Andrew Fletcher
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Andrew Fletcher.
Crop & Pasture Science | 2016
Andrew Fletcher; Roger Lawes; Cameron Weeks
Abstract. n Technologies such as minimum tillage and new herbicides have enabled the use of early and dry sowing in Western Australia (WA). Although there is a sowing date that maximises yield of individual fields, on-farm sowing dates are constrained by the availability of machinery and labour. It was hypothesised that farms with a larger crop area would begin sowing earlier and be more likely to dry sow than smaller farms because they would take longer to sow. Current sowing dates and the extent of dry sowing in WA were explored using multiple analytical approaches, such as analysis of farm records, survey data and historical weather records, and simulation modelling. Field records from seven farms showed that sowing date of the first cereal crop on-farm had advanced markedly in recent years. The timeline of this advanced cereal sowing date differed across sites but was prominent from 2010 for most sites. In a larger survey, conducted between 2011 and 2014, of 805 grain farms across all rainfall zones in the WA grain belt, the mean first crop sowing date was 29 April and half the farms used dry sowing. Farms with larger cropped areas tended to begin sowing crops earlier and were more likely to dry sow. Only 26% of small farms (<1000u2009ha crop) used dry sowing compared with 71% of large farms (>5000u2009ha crop). A larger proportion of lupin (34%) and canola (43%) was sown dry than wheat (16%) or barley (10%; Pu2009<u20090.001). Simulation modelling demonstrated that the optimum time to begin sowing at the farm level was often well before the break of season (the first autumn rainfall of sufficient volume to ensure subsequent successful crop germination and establishment), but this was dependant on the size of the cropping program. Early and dry sowing will continue to expand, and research to understand how other agronomic management interacts with this change should be a priority. This may include cultivars with appropriate traits, such as longer duration to flowering, changes in weed management practices, management practices that accumulate soil moisture at sowing, interactions with water repellent soil and the interaction with dual purpose cropping.
Crop & Pasture Science | 2016
Andrew Fletcher; John A. Kirkegaard; Mark B. Peoples; Michael Robertson; Jeremy Whish; A. D. Swan
Abstract. Despite the potential productivity benefits, intercrops are not widely used in modern, mechanised grain cropping systems such as those practised in Australia, due to the additional labour required and the added complexity of management (e.g. harvesting and handling of mixed grain). In this review we investigate this dilemma using a two-dimensional matrix to categorise and evaluate intercropping systems. The first dimension describes the acquisition and use of resources in complementary or facilitative interactions that can improve resource use efficiency. The outcome of this resource use is often quantified using the land equivalent ratio (LER). This is a measure of the relative land area required as monocultures to produce the same yields as achieved by an intercrop. Thus, an LER greater than 1 indicates a benefit of the intercrop mixture. The second dimension describes the benefits to a farming system arising not only from the productivity benefits relating to increased LER, but from other often unaccounted benefits related to improved product quality, rotational benefits within the cropping system, or to reduced business risks. We contend that a successful intercrop must have elements in both dimensions. To date most intercropping research has considered only one of these two possible dimensions. Intercrops in large, mechanised, rain-fed farming systems can comprise those of annual legumes with non-legume crops to improve N nutrition, or other species combinations that improve water use through hydraulic redistribution (the process whereby a deep-rooted plant extracts water from deep in the soil profile and releases a small proportion of this into the upper layers of the soil at night), or alter disease, pest or weed interactions. Combinations of varieties within cereal varieties were also considered. For our focus region in the southern Australian wheatbelt, we found few investigations that adequately dealt with the systems implications of intercrops on weeds, diseases and risk mitigation. The three main intercrop groups to date were (1) ‘peaola’ (canola-field pea intercrops) where 70% of intercrops (nu2009=u200934) had a 50% productivity increase over the monocultures, (2) cereal-grain legume intercrops (nu2009=u200922) where 64% showed increases in crop productivity compared with monocultures and (3) mixtures of cereal varieties (nu2009=u2009113) where there was no evidence of a productivity increase compared with the single varieties. Our review suggests that intercropping may have a role in large rain-fed grain cropping systems, based on the biophysical benefits revealed in the studies to date. However, future research to develop viable intercrop options should identify and quantify the genotypic differences within crop species for adaptation to intercropping, the long-term rotational benefits associated with intercrops, and the yield variability and complexity-productivity trade-offs in order to provide more confidence for grower adoption. Farming systems models will be central to many of these investigations but are likely to require significant improvement to capture important processes in intercrops (e.g. competition for water, nutrients and light).
Physiologia Plantarum | 2018
Alireza Houshmandfar; Glenn J. Fitzgerald; Garry O'Leary; Sabine Tausz-Posch; Andrew Fletcher; Michael Tausz
The impact of elevated [CO2 ] (e[CO2 ]) on crops often includes a decrease in their nutrient concentrations where reduced transpiration-driven mass flow of nutrients has been suggested to play a role. We used two independent approaches, a free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiment in the South Eastern wheat belt of Australia and a simulation study employing the agricultural production systems simulator (APSIM), to show that transpiration (mm) and nutrient uptake (gu2009m-2 ) of nitrogen (N), potassium (K), sulfur (S), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) and manganese (Mn) in wheat are correlated under e[CO2 ], but that nutrient uptake per unit water transpired is higher under e[CO2 ] than under ambient [CO2 ] (a[CO2 ]). This result suggests that transpiration-driven mass flow of nutrients contributes to decreases in nutrient concentrations under e[CO2 ], but cannot solely explain the overall decline.
Crop & Pasture Science | 2017
Chao Chen; Andrew Smith; Phil Ward; Andrew Fletcher; Roger Lawes; Hayley C. Norman
Abstract. Tedera (Bituminaria bituminosa var. albomarginata) has been proposed as an alternative perennial forage legume to lucerne in the mixed farming zone of Australia. Simulation of growth and production of tedera would be a useful tool for assessing its integration into Australian farming systems and agronomic and management options. This paper describes the development and testing of a model of the growth and development of tedera in Agricultural Production Systems Simulator (APSIM). The existing APSIM-Lucerne was modified to develop APSIM-Tedera. The key physiological parameters for tedera were obtained from the literature or by measuring and comparing the phenology and growth characteristics of tedera and lucerne in glasshouse experiments and partially from field experiments. The model was tested using data from a diverse range of soil and climatic conditions. Using the modelling approach, the production of tedera and lucerne was also assessed with long-term (1951–2015) weather data at Arthur River, Western Australia. Biomass simulations of tedera (nu2009=u200926, observed meanu2009=u2009510u2009kg dry mass ha–1) explained 66% of the observed variation in field experiments (root mean square deviationu2009=u2009212u2009kg dry mass ha–1). Long-term simulations of a 4-year pasture phase showed that more total annual biomass (5600u2009kgu2009ha–1) would be obtained from lucerne than tedera if the pasture forage was harvested four times a year. Less biomass (400u2009kgu2009ha–1) was also simulated for tedera in summer under this management. When the pasture forage was harvested when biomass was more than 2000u2009kgu2009ha–1, tedera and lucerne produced similar accumulated biomass in the second (8000u2009kgu2009ha–1), third (12u2009000u2009kgu2009ha–1) and fourth (15u2009000u2009kgu2009ha–1) years, but much less in the first 2 years for tedera. The model can be used for assessing tedera production, agronomic and management options in the Mediterranean climate of Australia. The present preliminary study indicates that tedera is not as effective as lucerne for total biomass production, but it may provide useful feed in situations where the summer-autumn feed gap is a major constraint to production. Further research is also necessary to determine the potential role of tedera in areas where lucerne is not well adapted.
Field Crops Research | 2014
Edmar Teixeira; Michael George; Thibault Herreman; Hamish E. Brown; Andrew Fletcher; E. Chakwizira; John de Ruiter; S. Maley; Alasdair Noble
Agricultural Systems | 2015
Andrew Fletcher; Michael Robertson; Doug G. Abrecht; D.L. Sharma; Dean P. Holzworth
Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association | 2009
J.M. de Ruiter; Andrew Fletcher; S. Maley; R. Sim; M. George
Agronomy New Zealand | 2009
E. Chakwizira; Andrew Fletcher; J. M. de Ruiter; Esther D. Meenken; S. Maley; D. R. Wilson
Field Crops Research | 2016
Chao Chen; Roger Lawes; Andrew Fletcher; Y.M. Oliver; Michael Robertson; Mike Bell; Enli Wang
Field Crops Research | 2018
B.M. Flohr; James R. Hunt; John A. Kirkegaard; John R. Evans; Ben Trevaskis; A. Zwart; A. D. Swan; Andrew Fletcher; B. Rheinheimer
Collaboration
Dive into the Andrew Fletcher's collaboration.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
View shared research outputsCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
View shared research outputsCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
View shared research outputsCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
View shared research outputsCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
View shared research outputsCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
View shared research outputsCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
View shared research outputsCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
View shared research outputs