of gene editing is that it can be used to create novel genetic variants that may not exist naturally in a particular crop.
For example, scientists could use gene editing to create a series of mutations that could control gene expression, therefore enhancing crop adaptation to extreme weather conditions and other environmental stressors.
Opportunities using the CRISPR/Cas9 system
Gene editing (SDN-1 type) is deregulated in countries including the USA, Canada, UK, Japan, India, Philippines, Argentina, Australia and many others.
The technology can be used to develop new barley lines with tolerance to multiple stress conditions by targeting multiple genes simultaneously, to pyramid elite traits in a single variety.
Combining gene editing with speed breeding techniques can further accelerate crop breeding and develop new cultivars with desirable traits.
However, more insight and development of the CRISPR/Cas9 toolkit is necessary for certain crops.
Article collaborators and co-authors
The journal article was written by DPIRD research scientists Yong Han, Darshan Sharma and Esther Walker, alongside Western Crop Genetics Alliance (WCGA) researchers Chengdao Li and Sakura Karunarathne.
More information:
- Journal article: Genetic resources and precise gene editing for targeted improvement of barley abiotic stress tolerance [24].
Contact
Meet the team solving sodic soil issues
[27]Managing soils with sodicity in the Wheatbelt is a challenging task, but a team of researchers from the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD) are working to find novel systems to improve yields on these hard to handle soils.
Spread from Geraldton to Merredin and through to Esperance, the team of eight research scientists are leading the charge on sodic soils by looking at the basic principles of soil science and targeting key constraints limiting crop growth.
Led by project manager David Hall, the sodic soils team has four key areas of research that include reducing dispersion, harvesting more water, decreasing soil evaporation and improving root growth.
“More than 60 per cent of the soils in the WA wheatbelt have a sodic clay layer within the root zone and sodic clays tend to be unstable when wet leading to fine particles clogging the soil’s pore system and result in reduced water entry, storage and drainage,” Mr Hall said.
“In low rainfall environments, such as the eastern Wheatbelt, the effects of sodicity are amplified as both soil evaporation and transient salinity reduce the amount of water available to crops.
“We suspect that sodicity and transient salinity reduce cereal yields by more than one tonne per hectare in the eastern Wheatbelt.”
The tasks undertaken by the sodic soils team are often dictated by the time of the year and include reporting on the previous year’s work (January – April), experimental design, establishment and measurement (March to October), working on publications (July – August), field days (September – October) and harvest measurements (October to December).
On a day-to-day basis, tasks include travel to field sites, data analysis and reporting, organising staff and equipment, DPIRD compliance requirements, as well as meeting collaborating investor, manager, farmer and consultant requests.
Currently, the entire team is working on a Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) project – increasing grower profitability on soils with sodicity and transient salinity in the eastern grain belt of the Western region.
Mr Hall said so far, the project has had four key breakthroughs.
“Three of our researchers - Dr Ed Barrett-Lennard, Dr Rushna Munir and Glen Riethmuller – found water harvesting technology can increase grain yields by 35 per cent on average and low rates of gypsum in furrow (50 – 100kg/ha) can further increase yields by six per cent,” he said.
“The next step in this research is improving water harvesting through biodegradable mulches or alternative chemistry that induces water runoff.”
“We’ve also found that mineral mulches can increase grain yield by 37 per cent, according to 18 trial years of data, and the economics and longevity of these treatments are still being assessed.”
Other discoveries include gypsum ultimately reducing sodicity, transient salinity and boron toxicity, while Wayne Parker found deep tillage in sodic clay soils in the eastern Wheatbelt has not led to yield improvements.
With the team spread throughout a vast proportion of the key areas that have these soil management issues, logistically there are challenges and it is the project leader’s job is to give progress updates to DPIRD and GRDC while also identifying opportunities to extend the information to clients.
“Ultimately the project relies on good communication between staff, growers and co-investors, good evidence-based science and project staff taking responsibility to deliver towards contracted milestones and outputs,” Mr Hall said.
“As scientists our ultimate aim is to communicate to our clients and peers that the practice changes we are researching/recommending are robust scientifically and economically, and we do this through grower meetings, conferences and publications.”
Members of the sodic soil team include David Hall (Esperance), Dr Ed Barrett-Lennard (Perth), Dr Rushna Munir and Glen Riethmuller (Merredin), Wayne Parker, Chad Reynolds and Jo Walker (Geraldton) and Dr Geoff Anderson (Northam).