Cultivation of Native Food Plants in Southeastern Australia
A report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
by Maarten Ryder and Yvonne Latham
January 2005
RIRDC Publication No 04/178
RIRDC Project No CSL-11A
© 2005 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.
All rights reserved.
ISBN 1 74151 087 2
ISSN 1440-6845
Cultivation of Native Food Plants in South-eastern Australia
Publication No. 04/178
Project No. CSL-11A
The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and
discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable industries. The information should not be relied upon
for the purpose of a particular matter. Specialist and/or appropriate legal advice should be obtained before any
action or
decision is taken o the basis of any material in this document. The Commonwealth of Australia, Rural
Industries
Research and Development Corporation, the authors or contributors do not assume liability of any kind
whatsoever resulting from any person's use or reliance upon the content of this document.
This publication is copyright. However, RIRDC encourages wide dissemination of its research, providing the
Corporation is clearly acknowledged. For any other enquiries concerning reproduction, contact the
Publications
Manager on phone 02 6272 3186.
Researcher Contact Details
Dr Maarten Ryder
CSIRO Land and Water
PMB 2 Glen Osmond
SA 5064
Phone: (08) 8303 8534
Fax: (08) 8303 8684
Email:Maarten.Ryder@csiro.au
In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to RIRDC publishing this material in its edited form.
RIRDC Contact Details
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
Level 1, AMA House
42 Macquarie Street
BARTON ACT 2600
PO Box 4776
KINGSTON ACT 2604
Phone: 02 6272 4819
Fax: 02 6272 5877
Email: rirdc@rirdc.gov.au.
Website: http://www.rirdc.gov.au
Published in January 2005
Printed on environmentally friendly paper by Canprint
Foreword
The Australian native food industry is an emerging industry, which aims to utilise our
country’s natural assets to develop new sources of income, both domestically and via export.
To date, the industry has largely been based on the wild harvest of produce, however this
cannot continue indefinitely. A shift towards cultivation is encouraged, for the sustainability
of the industry and for the preservation of native genetic resources for the future.
Some of the native species are being improved through selection and breeding, and some of
these projects have been supported by RIRDC. The improved plant material must be
produced under cultivation from nursery-propagated plants. The industry needs further
improved plant material, as well as knowledge of best production methods and markets for
the produce.
The aim of this project was to evaluate the performance in cultivation of key native food
species across a range of climates and soil types in South-eastern Australia. A series of field
trials has been established in 2001-2003 and this report presents the results of the plant
establishment phase since planting.
This project was partially funded from RIRDC Core Funds, which are provided by the
Australian Government.
This report, an addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 1,200 research publications, forms
part of our New Plant Products R&D program (Native foods section). This program aims to
sponsor research towards the development a profitable, agriculturally and environmentally
sustainable plant-based Australian native food industry that is founded on an international
reputation for the reliable supply of consistently safe and high quality food, and that
recognises Aboriginal culture, food practices and involvement.
Most of our publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through
our website:
• downloads at www.rirdc.gov.au/fullreports/index.html
• purchases at www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop
Tony Byrne
Acting Managing Director
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
Acknowledgments
The native foods industry is based upon traditional Aboriginal knowledge and skills in the
selection and use of Australian native food plants
Funding: Aboriginal Employment Program, (Department of Further Education, Employment,
Science and Technology SA Government; with special acknowledgement of the support and
encouragement we received from Rob Lucas); Food South Australia and PIRSA (Kangaroo
Is site); Junee Correctional Centre (Junee site); Coles Indigenous Food Fund and especially
Chris Mara of Coles; Aboriginal Land Care, Eyre Peninsula SA (via John Hammat, Ceduna
site).
Steering Committee: Barry Philp, PIRSA; Andrew Beal, Australian Native Produce
Industries; Rosemary Warren, CSIRO Land and Water; Anthony Hele, who also generously
gave advice on various aspects of crop maintenance.
Plants: Australian Native Produce Industries, Paringa SA, donated much of the planting
material for this project (thanks to Andrew Beal and Graham MacNaughton). Brian King, Kee
Technologies Adelaide donated munthari plants.
Trial site owners / operators: a great deal of the work reported here was carried out by our
group of field site co-operators, who are thanked sincerely for all their efforts and support of
the research.
• Jamestown Community School (Kath and Darren Liddle, Kay Jaeschke, Don Mudge,
Jenni Harvie and students);
• Narungga Aboriginal Progress Association, Moonta SA (Lesley and Michael Wanganeen,
Ian Dorrell, Keith Hoppo and Kevin Dyson and the team);
• Andermel Pty Ltd, Parndana, Kangaroo Island (John Melbourne and Bernie Putney);
• Simarloo Australia Pty Ltd (Noel and Leroy Sims, Craig Trezise and their team);
• Ken Jones, Lyn Jones, Nancy van Zelst and Greg Philcox;
• John Ruiter and Lies Ruiter;
• Barry Clugston and Dorothy Henty;
• Junee Correctional Centre (Phil Goodman, John I’lijevic, Mark Turner, Geoff Cooke and
their team), Latarnie McDonald NSW Agriculture, Wagga Wagga;
• TWT Ceduna (Robyn Schmiechen, Sue Smith, Paula Peel, Ivan Phillips; Bushy and the
rest of the team).
Valuable assistance: Rosemary Warren (CSIRO, trial establishment, statistical analysis),
Ben Cavuoto (CSIRO, irrigation installation), Marie O’Hanlon (CSIRO, data checking and
processing), Richard Merry (CSIRO, soil descriptions), Communications group at CSIRO
Land and Water (Lynne Griffiths, Claire Peddie, Greg Rinder and Bob Schuster (graphics
and media matters), Adrian Beech and staff (chemical analysis). CSIRO Forestry Mount
Gambier for hosting Yvonne Latham.
Irrigation design: Shane Larkin and Don Cameron of Netafim Australia are thanked for their
work on irrigation system design.
Field trial design: Dr Emlyn Williams, CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products.
Neville Bonney is thanked for his encouragement, enthusiasm and practical assistance in the
early phase of the trial planting.
Other suppliers of planting material: Rhys Freeman and Peter Olarenshaw (mountain
pepper), Mike and Gayle Quarmby, Peter Smith, Rick Jacobs and Wildstuf Nursery
(quandong), Tim Vercoe (Acacia seed), Russell and Sharon Costin (riberry), George
Woodifield (sandalwood).
Mulch and compost: van Schaik’s BioGro, Mt Gambier SA.
Photo credits: Figures except Figure 4, CSIRO. Figure 4 Fiona Ryan
Abbreviations
ANPI Australian Native Produce Industries
CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
LSD Least Significant Difference
PBR Plant Breeders’ Rights
PIRSA Primary Industries and Resources South Australia
Contents
FOREWORD ............................................................................................................................ III
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................... IV
ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................................... V
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................... VII
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1CULTIVATION OF NATIVE FOOD PLANTS ................................................................................ 1
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................ 2
2. TRIAL SITES AND PLANTING MATERIAL......................................................................... 4
2.1 SITES...............................................................................................................................4
2.2 SOIL TYPE AND ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 4
2.3 PLANTING MATERIAL .......................................................................................................... 4
3. FIELD TRIAL DESIGN, ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE .................................. 10
3.1 FIELD TRIAL LAYOUT AND DESIGN...................................................................................... 10
3.2 FIELD TRIAL LAYOUT AND DESIGN AT CEDUNA.................................................................... 12
3.3 FIELD TRIAL DESIGNS ....................................................................................................... 12
3.4 FIELD TRIAL ESTABLISHMENT ............................................................................................ 12
3.5 IRRIGATION..................................................................................................................... 14
3.6 TRIAL MAINTENANCE AND CALENDAR OF EVENTS ............................................................... 15
3.7 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 16
4. PLANT SURVIVAL, GROWTH AND VIGOUR................................................................... 17
4.1 PLANT PERFORMANCE ACROSS TRIAL SITES ...................................................................... 17
4.2 PLANT PERFORMANCE AT EACH TRIAL SITE........................................................................ 48
5. DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS......................................................................... 67
5.1 QUANDONG ..................................................................................................................... 67
5.2 ACACIA VICTORIAE........................................................................................................... 67
5.3 CITRUS ........................................................................................................................... 68
5.4 MOUNTAIN PEPPER .......................................................................................................... 68
5.5 LEMON MYRTLE............................................................................................................... 69
5.6 LEMON ASPEN................................................................................................................. 69
5.7 RIBERRY ......................................................................................................................... 69
5.8 MUNTHARI / MUNTRIES ..................................................................................................... 70
5.9 BUSH TOMATO ................................................................................................................. 70
6. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... 72
7. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................... 76
Executive Summary
The emerging native foods industry is beginning to rely more on cultivated produce. Wild
harvest of produce still forms an important component of the supply chain, but the cultivation
of the native food plants will be necessary for a sustainable industry in the future. The
process of plant improvement has begun with some native food species and these improved
selections, hybrids and provenances must be grown from nursery-propagated plants.
This project on the cultivation of native foods was undertaken for several major underlying
reasons.
1. Encourage a shift from wild harvest to cultivation to:
- improve sustainability of the native food industry,
- improve production: quantity, quality and timing (eg from improved planting material)
- maintain wild genetic diversity as a resource for future industry development
2. Help Australia to maintain its international competitiveness
3. Assist Aboriginal communities to develop greater economic independence, by using
native foods, which are a part of Aboriginal culture.
4. Promote diversification of farm and horticultural enterprises in general
Australia now has a mature horticultural industry based on the cultivated production of the
native Macadamia. However this was not always the case, and Australia has only recently
become the world’s No. 1 producer of this nut crop. Many cultivars were developed in the
USA. We are now at the very early stages of developing more industries based on native
food species. If there is a concerted effort across a range of activities (cultivation, plant
improvement, product and market development), we may well be able to repeat the success
of Macadamia with other species.
There has been little information available to growers of native food plants on how best to
grow these plants or even where they can be expected to grow and yield well. There has
been little attempt to systematically test the performance of native food plants in a range of
environments.
The aims of this project were to establish a series of field trials in a range of conditions in
south-eastern Australia, to test the survival, growth and yield of key native food species. The
species tested were: quandong, Acacia victoriae, Citrus (selection and hybrids), mountain
pepper, lemon myrtle, lemon aspen, riberry, bush tomato and munthari (muntries).
Trials were established in spring 2001 at Jamestown (SA), Moonta (SA), Kangaroo Island
(SA), Lyrup (SA Riverland), Pt MacDonnell (SA), Stawell (Vic) and Junee (NSW) as well as a
small site at Mt Gambier (SA). An additional site was planted at Ceduna (SA) in spring 2002.
The area of the large trials is approximately 2/3 ha with 288 trees and 128 shrubs planted at
each site. The trees and shrubs are arranged in separate blocks, each designed for
statistical analysis of the data within and across sites. All of the large trials are drip-irrigated.
Compost and mulch were applied to all surviving plants in the spring of 2003 in an effort to
assist weed control, conserve water and add nutrient to the soil.
Plant survival, and the growth and vigour of surviving plants were recorded between planting
and 2 years after planting. The results show that the species tested can be divided into three
broad categories. Those that are able to survive and grow well in a range of environments
are Acacia victoriae, Citrus and lemon aspen. Plants with an intermediate range are lemon
myrtle, riberry, munthari and quandong as well as bush tomato if grown as an annual crop.
Munthari and quandong could be grown successfully in a wide range of environments if
seedling establishment problems (cause by soilborne disease?) can be solved and special
seedling protection (quandong) is used. Plants with a restricted range are mountain pepper (which requires
moist soil conditions) and bush tomato if grown as a perennial (requiring
warmer, well-drained soil conditions).
In addition to these broad categories, suggestions are made for the specific early
management of the different species to improve establishment and growth.
Some plant species have begun to flower and set fruit, but most are yet to come into
production. Bush tomato and munthari have yielded the greatest amounts of fruit in the first
two years. Acacia, Citrus and lemon aspen have produced fruit sporadically and in very
small amounts, at some of the trial sites.
Although many of the species have survived and grown well at a variety of sites, it remains to
be seen whether they can produce good yields of reasonable quality. It is hoped that future
reports will present yield data and also information about quality of produce.
1. Introduction
1.1 Cultivation of native food plants
There has been increasing interest in the cultivation of Australian native food species in
recent years. It should be noted at the outset that the native foods industry (excluding
Macadamia) is at a very early stage of development, and therefore has the problems of any
emerging industry (such as matching production to markets and increasing markets, the
need for education etc). Nevertheless, there is a range of people that includes
horticulturalists and Aboriginal communities who are interested in the possibility of growing
native food plants. There are markets for native food ingredients, and various segments of
the market place are keen to use the unique flavours and textures offered by some of the
native produce. For best chances of success, both production and markets must be
developed in tandem.
There are currently hundreds of growers of native foods in Australia, but few of these are
producing substantial amounts of product. There is also a generally agreed “list” of species
whose produce is in demand (eg Graham and Hart, 1997; Ahmed and Johnson, 2000).
However, there is a dearth of basic knowledge about the cultivation of most of the species
that are currently considered as high priority for commercial development. Most growers
have had to discover for themselves, or with a minimum of authoritative advice, how best to
grow these novel crops.
This project on the cultivation of native foods was undertaken for several major reasons.
1. Encourage a shift from wild harvest to cultivation to:
-improve sustainability of the native food industry,
-improve production: quantity, quality and timing (eg from improved planting material)
-maintain wild genetic diversity as a resource for future industry development
2. Help Australia to maintain its international competitiveness
3. Assist Aboriginal communities to develop greater economic independence, by using
native foods, which are a part of Aboriginal culture.
4. Promote diversification of farm and horticultural enterprises in general
The Macadamia industry, which barely existed in Australia 50 years ago is now a mature
horticultural industry worth A$85 million p.a. at the farm gate and $120 million p.a. value–
added. Australia has in recent years become the number one producer of Macadamia in the
world, but only after adopting the cultivation of this Australian native plant from the USA. We
have before us an opportunity to develop similar industries based on other native Australian
plants while maintaining our competitive position internationally.
Excluding Macadamia, the native food industry in Australia is in transition between relying on
wild-harvested produce to the cultivation of native produce. In order to build industry
capacity, and to allow increases in the size of the harvest and the quality of produce, it is
essential to cultivate the native food species. There are also several other important reasons
why cultivation is critical to industry development.
A key to industry success is the development of improved planting material. For several of
the native food species, cultivars, hybrids and provenances have been selected for their
desirable characteristics (e.g. fruit size, taste, agronomic traits such as erect habit, and
produce acceptability traits such as colour and seedlessness). Examples are Mountain
Pepper, Riberry, Citrus, Munthari, Quandong, Bush Tomato. This improved planting material
must of necessity be grown in cultivation from nursery-propagated stock.
Cultivation of native food plants should result in the harvest of produce being more reliable in
its timing, amount and quality. Variation in growing conditions from season to season means
that wild harvested produce will vary considerably from year to year in availability and quality,
which will cause problems in continuity of supply unless adequate storage methods can be
developed.
For a number of native food species there is reasonable capacity for wild harvest to continue
to expand at the moment. However, wild harvest does threaten the survival of some of the
species which have a limited distribution and for which there is difficulty in propagation, and
therefore cultivation. For other species, wild harvest could begin to threaten survival if the
demand continues to grow. The retention of native wild genetic resources is of prime
importance to the development of new industries based around native foods.
Aboriginal communities, farmers and horticulturalists are three groups who have been
looking at native food production as a new way to diversify their activities. In the case of
Indigenous communities, who are looking for ways to develop new businesses, and family
and community incomes, the intimate connection between native foods and culture is an
obvious driver of their interest and desire to be a part of the industry.
From the environmental perspective, there is a need for change in Australia’s agricultural
systems, to reduce the impact caused by some of the more detrimental farming practices. In
the longer term, the successful cultivation of native food plants may be part of this change,
as long as efficient production systems (and markets) can be developed for crops that can
use less water and/or can be farmed on a broader scale. This must remain a long term goal
because neither the production systems nor the markets have yet been developed, but can
be considered as a serious ambition.
Information about the suitability of native food species for cultivation in different regions has
been lacking. In this project, CSIRO has established a series of 9 native foods field trials in
southeastern Australia, working closely with a range of industry and grower partners. The
plant list chosen was: quandong, Acacia victoriae, native and hybrid Citrus, mountain
pepper, lemon myrtle, lemon aspen, riberry, bush tomato and munthari (muntries). Different
selections, provenances, varieties and hybrids (some of which are protected by PBR) were
included wherever these were available. Information on the establishment and early growth
of the plants has been collected and analysed since planting in 2001, and is presented in this
report.
The collection of yield data has only just begun, and for only one of the species. For the tree
species it may take up to 5-7 years for plants to come into reasonable production. This
report focuses on the establishment and early growth of the native food species chosen for
these trials.
1.2 Objectives of the study
• To establish 6 field trials across south-eastern Australia, in a range of climates and
soil types, to evaluate the performance (establishment, growth, vigour, yield) of 6
native food species.
• Communication of findings for informed decision-making on the choice of native food
species or cultivars for climatic and soil type zones.
• To provide scientific training of an Aboriginal / Torres Strait Islander.
Figure 1. Meeting of research and field site teams, Adelaide, April 2004
2. Trial sites and planting material
2.1 Sites
Sites were chosen to represent a variety of soil and climatic conditions in south-eastern
Australia (Figure 2). Site locations and characteristics are listed in Table 1.
2.2 Soil type and analysis
Soil types were assigned by Richard Merry, CSIRO Land and Water, using the Australian soil
classification system of Isbell (1996) and are presented in Tables 1 and 2A. Soil chemical
characteristics (top 10 cm, air-dried) were analysed by the by the Analytical Chemistry
Services of CSIRO Land and Water Adelaide, and are listed in Table 2A and 2B.
2.3 Planting material
The planting material was sourced from a variety of suppliers as shown in Table 3. All trials
were planted from the same batches of plant material obtained from the suppliers listed. All
Citrus were grafted on to Troyer citrange. Quandongs were either grown from seed or
grafted onto seedling rootstocks (Frahn’s Paringa Gem and CSIRO selections). The
following were produced clonally from cuttings: all mountain pepper provenances, riberry
selections and hybrid, lemon aspen, lemon myrtle and munthari selections. Acacia and
Solanum were grown from seed by ANPI nursery, Paringa SA. Desert lime is a selection.
Sunrise Lime is a trigeneric finger lime hybrid Microcitrus x Calamondin (Calamondin is also
a hybrid of Fortunella x Citrus) (Sykes, 2002); Blood Lime is a finger lime hybrid of
Microcitrus x exotic Citrus (Sykes, 2002).
Figure 2. Location of trial sites
Natural geographic ranges
Quandong: Santalum acuminatum (R.Br.) A.DC. (Santalaceae):
semi-arid & arid SA, WA, NT, Qld, western NSW, NW Vic
Elegant wattle Acacia victoriae Benth. (Mimosaceae):
wide distribution, semi-arid to arid SA, NT, Qld, WA, NSW, NW Vic.
Desert lime Citrus glauca (Lindl.) Swingle (Rutaceae):
arid zone SA, NSW, Qld
Finger lime Citrus australasica F.Muell. (Rutaceae):
east coast NSW, Qld
Mountain pepper Tasmannia lanceolata (Poir.) A.C.Sm. (Winteraceae):
cool temperate rainforest understorey ACT, NSW, Vic, Tas.
Lemon myrtle Backhousia citriodora F.Muell. (Myrtaceae):
east coast Qld
Lemon aspen Acronychia oblongifolia (Hook.) Heynh. (Rutaceae):
east coast Qld, NSW, Vic.
Riberry Syzygium luehmannii (F.Muell.) L.A.S.Johnson (Myrtaceae):
east coast NSW, Qld.
Bush tomato Solanum centrale J.M.Black (Solanaceae):
arid zone NT, SA, WA
Munthari, muntries: Kunzea pomifera F.Muell. (Myrtaceae):
coastal and inland southern SA, Vic
Table 1 Location of field trial sites, soil and climate data
Site Latitude Longitude Elevation
(m) Soil type Average annual rainfall (mm)* Site owner / operator
Jamestown SA 33°12´S 138°36´E 458 Hypocalcic
Calcarosol 556 (Bundaleer Forest Reserve) Jamestown Community
School
Moonta SA 34°04´S 137°35´E 44
Lithocalcic
Calcarosol 390 (Kadina) Narungga Aboriginal
Progress Association
Parndana SA 35°47´S 137°15´E 155 BrownChromosol 629 (Parndana East Res. Stn) Andermel Pty Ltd
Lyrup SA 34°15´S 140°39´E 66
HypercalcicCalcarosol 262 (Berri) Simarloo Australia Pty Ltd
Port MacDonnell
SA 38°03´S 140°41´E
5
Black Dermosol 704 (Cape Northumberland) K Jones
Mt Gambier SA 37°39´S 140°43´E 63
Eutrophic Brown
Chromosol /
Sodosol
710 (Mt Gambier Aero) J & L Ruiter
Stawell Vic 37°03´S 142°46´E 203 Red Chromosol 576 (Stawell) B Clugston & D Henty
Junee NSW 34°52´S 147°34´E 280 (Red earth) 527 (Junee) Junee Correctional CentreCeduna SA 32°07´S
133°40´E 15
Lithocalcic
Calcarosol 301 (Aviation Met Office) Tjutjunaku Worka Tjuta Inc,
Ceduna
* long-term average rainfall, nearest weather station (Bureau of Meteorology)
Table 2ANATIVE FOODTRIALS SOIL ANALYSES (top 10 cm) E.C.
(dS/m)
pH(1:5soil:water)
pH(0.01MCaCl2 )
Chloride(mg/kg)
TotalCarbon(%)
OrganicCarbon(%)
CO3 asCaCO3
(%)
TotalNitrogen(%)
I---- KCl ext. ----I
Sampleyear
NH4 -N(mg/kg)
NO3 -N(mg/kg) Location Soil description
Ceduna Lithocalcic Calcarosol 2002 0.28 9.4 8.6 n.d. 7.7 2.1 47 0.13 2.1 7.3
Jamestown Hypocalcic Calcarosol 2001 0.39 6.2 5.7 n.d. 2.8 2.8 0.35 0.29 16 67
Moonta Lithocalcic Calcarosol 2001 0.14 8.5 7.8 17 3.14 1.6 7.7 0.14 3.4 2.0
Kangaroo Island Brown Chromosol 2001 0.08 5.9 4.9 22 2.8 2.8 0 0.21 6.3 3
Lyrup Hypercalcic Calcarosol 2001 0.18 9.0 8.1 12 1.66 1.2 2.3 0.13 6.3 26
Pt MacDonnell Black Dermosol 2001 0.10 6.6 6.0 25 5.2 5.2 <0.1 0.46 13 9.2
Mt Gambier Eutrophic Brown Chromosol /
Sodosol 2003 0.08 6.0 5.3 n.d. 2.0 <0.5 0.18
Stawell Red Chromosol 2001 0.04 5.4 4.3 13 1.6 1.6 0.10 7.6 2.2
Junee (Red earth) 2001 0.06 6.0 4.9 24 3.7 3.7 0.28 5.5 3.1
E.C. = electrical
conductivity
Table 2B
Total(%)
n.d.
93100*
57*
100*
100*
100*
100*
Coarse
Sand
(%)
n.d.
7.4
5339.957649872
Fine
Sand
(%)
n.d.
37.2
Silt(%)
n.d.
22.0385.7
915010
Clay(%)
n.d.
26.4911.43421218
I-------------- DTPA ext ---------------IZnI---------------- mg/kg -----------------I
0.9110.90.50.6210.31.0
Mn2.21219.60.74.1123.50.8
Fe3.4433.8472.520016572
Cu0.32.33.90.40.72.3<0.10.7
C.E.C.
(NH4
+ )
(Cl)
I ……………………….…..cmol(+)/kg ………….………….…..I
n.d.
0.114.826.812.6223.554.3212
8.221.214.76.712.523.54.611.1
|…………..Exchangeable cations ..………..|
Sum1218.917.13.413.625.01.65.8
K0.993.31.630.271.590.370.16
0.89
Na0.680.160.130.100.580.15<0.100.16
Mg2.43.81.60.72.01.70.61.2
Ca8.01213.82.49.522.80.83.7
pH ofextract8.57.08.54.08.57.07.07.0
HCO3- ext. K(mg/kg)
40012536101286003936101390
HCO3- ext. P(mg/kg)
158330172915026136
TotalP(mg/kg)
280690n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
CaCl2- ext. B
(mg/kg)
n.d.
n.d.
2.10.632.02.10.21.1
TRIALLOCATION
CedunaJamestownMoontaKangaroo Is +
LyrupPt MacDonnellMt GambierStawellJunee
Ext = extractable, B = boron, P = Phosphorus, K = potassium, C.E.C. = cation exchange capacity, DTPA =
diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid
n.d. = not determined
+ Kangaroo Island trial site soil is 43 % gravel
* Estimated from Mid-infra-red spectrocopy
Table 3. List of species and selections
Common Name Species Selection / Provenance Source / Supplier Origin
Quandong Santalum
acuminatum “Frahn’s Paringa Gem” * Grafted, ANPI, Paringa
SA
D. Frahn, Paringa
SA
Quandong Santalum
acuminatum
Eyre Peninsula
provenance
Seed, Wildstuf Nursery,
Kimba SA Eyre Peninsula, SA
Quandong Santalum
acuminatum From orchard, seed Seed, Reedy Creek
Nursery, SA
G. Herde,
Nectar Brook SA
Quandong Santalum
acuminatum From orchard, seed Seed, R Jacobs R. Jacobs,
Pt Augusta SA
Quandong Santalum
acuminatum
CSIRO selections
(9-26, 6-16, 11-1)
Grafted, Sunraysia
Nursery, Mildura, Vic CSIRO Horticulture
Creeping boobialla Myoporum
parvifolium
HOST PLANT for
quandong
Coromandel Valley
Nursery, SA
Elegant wattle Acacia
victoriae Hawker provenance Seed, ANPI Hawker, SA
Elegant wattle Acacia
victoriae
other provenances
(Ivanhoe, Wilmington,
Copley, Buronga)
Seed, Australian Tree
Seed Centre (ATSC,
CSIRO) / ANPI
ATSC Collection,
Canberra
Blood lime (hybrid
finger lime) Citrus sp Australian Blood Lime * Grafted on to Troyer
citrange, CSIRO / ANPI Sykes (2002)
Desert lime
(selection) Citrus glauca CR101-13 Grafted on to Troyer
citrange, CSIRO / ANPI Sykes (2002)
Sunrise lime
(hybrid finger lime) Citrus sp Australian Sunrise Lime * Grafted on to Troyer
citrange, CSIRO / ANPI Sykes (2002)
Mountain Pepper Tasmannia
lanceolata Toora provenance Cuttings, R. Freeman,
Gippsland, Vic Toora, Vic
Mountain Pepper Tasmannia
lanceolata
Captain’s Flat
Provenance
Cuttings, Bywong
Nursery, ACT Captain’s Flat, ACT
Mountain Pepper Tasmannia
lanceolata
Other provenances (Mt
Macedon, Cape Barren
Is, Black Spur)
Cuttings, R. Freeman,
Gippsland, Vic See column 3
Lemon Myrtle Backhousia
citriodora ANPI selection Cuttings, ANPI Not available
Lemon Aspen Acronychia
oblongifolia ANPI selection Cuttings, ANPI Not available
Riberry Syzygium
luehmannii ANPI selection Cuttings, ANPI Not available
Riberry (hybrid) S. luehmannii
x S. wilsonii “Cascade” * Cuttings, Limpinwood
Nursery, NSW Mike Jessop
Riberry Syzygium
luehmannii “Vic’s Choice” (seedless) Cuttings, Limpinwood
Nursery, NSW via Vic Cherikoff
Munthari Kunzea
pomifera ‘Rivoli Bay’ * Cuttings, ANPI Rivoli Bay, SA
Munthari Kunzea
pomifera M4 Cuttings, Brian King,
Rhynie SA Ki Ki, SA
Bush tomato /
desert raisin
Solanum
centrale Seed, ANPI Utopia, NT
* PBR protected.
9
3. Field trial design, establishment and
maintenance
3.1 Field trial layout and design
Each trial was laid out with separate tree and shrub blocks. Trees were planted in plots
consisting of 12 trees each, in a 4 x 3 arrangement (Figure 3). The 6 plots of different tree
species were each planted in 4 replicates. Thus the usual number of trees per species per
trial was 48 (i.e. 12 trees per plot x 4 replicates). The exceptions were lemon myrtle (36
trees per trial) and lemon aspen (12 trees per trial) which were placed within the same plot.
Total tree number per site was 288 (i.e. 12 trees per plot x 6 species x 4 replicates). The
exception was at Port MacDonnell where the tree block was replicated only 3 times, owing to
size constraints, giving a total number of 192 trees. The 72 remaining trees that were not
planted at Pt MacDonnell, were planted as a small trial just north of Mt Gambier (40 km north
of Pt MacDonnell); these 72 trees were planted as plots of four trees, with three replicates (4
trees per plot x 6 species x 3 replicates), again using 4 x 4 metre spacings.
Figure 3. Example of field site layout, Kangaroo Island trial.
Table 4 Numbers of trees of each species / selection per trial (* = PBR protected)
Common
Name Selection / Provenance Trees per trial Trees per trial
(Port MacDonnell)
Quandong “Frahn’s Paringa Gem” * 16 12
Quandong Eyre Peninsula provenance 8 6
Quandong Reedy Creek Nursery 8 6
Quandong R. Jacobs Pt Augusta 8 6
Quandong CSIRO selections
(9-26, 6-16, 11-1) 8 6
Elegant wattle Hawker provenance 36 27
Elegant wattle other provenances (Ivanhoe,
Wilmington, Copley, Buronga) 12 9
Blood lime
(hybrid) “Australian Blood Lime” * 16 12
Desert lime
(selection) CR101-13 16 12
Sunrise lime
(hybrid) “Australian Sunrise Lime” * 16 12
Mountain
Pepper Toora provenance 24 18
Mountain
Pepper Captain’s Flat Provenance 16 12
Mountain
Pepper
Other provenances (Mt
Macedon, Cape Barren Is,
Black Spur)
8 6
Lemon Myrtle ANPI selection 36 27
Lemon aspen ANPI selection 12 9
Riberry ANPI selection 24 18
Riberry (hybrid) “Cascade” * 12 9
Riberry “Vic’s Choice” 12 9
TOTAL 288 192
Within the 12-tree plots, selections, provenances and hybrids were planted in numbers which
reflected their availability. Table 4 lists the number of plants per trial for each of the 18
species / selections.
Trees were usually spaced in a grid 4 metres x 4 metres within plots and plots were
separated from each other by 6 metres where space permitted. At Lyrup the row spacing
was 6.2 metres to accommodate mowing machinery.
Shrubs were planted in 8 rows spaced 3 metres apart. Each row was planted with 16 plants
at 1-metre spacings (14 plants per row at some sites). The shrub block was laid out as 4
sets (replicates) of 2 rows (1 row each of munthari and bush tomato). Within each replicate,
the two species were randomly assigned to the two rows. Rows of bush tomato were not
subdivided. Rows of munthari were divided in half so that the plants at one end were “Rivoli
Bay” and at the other end were “M4” selection. There were 8 plants of each munthari
selection (or 7 in some trials), randomly assigned to one end of the row or the other.
11
3.2 Field trial layout and design at Ceduna
The trial at Ceduna, established in August 2002, consisted of separate tree, shrub and
“climber” blocks. The tree block contained 48 trees each of Quandong, Acacia victoriae and
Citrus arranged largely as for other sites (see Table 3), plus sandalwood (Santalum
spicatum) sourced from George Woodifield, Moonta.
The shrub block at Ceduna is planted with two species, in 4 replicate rows, each 15 metres
long and 3 metres apart. The species are bush tomato (S. centrale) and konker berry
(Carissa lanceolata) obtained from Reedy Creek Nursery, Kingston SE South Australia, 64
plants (4 x 16) of each.
A block of “climbers” was also established with three species in four replicate rows each 15
metres long, 3 metres apart, with plants at 1-metre spacings. The climber block was planted
with 64 plants each of munthari (Kunzea pomifera; 32 plants of “Rivoli Bay” and 32 of M4
selection, as for other field trials), bush banana (Marsdenia australis) from Reedy Creek
Nursery and sweet appleberry (Billardiera cymosa) purchased from Alexandrina Community
Nursery at Middleton, SA. The plants are being trained on to simple trellises (approx. 1.6m
high, with 4 to 5 wires approx. 40cm apart).
Figure 4. Installing irrigation at Ceduna
3.3 Field trial designs
The assignment of tree species to trial plots for every trial was done by Dr Emlyn Williams,
CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products, using CycDesigN software (Williams et al., 2002, see
Figure 3 for an example).
3.4 Field trial establishment
Site preparation was carried out as indicated in Table 5. Trees and shrubs were planted
using either a Hamilton tree planter or narrow spades. Plants were hand watered on the day
of planting to ensure good contact to the surrounding soil. Plant height (trees only) was
recorded within two days after planting.
Weed control prior to planting was by use of Roundup (low non-target toxicity) at Pt
MacDonnell. No herbicide was applied at other sites.
Planting material was obtained in tubes or pots to 15 cm diameter. At planting, trees and
shrubs were given 15 g of slow-release fertilizer (Nutricote black; 16% N, 4.4% P, 8.3% K,
270-day release).
Plants were protected at planting by plastic treeguards (43 cm high, 34 cm wide when flat,
from Woodchuck, Adelaide) held in a triangular or square shape with bamboo stakes.
Table 5 Site preparation
Site Site preparation
Jamestown SA
Green manure oats / barley
Rotary hoed Oct 2001
Deep ripped to 40 cm Nov 2001
Planted November 2001
Moonta SA
Deep ripped to 40 cm
Rotavated to 20 cm
Planted September 2001
Kangaroo Is SA
Deep ripped to 60 cm, mounded and then flattened to give 10 cm
mound
Planted October 2001
Lyrup SA
Rotavated to 15 cm, 1 m wide
Holes hand-dug to 25 cm depth, 40 cm across; filled with water, the day
before planting
Planted November 2001
Pt MacDonnell SA
Deep ripped to 90 cm through a layer of dolomite / limestone;
Mounded to 50 cm.
Planted October 2001
Mt Gambier SA
Mounded to 25 cm
Planted October 2001
Stawell Vic
Deep ripped to 40 cm;
Mounded to 15-30 cm
Planted November 2001
Junee NSW
Disc plough 35cm, harrowed;
Bed-former used to make 30 cm high bed, 1 m across
Planted October 2001
Ceduna SA
Deep ripped to 50 cm depth
Planted August 2002
3.5 Irrigation
Drip irrigation was laid out either immediately before or after planting. Drip irrigation systems
consisted of separate systems for “arid zone” and “high-rainfall zone” plants, except at the
small Mt Gambier site, which was hand-watered. Irrigation system manifolds comprised
filters, air-release valves and dual solenoids (one for each irrigation zone) controlled by either
AC- or DC-powered controllers. Drippers provided 4L per hour, using one dripper per plant.
Irrigation systems were designed by Netafim (Australia), Adelaide and were installed by
CSIRO staff working with local field site co-operators.
Water was supplied from town supply (Jamestown, Moonta, Junee, Ceduna), dams on the
property (Kangaroo Island, Stawell) direct from the River Murray at Pike’s River (Lyrup) or
from a bore (Port MacDonnell).
Irrigation regimes
Working with industry consultants, we determined that “arid zone” plants (quandong, Citrus,
Acacia, Solanum centrale) should receive 0.6 x as much water as the “high-rainfall zone”
plants (mountain pepper, lemon myrtle, lemon aspen, riberry, munthari). The frequency of
irrigation was driven by the high water requirement of mountain pepper and was usually
every two days or three times per week, except during winter. In the first summer season,
the amount of water provided to the high rainfall zone plants varied from 1L to 4L per
irrigation event depending on soil type and climatic zone of the site. On a lighter soil, 4L
water would wet approx 25 L soil, and on a heavier soil, 1 L would wet approx 10 - 12 L soil.
In the second summer, the amounts were doubled at most sites, to be 2L to 4L per irrigation
event (wetting approx. 20 - 25 L soil for all soil types). Extra water was given when required
at many sites. At the Stawell site, there was a restriction on water available in the second
summer. This was caused by low water reserves in the farm dam after a prolonged drought
period and careful management was required in an attempt to give plants a reasonable water
supply.
Figure 5. Planting shrub block at Stawell
3.6 Trial maintenance and calendar of events
Field trial maintenance
Weeds were controlled by hand weeding around plants inside treeguards and also on
mounds (where plants were on raised beds) and by mowing in between the rows. Insect
damage was noted from time to time. One insect control treatment was applied: Fenitrothion
1000 to control wingless grasshoppers at the Kangaroo Is. site in the 2002 summer. White
snails were controlled using snail bait pellets at Moonta.
Compost and mulch were added to most plants at all trials in the spring of 2003. The main
aims were (a) weed control, (b) water conservation and (c) addition of nutrients and carbon
to the soils, the latter in an attempt to stimulate soil biological activity. Compost (“Planting
Compost”) and mulch (“Biomat”) was purchased from van Schaik BioGro, Mt Gambier. The
main components of the compost (C:N ratio 50) and mulch (C:N ratio 84) are from plantation
forest thinning and bark, giving a high cellulose content. Approx 10 L of compost and then
20 L of mulch were applied to each surviving plant in the early summer of 2003-04 (total
shipped to each main site was approx. 10 m3).
Calendar of events
The calendar of events is presented in Table 6.
Table 6 Calendar of Events
Date Event
Sept – Nov 2001 Planting, installation of irrigation all
sites except Ceduna
May 2002 9-month data collection (shrubs)
June 2002 Meeting of field trial site co-operators
and CSIRO, Loxton
July 2002 Additional planting (quandong
selections) and re-planting where
plants were lost in year 1
Aug 2002 Establishment of Ceduna trial site
Aug – Sep 2002 12-month data collection
Nov – Dec 2002 15-month data collection
Feb 2003 18-month data collection
May 2003 21-month data collection
Aug 2003 24-month data collection
Oct – Dec 2003 Distribution and application of compost
and mulch
Mar 2004 30-month data collection
Apr 2004 Meeting of field trial site co-operators
and CSIRO, Adelaide
Figure 6. Measurement of plant height (Acacia, Jamestown)
3.7 Data collection and analysis
Plant height (to the uppermost leaf) was measured at planting and from 12 months onwards
at approximately three-month intervals. Plant vigour was usually recorded at the same time
as height. Vigour was assessed on a (subjective) 0 – 100 scale, where 0 = dead; 10 = near
dead (“very poor”); 25 = struggling and/or damaged, no new growth (“poor”); 50 = average
condition, no new growth (“moderate”); 75 = good condition, some new growth, little or no
obvious setback (“good”); 100 = healthy, vigorous, flush of new growth (“very good”). The
vigour data were collected by CSIRO project staff for approx half of the observations. Local
operators recorded the data at other times. For this reason, data are not strictly comparable
between sites at all assessment times.
Plant survival was calculated from either height or vigour data, and the result is presented as
the proportion of plants surviving (0 = nil alive; 1 = 100% of plants alive).
Data analysis
Data were analysed using GenStat Release 7.1 © 2003, Lawes Agricultural Trust
(Rothamsted Experimental Station) using analysis codes generated by Dr Emlyn Williams,
CSIRO. Within-site comparisons for height and vigour were analysed by ANOVA and means
were calculated using REML. Survival data (binary) were analysed by ANOVA.
Plant survival, growth and vigour
4.1 Plant performance across trial sites
Results for plant establishment during the first 2 years after planting (concluding in August
2003) are presented in Figures 2 - 22. Each Figure presents the results for a different
selection, provenance, hybrid or variety, and compares the data recorded across 7 trial sites.
Each Figure consists of bar graphs plant survival, growth of surviving plants (height; for trees
only) and vigour of surviving plants (for both trees and shrubs).
Table 7 lists the species and selections and where the data can be found in the Figures.
Further details on the origin of the various selections and hybrids are found in Table 3.
Table 7 Listing of results by plant species and selection
Species Selection / provenance /
cultivar Figure
Quandong S. acuminatum “Frahn’s Paringa Gem” *
Eyre Peninsula (Wildstuf Nursery)
Reedy Creek Nursery
R Jacobs, Pt Augusta
CSIRO selections (combined)
2
3
4
5
6
Wattle A. victoriae “Hawker” provenance
Other provenances (Wilmington SA,
Ivanhoe NSW, Gol Gol NSW or
Copley SA, combined
7
8
Citrus Citrus spp. “Australian Blood Lime” *
Desert Lime
“Australian Sunrise Lime” *
9
10
11
Mountain
Pepper
Tasmannia
lanceolata
“Toora” provenance
“Captain’s Flat” provenance
Other Provenances (Cape Barren,
Mt Macedon, Black Spur) combined
12
13
14
Lemon Myrtle B. citriodora ANPI selection 15
Lemon Aspen A. oblongifolia ANPI selection 16
Riberry S. luehmannii ANPI selection
“Cascade” * (hybrid)
“Vic’s Choice” (selection)
17
18
19
Munthari K. pomifera “Rivoli Bay” *
“M4”
20
21
Bush tomato S. centrale Utopia provenance 22
* PBR-protected
Key to data Figures 17 – 37: except for Ceduna, time “0” = spring, 12 (months) = August
2002, “15” (months) = November 2002, “18” (months) = February 2003, “21” (months) = May
2003, “24” (months) = August 2003. Thus, growth between 12 and 15 months = spring;
between 15 and 18 months = summer; between 18 and 21 months = autumn; between
21 and 24 months = winter.
The results are now considered by species and selection / hybrid.
Quandong
(Figures 17 to 21)
Selections
The best survival was shown by the Eyre Peninsula, Reedy Creek Nursery and R. Jacobs
planting material, all of which were planted in 2002, approximately 1 year after the host plant
(Myoporum parvifolium, creeping boobialla). Survival was generally lower for the Frahn’s
Paringa Gem and CSIRO selections, which were planted in 2001 at the same time as the
host.
While initial survival of Frahn’s Paringa Gem tended to be lower, those that survived the first
year generally continued to survive and show moderate to good vigour. The quandongs from
Eyre Peninsula and Reedy Creek Nursery generally showed good growth (height) over the
first year.
Sites
At some sites within the natural range of quandong, survival and growth of the later plantings
has been good (Moonta, Lyrup). On Kangaroo Island and at Port MacDonnell survival has
also been extremely good, though growth and vigour on Kangaroo Island is declining. At
Stawell, survival and growth has been excellent, though quandongs do not naturally occur
here. It is noteworthy that this soil is nutritionally quite poor (Tables 2A and 2B), and also
that plants received less water than originally scheduled owing to restrictions on supply.
Figure 7. Quandong, Lyrup March 2004
Acacia victoriae
(Figures 22 and 23)
Provenances
All provenances of A. victoriae survived extremely well in the first two years at all trial sites.
Survival was close to 100% in all cases. Vigour was also generally rated as good to very
good. The main provenance tested was the Hawker provenance of ANPI (9 trees planted
per plot). Other provenances were included (3 trees per plot) to generate additional
information on adaptability of the species in relation to source. At this stage all provenances
appear to behave very similarly.
Figure 8. Acacia victoriae flower buds, Jamestown Oct 2004
Sites
The growth rate varied considerably between sites. Faster growth occurred at Jamestown,
Lyrup and Junee and the slowest growth was recorded at Stawell and Kangaroo Island. The
growth of A. victoriae was distinctly seasonal, with a large increase in height between
November (15 months) and February (18 months) at four sites. This growth spurt occurred
slightly later in the summer at Moonta and was extended over a longer period at Port
MacDonnell.
Where plant growth was much slower (Stawell and Kangaroo Island), there was no clear
evidence of seasonality.
A. victoriae has a shrubby habit and has been trained to a moderate extent by pruning at the
base to remove lateral branches. The pruning has also necessitated staking in more windy
localities.
Flowering and seeding
Occasional flowering and seedpod formation has been seen, in the third summer (2003-04),
typically on only one tree of the 12 per plot. This occurred at the sites with faster growth and
in the warmer areas (Jamestown, Lyrup, Moonta, Junee).
Citrus
(Figures 24 – 26)
Selections and hybrids
“Australian Blood Lime” (hybrid) and Desert Lime (selection) were planted in year 1.
“Australian Sunrise Lime” was planted in year 2. All three were grafted on Troyer Citrange
rootstocks. Survival of the Blood Lime and Desert Lime were excellent, with survival near
100% in most locations. Sunrise Lime established well at all locations except Jamestown,
Stawell and Ceduna. This hybrid was planted in the second year, which was followed by a
much hotter summer. The vigour of Sunrise Limes was generally lower than for the other
Citrus.
Sites
Growth of the Blood Lime and Desert Lime was greatest at Lyrup and Junee. Overall vigour
of the Blood Limes decreased in the order Jamestown = Lyrup = Stawell = Junee (good –
very good)> Port MacDonnell > Moonta > Kangaroo Is (poor – moderate). Vigour of the
desert limes decreased in the order Jamestown = Lyrup = Junee > Port MacDonnell =
Kangaroo Is = Moonta > Stawell (moderate).
Despite not being given much fertiliser, the Citrus remained vigorous. The main
management has been the regular need to remove shoots from the rootstock.
Flowering and fruiting
Flowering of blood lime has been seen commonly, but fruit usually aborted or did not develop
beyond one or two centimetres in size. A small amount of fruit set with good fruit size
development occurred at Lyrup. At Junee, the desert lime flowered and produced (rare) fruit
in 2003.
Figure 9. Desert Lime, Junee
Figure 10. Blood Lime, Moonta
Mountain Pepper
(Figures 27 – 29)
Provenances
All provenances behaved similarly in survival over the first two years. Toora and Captain’s
Flat provenances were the main two tested and the results of other provenances (Mt
Macedon, Cape Barren Island and Black Spur) were combined as “other” (Figure 29). There
were sharp decreases in survival during the second summer at many sites. This decrease
was slightly less pronounced for Captain’s Flat than for Toora. Growth of all selections
occurred mainly during spring and summer (largest increases being from 12 to 18 months
after planting). There did not appear to be noticeable differences in vigour between
selections.
Figure 11. Mountain pepper (Captain’s Flat provenance), Kangaroo Island March 2004
Sites
Two sites, Port MacDonnell and Kangaroo Is (as well as the small site at Mt Gambier) stand
out clearly from the other locations as being able to support the continued growth and
development of mountain pepper. While this species survived the first (mild) summer
relatively well at most sites, the second summer was quite severe and most plants were lost
at all trials except those located in the cooler / southern coastal regions of SA. At these
sites, most of the Toora and Captain’s Flat selections have survived and showed good to
very good vigour.
A stem canker of unknown cause has been seen on several plants at Mt Gambier during the
2003-04 summer. This disease can be devastating because it can girdle the stem
completely and kill the plant.
Lemon Myrtle
(Figure 30)
Sites
Lemon myrtle has generally survived well across all trial sites. There have been some losses
at Jamestown and Stawell. Growth has been greatest at Junee, followed by Pt MacDonnell,
Kangaroo Is, Lyrup and Jamestown. Growth has been slowest at Moonta and Stawell.
Vigour of lemon myrtle has varied a great deal across time and between sites. Greatest
vigour (good to very good) was recorded in summer and autumn (15, 18 and 21 months after
planting).
The appearance of the leaves of lemon myrtle has also varied a great deal between sites. At
sites with alkaline soils, leaves have shown marked yellowing, and sometimes a reddish /
burnt appearance. This type of symptom was rare on the acid to neutral soils.
Figure 12. Lemon myrtle, Port MacDonnell
Lemon Aspen
(Figure 31)
Sites
Lemon aspen has survived extremely well across all trial sites. Survival has been near 100%
in every case. Growth has been steady at most locations, with the tallest plants being
recorded at Junee. Growth rates were intermediate at Kangaroo Is and Lyrup, followed by
Jamestown, Pt MacDonnell, Stawell and Moonta. Changes in height over time suggest that
the seasonality is much less pronounced than with other species such as Acacia victoriae.
The vigour of lemon aspen has ranged from moderate (50) to very good (100), with no major
differences between sites.
Despite its generally very healthy appearance, insect attack and a type of witches’ broom
have commonly been seen on lemon aspen.
Flowering and fruiting
Flowers have been observed at a number of sites and fruit have formed at one site (Mt
Gambier, 2003-04 summer).
Figure 13. Lemon Aspen Mt Gambier, Jan 2004
Riberry
(Figures 32 – 34)
Selections / hybrids
The hybrid “Cascade” survived best across all sites, but the ANPI selection was almost as
good, only surviving less well than Cascade in the Jamestown trial. “Vic’s choice” was the
least hardy, as shown by losses over time at Jamestown, Lyrup and Stawell. “Vic’s Choice”
clearly grew better than the other two selections at Pt MacDonnell.
Growth of riberry was greatest at Junee and least at Stawell. The other sites showed similar
growth and rates of increase in height were generally low.
Sites
Riberry selections survived, grew best and were most vigorous at Kangaroo Island, Pt
MacDonnell, Mt Gambier and Junee.
Figure 14. Riberry, Junee
Munthari / muntries
(Figures 35 and 36)
Selections
Results for “Rivoli Bay” and M4 selections are presented in Figures 19 and 20 respectively.
Survival of munthari varied considerably between sites, with best results at Moonta,
Kangaroo Island and Mt Gambier followed by Pt MacDonnell, Stawell, then Jamestown and
Junee. At Lyrup, M4 established better than Rivoli Bay. On the other hand, “Rivoli Bay”
survived better than M4 at Stawell and Junee. Survival declined over time at several sites:
Pt MacDonnell, Lyrup and Jamestown.
The mean vigour of surviving “Rivoli Bay” plants was generally good to very good, whereas
vigour of M4 selection ranged from moderate (50) to very good (100).
Sites
The site with the best establishment and growth of both selections was Kangaroo Is.
Survival was also good at Moonta and Pt MacDonnell. Stawell (“Rivoli Bay”) and Lyrup (M4)
also showed moderate to good survival and vigour. At Jamestown, Junee and Lyrup the
survival was only moderate, yet the surviving plants grew quite vigorously and have flowered
and fruited (Jamestown, Junee). So the vigour of surviving plants was usually good to very
good, irrespective of the success or otherwise of seedling establishment. This suggests that
the munthari can be grown across a relatively wide range of locations as long as the reason
for poor establishment can be ascertained and controlled.
Flowering and fruiting
Flowering and fruit formation were observed at Mt Gambier (2002-03 and 2003-04) and
several other sites (Junee, Kangaroo Island, Jamestown 2003-04). Harvest was measured
at Jamestown and Mt Gambier in 2004. At Mt Gambier, 0.99 kg of fruit was harvested from
15 of the 19 M4 plants and 6.4 kg fruit of “Rivoli Bay” was harvested from 11 of the 14 plants
(average nearly 600 g per plant, with several plants yielding around 1 kg of fruit).
Figure 15. Munthari on trellis, Kangaroo Island
Bush tomato
(Figure 37)
Sites
Survival of the bush tomato was extremely variable between sites. At some sites we
completely replanted all four plots in the second spring. This plant usually dies off
completely in the winter and then reappears from underground suckers in the following
spring or summer when the soil warms. Survival counts can therefore go up and down
without any replanting.
The bush tomato has become locally established in the plots through suckering at several
sites, notably Junee, Jamestown, Moonta, Stawell and to a much smaller extent at Lyrup.
There was virtually no survival from one summer to the next at Kangaroo Is. and Mt Gambier,
and almost no longer-term survival at Pt MacDonnell. The vigour of surviving bush tomatoes
also varied considerably between sites and between seasons. The most vigorous growth
has occurred at Junee and Jamestown. Bush tomatoes at Moonta, Stawell and Lyrup
showed intermediate vigour.
Flowering and fruiting
Flowering and fruit set was relatively common. The best crops were seen at Junee and
Moonta, with less fruit set at Jamestown, Stawell and Pt MacDonnell.
Figure 16. Bush tomato, Junee 2003
Figure 17. Survival, growth and vigour of Quandong (‘Frahn’s Paringa Gem’) across trial sites (0 to 24
months after planting, sprng 2001 – following pages
Quandong (Frahn's Paringa Gem) Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
Quandong (Frahn's Paringa Gem) Growth
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Height (cm)
0
12
15
18
21
24
Quandong (Frahn's Paringa Gem) Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Vigour (10 - 100)
12
15
18
21
24
27
Figure 18 Survival, growth and vigour of Quandong (Wildstuf Nursery, Eyre Peninsula) across trial sites
(0 to 24 months after planting, spring 2001)
Quandong (Eyre Peninsula) Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
Quandong (Eyre Peninsula) Growth
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Height (cm)
0
12
15
18
21
24
Quandong (Eyre Peninsula) Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Vigour (10 - 100)
12
15
18
21
24
28
Figure 19 Survival, growth and vigour of Quandong (Quarmby’s Reedy Creek Nursery) across trial sites
(0 to 24 months after planting, spring 2001)
Quandong (Reedy Creek) Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
Quandong (Reedy Creek) Growth
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Height (cm)
0
12
15
18
21
24
Quandong (Reedy Creek Nursery) Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Vigour (10 - 100)
12
15
18
21
24
29
Figure 20 Survival, growth and vigour of Quandong (R Jacobs) across trial sites (0 to 24 months after
planting, spring 2001)
Quandong (Jacobs) Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
Quandong (Jacobs) Growth
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Height (cm)
0
12
15
18
21
24
Quandong (Jacobs) Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Vigour (10 - 100)
12
15
18
21
24
30
Figure 21 Survival, growth and vigour of Quandong (CSIRO) across trial sites (0 to 24 months after
planting, spring 2001)
Quandong (CSIRO) Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
Quandong (CSIRO) Growth
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Height (cm)
0
12
15
18
21
24
Quandong (CSIRO) Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Vigour (10 - 100)
12
15
18
21
24
31
Figure 22 Survival, growth and vigour of Acacia victoriae (Hawker provenance) across trial sites (0 to 24
months after planting, spring 2001)
Acacia victoriae (Hawker) Growth
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Height (cm)
0
12
15
18
21
24
Acacia victoriae (Hawker) Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Vigour (10 -100)
12
15
18
21
24
Acacia victoriae (Hawker) survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
32
Figure 23 Survival, growth and vigour of Acacia victoriae (other provenances) across trial sites (0 to 24
months after planting, spring 2001)
Acacia victoriae (Other) Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
Acacia victoriae (Other) Growth
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Height (cm)
0
12
15
18
21
24
Acacia victoriae (Other) Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Vigour (10 - 100)
12
15
18
21
24
33
Figure 24 Survival, growth and vigour of Finger Lime Hybrid (‘Australian Blood Lime’) across trial sites (0
to 24 months after planting, spring 2001)
Blood Lime Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
Blood Lime Growth
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Height (cm)
0
12
15
18
21
24
Blood Lime Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Vigour (10 - 100)
12
15
18
21
24
34
Figure 25 Survival, growth and vigour of Desert Lime (selection CR101-13) across trial sites (0 to 24
months after planting, spring 2001)
Desert Lime Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
Desert Lime Growth
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Height (cm)
0
12
15
18
21
24
Desert Lime Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Vigour (10 - 100)
12
15
18
21
24
35
Figure 26 Survival, growth and vigour of Finger Lime Hybrid (‘Australian Sunrise Lime’) across trial sites
(0 to 24 months after planting, spring 2001)
Sunrise Lime Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawell
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
Sunrise Lime Growth
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawell
Height (cm)
0
12
15
18
21
24
Sunrise Lime Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawell
Vigour (10 - 100)
12
15
18
21
24
36
Figure 27 Survival, growth and vigour of Mountain Pepper (Toora provenance) across trial sites (0 to 24
months after planting, spring 2001)
Mountain Pepper (Toora) Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
Mountain Pepper (Toora) Growth
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Height (cm)
0
12
15
18
21
24
Mountain pepper (Toora) Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Vigour (10 - 100)
12
15
18
21
24
37
Figure 28 Survival, growth and vigour of Mountain Pepper (Captain’s Flat provenance) across trial sites
(0 to 24 months after planting, spring 2001)
Mountain Pepper (Captain's Flat) Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
Mountain Pepper (Captain's Flat) Growth
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Height (cm)
0
12
15
18
21
24
Mountain Pepper (Captain's Flat) Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Vigour (10 - 100)
12
15
18
21
24
38
Figure 29 Survival, growth and vigour of Mountain Pepper (other provenances) across trial sites (0 to 24
months after planting, spring 2001)
Mountain Pepper (other) Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
Mountain Pepper (other) Growth
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Height (cm)
0
12
15
18
21
24
Mountain pepper (other) Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Vigour (10 - 100)
12
15
18
21
24
39
Figure 30 Survival, growth and vigour of Lemon Myrtle (ANPI selection) across trial sites (0 to 24 months
after planting, spring 2001)
Lemon Myrtle Growth
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Height (cm)
0
12
15
18
21
24
Lemon Myrtle Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Vigour (10 - 100)
12
15
18
21
24
Lemon Myrtle Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
40
Figure 31 Survival, growth and vigour of Lemon Aspen (ANPI selection) across trial sites (0 to 24 months
after planting, spring 2001)
Lemon Aspen Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
Lemon Aspen Growth
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Height (cm)
0
12
15
18
21
24
Lemon Aspen Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Vigour (10 - 100)
12
15
18
21
24
41
figure 32 Survival, growth and vigour of Riberry (ANPI selection) across trial sites (0 to 24 months after
planting, spring 2001)
Riberry (ANPI) Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
Riberry (ANPI) Growth
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Height (cm)
0
12
15
18
21
24
Riberry (ANPI) Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Vigour (10 - 100)
12
15
18
21
24
42
Figure 33 Survival, growth and vigour of Riberry ( ‘Cascade’ hybrid) across trial sites (0 to 24 months
after planting, spring 2001)
Riberry (Cascade) Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
Riberry (Cascade) Growth
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Height (cm)
0
12
15
18
21
24
Riberry (Cascade) Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Vigour (10 - 100)
12
15
18
21
24
43
Figure 34 Survival, growth and vigour of Riberry (Vic’s Choice selection) across trial sites (0 to 24
months after planting, spring 2001)
Riberry (Vic's Choice) Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
Riberry (Vic's Choice) Growth
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Height (cm)
0
12
15
18
21
24
Riberry (Vic's Choice) Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JamestownMoontaKangaroo IsLyrupPtMacDonnellStawellJunee
Vigour (10 - 100)
12
15
18
21
24
44
Figure 35 Survival and vigour of Munthari (‘Rivoli Bay’) across trial sites
Rivoli Bay Munthari: survival
0
0. 1
0. 2
0. 3
0. 4
0. 5
0. 6
0. 7
0. 8
0. 9
1
Jamestown
Moonta
Kangaroo Is
Lyrup
Pt MacDonnellStawell
Junee
Proportion of plants9
12
15
18
21
24
Rivoli Bay Munthari: vigour of surviving plants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jamestown
Moonta
Kangaroo Is
Lyrup
Pt MacDonnellStawell
Junee
Vigour (10-100)
9
12
15
18
21
24
45
Figure 36 Survival and vigour of Munthari (M4 selection) across trial sites (0 to 24 months after planting,
spring 2001)
M4 Munthari: survival
0
0. 1
0. 2
0. 3
0. 4
0. 5
0. 6
0. 7
0. 8
0. 9
1
Jamestown
Moonta
Kangaroo Is
Lyrup
Pt MacDonnell
Stawell
Junee
Proportion of plants9
12
15
18
21
24
M4 Munthari: vigour of surviving plants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jamestown
Moonta
Kangaroo Is
Lyrup
Pt MacDonnellStawell
Junee
Vigour (10-100)
9
12
15
18
21
24
46
Figure 37 Survival and vigour of Bush Tomato (Solanum centrale) across trial sites (0 to 24 months after
planting, spring 2001)
Bush tomato: survival
0
0. 1
0. 2
0. 3
0. 4
0. 5
0. 6
0. 7
0. 8
0. 9
1
Jamestown
Moonta
Kangaroo Is
Lyrup
Pt MacDonnell
Stawell
Junee
Proportion of plants9
12
15
18
21
24
Bush tomato: vigour of surviving plants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jamestown
Moonta
Kangaroo Is
Lyrup
Pt MacDonnellStawell
Junee
Vigour (10-100)
9
12
15
18
21
24
47
4.2 Plant performance at each trial site
Data and statistics for tree blocks are presented in the following section including Figures 38
to 46. For data on shrubs, please refer to Figures 35 – 37.
Criteria for plants which perform well: survival > 75% and vigour >75 rating;
plants which perform poorly: survival <25% and vigour <50 rating
Key to Figures 38 to 46
Code Plant selection
Q FPG Quandong “Frahn’s Paringa Gem” *
Q Wildstuf Quandong Eyre Peninsula provenance (Wildstuf Nursery)
Q Quarmby Quandong ex Reedy Creek Nursery
Q Jacobs Quandong ex R. Jacobs Pt Augusta
Q CSIRO Quandong CSIRO selections (9-26, 6-16, 11-1)
Avic Hawker Acacia victoriae Hawker provenance
Avic other Acacia victoriae other provenances (Ivanhoe, Wilmington, Copley,
Buronga)
Blood lime Finger Lime hybrid “Australian Blood Lime” *
Desert lime Desert lime selection CR101-13
Sunrise lime Finger Lime hybrid “Australian Sunrise Lime” *
MP Toora Mountain Pepper Toora provenance
MP CaptFlat Mountain Pepper Captain’s Flat Provenance
MP other Mountain Pepper Other provenances (Mt Macedon, Cape Barren Is,
Black Spur)
L Myrtle Lemon Myrtle ANPI selection
L Aspen Lemon Aspen ANPI selection
R ANPI Riberry ANPI selection
R Cascade Riberry “Cascade” *
R Vic's Riberry “Vic’s Choice”
* PBR – protected
Jamestown (Figure 38)
Trees
Plants which performed well (survival > 75% and vigour >75 rating) – A. victoriae, lemon
aspen, Blood lime, Desert lime, “Cascade” riberry, lemon myrtle
Plants which showed moderate success: Sunrise lime, lemon myrtle, ANPI riberry
Poor performers (survival <25% and vigour <50 rating) – mountain pepper, quandong
(though some of the later plantings of vigorous seedlings have performed well), Vic’s Choice
riberry,
Shrubs
Bush tomato has become established, still flowering and fruiting well in the third season.
Munthari were quite variable in establishment between plants along a row 9 (many misses)
but the vigour of surviving plants has been good and some have begun yielding fruit.
Therefore there does appear to be some prospect of munthari cultivation here.
49
Figure 38 Plant survival, growth and vigour at Jamestown site (trees)
Jamestown Plant Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Q FPGQ WildstufQ QuarmbyQ JacobsQ CSIROAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeDesert limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP CaptFlatMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
Jamestown Plant Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Q FPGQ WildstufQ QuarmbyQ JacobsQ CSIROAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeDesert limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP CaptFlatMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Vigour (10 - 100)
15
18
21
24
Jamestown Plant Growth
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Q FPGQ WildstufQ QuarmbyQ JacobsQ CSIROAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeDesert limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP CaptFlatMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Height (cm)
0
12
15
18
21
24
50
Moonta (Figure 39)
Trees
Plant which performed well (survival > 75% and vigour >75 rating) – A. victoriae,
quandong (Eyre Peninsula and Reedy Creek), all three Citrus, lemon aspen
Moderate performers – lemon myrtle, riberry
Poor performers (survival <25% and vigour <50 rating) – mountain pepper, quandong
(some selections)
Shrubs
Bush tomato have become established; some are flowering and fruiting in the third season
Munthari were quite variable in establishment between plants along a row 9 (many
misses) but the vigour of surviving plants has been good. Where they are growing on
a trellis, the wind seems to hamper the growth.
Wind protection is a major factor requiring attention at this site.
Figure 39 Plant survival, growth and vigour at Moonta site (trees)
Moonta Plant Growth
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
Q FPGQ WildstufQ QuarmbyQ JacobsQ CSIROAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeDesert limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP CaptFlatMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Height, cm
0
12
15
18
21
24
Moonta Plant Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Q FPGQ WildstufQ QuarmbyQ JacobsQ CSIROAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeDesert limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP CaptFlatMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
Moonta Plant Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Q FPGQ WildstufQ QuarmbyQ JacobsQ CSIROAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeDesert limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP CaptFlatMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Vigour (10 - 100)
12
15
18
21
24
Kangaroo Island (Figure 40)
After initial success with many plants in establishment and good early vigour, a number of
species are now showing decreases in vigour. This appears to be due to a combination of
cool and windy conditions. Wind protection is a major factor requiring attention at this site.
Trees
Plant which performed well (survival > 75% and vigour >75 rating) – Mountain pepper
(Captain’s Flat selection at 30 months is clearly better), A. victoriae, lemon aspen, riberry
(some selections)
Moderate performers – lemon myrtle, some riberry selections, some Citrus
Poor performers (survival <25% and vigour <50 rating) – quandong, some Citrus
Shrubs
Bush tomato has failed to establish and must be treated as an annual crop in this area, if its
cultivation is attempted at all.
Munthari establishment and early growth has been extremely good. However,
training on to the trellises has been adversely affected by wind.
Figure 40 Plant survival, growth and vigour at Kangaroo Island site (trees)
Kangaroo Island Plant Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Q FPGQ WildstufQ QuarmbyQ JacobsQ CSIROAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeDesert limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP CaptFlatMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
Kangaroo Island Plant Growth
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Q FPGQ WildstufQ QuarmbyQ JacobsQ CSIROAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeDesert limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP CaptFlatMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Height (cm)
0
12
15
18
21
24
Kangaroo Island Plant Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Q FPGQ WildstufQ QuarmbyQ JacobsQ CSIROAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeDesert limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP CaptFlatMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Vigour (10 - 100)
12
15
18
21
24
Lyrup (Figure 41)
Trees
Plant which performed well (survival > 75% and vigour >75 rating) – Citrus, A. victoriae,
lemon aspen, quandong (selections which were planted later), Cascade and ANPI riberry
Moderate performers – lemon myrtle, Vic’s Choice riberry
Poor performers (survival <25% and vigour <50 rating) – mountain pepper, quandong
(early plantings, though survivors are now quite vigorous), Vic’s Choice riberry
Shrubs
Bush tomato has largely failed to become established: there may have been soil borne
pathogen problems (complete failure in first planting).
Munthari establishment was poor, however many of the surviving plants grew quite
vigorously. If the early establishment problems can be over come there may be a
prospect for this crop in this area, especially if using “inland” selections such as M4.
Figure 41 Plant survival, growth and vigour at Lyrup site (trees)
Lyrup Plant Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Q FPGQ WildstufQ QuarmbyQ JacobsQ CSIROAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeDesert limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP CaptFlatMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
Lyrup Plant Growth
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Q FPGQ WildstufQ QuarmbyQ JacobsQ CSIROAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeDesert limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP CaptFlatMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Height (cm)
0
12
15
18
21
ht24
Lyrup Plant Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Q FPGQ WildstufQ QuarmbyQ JacobsQ CSIROAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeDesert limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP CaptFlatMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Vigour (10 -100)
12
15
18
21
24
Pt MacDonnell (Figure 42)
Trees
Plant which performed well (survival > 75% and vigour >75 rating) – riberry, A. victoriae,
mountain pepper (Captain’s Flat and Toora), quandong (Eyre Peninsula and Jacobs), Citrus
(Blood lime and Desert lime)
Moderate performers– lemon myrtle, lemon aspen, Sunrise lime, quandong (CSIRO,
Frahn’s Paringa Gem), mountain pepper (“other” selections)
Poor performers (survival <25% and vigour <50 rating) - none
Shrubs
Bush tomato have survived to a small extent but have not really become established and
should be grown as an annual crop if it to be grown at all in this region. There were flowers
but no fruit in the first summer.
Munthari were very variable in establishment between plants along a row (many
misses). Plant survival is declining and vigour is only moderate to good. This plant is
native to the region and better results had been expected. A possible reason for lack
of success is soil manipulation prior to planting where heavier soil was brought to the
surface. This may be ameliorated prior to replanting in future.
Figure 42 Plant survival, growth and vigour at Pt MacDonnell site (trees)
Pt MacDonnell Plant Growth
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Q FPGQ WildstufQ QuarmbyQ JacobsQ CSIROAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeDesert limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP CaptFlatMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Height (cm)
0
12
15
18
21
24
Pt MacDonnell Plant Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Q FPGQ WildstufQ QuarmbyQ JacobsQ CSIROAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeDesert limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP CaptFlatMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Proiportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
Pt MacDonnell Plant Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Q FPGQ WildstufQ QuarmbyQ JacobsQ CSIROAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeDesert limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP CaptFlatMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Vigour (10 - 100)
12
15
18
21
24
Stawell (Figure 43)
Trees
Plant which performed well (survival > 75% and vigour >75 rating) – Blood lime, A.
victoriae, lemon aspen, later plantings of quandong (Eyre Peninsula Wildstuf Nursery,
Quarmby’s Reedy Creek Nursery)
Moderate performers - Desert lime, Lemon myrtle (good survival, but poor vigour) Sunrise
lime
Poor performers (survival <25% and vigour <50 rating) – quandong (Frahn’s Paringa
Gem), mountain pepper, riberry
Shrubs
Bush tomato were moderately successful. They flowered and fruited in the first summer.
Survival has been low to moderate and the plant has become established through suckers
these have not flowered. Vigour has been moderate. Bush tomato needs to be treated as
an annual crop in this location.
“Rivoli Bay” munthari has performed quite well in both survival and vigour. Fruit has been
produced (500 g in 2004). M4 selection has been considerably less successful, though 3
plants have produced fruit in every summer.
Figure 43 Plant survival, growth and vigour at Stawell site (trees)
Stawell Plant Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Q FPGQ WildstufQ QuarmbyQ JacobsQ CSIROAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeOutback limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
Stawell Plant Growth
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Q FPGQ WildstufQ QuarmbyQ JacobsQ CSIROAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeDesert limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Height (cm)
0
12
15
18
21
24
Stawell Plant Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Q FPGQ WildstufQ QuarmbyQ JacobsQ CSIROAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeDesert limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Vigour (10 - 100)
15
21
24
Junee (Figure 44)
Trees
Plant which performed well (survival > 75% and vigour >75 rating) – Blood lime, Desert
Lime, A. victoriae, lemon aspen, lemon myrtle, all riberry selections.
Moderate performers - none
Poor performers (survival <25% and vigour <50 rating) – Sunrise lime, quandong,
mountain pepper
Shrubs
Bush tomato was highly successful although the survival was only moderately good. The
plant has become locally established and flowered, fruited and suckered well into the second
and third summers
Munthari survival was only moderate (around 50% for “Rivoli Bay” and <50% for M4) but the
surviving plants were extremely good in their vigour flowering and fruiting). This shows that
there is potential for this crop in this area.
Figure 44 Plant survival, growth and vigour at Junee site (trees)
Junee Plant Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Q FPGQ WildstufQ QuarmbyQ JacobsQ CSIROAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeDesert limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP CaptFlatMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Proportion of plants15
18
24
Junee Plant Growth
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Q FPGQ WildstufQ QuarmbyQ JacobsQ CSIROAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeDesert limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP CaptFlatMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Height (cm)
0
15
18
24
Junee Plant Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Q FPGQ WildstufQ QuarmbyQ JacobsQ CSIROAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeDesert limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP CaptFlatMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Vigour (10 - 100)
15
18
24
Mt Gambier (Figure 45)
Trees
Plants that performed well (survival > 75% and vigour >75 rating) – A. victoriae, all Citrus,
mountain pepper (some selections), lemon aspen, ANPI and Cascade riberry, some
quandong
Moderate performers – mountain pepper (Captain’s Flat), Vic’s Choice riberry,
lemon myrtle, some quandong
Poor performers (survival <25% and vigour <50 rating) – some quandong
Shrubs
Bush tomato was not successful (data not shown) with almost complete failure to establish.
Munthari on the other hand were extremely successful, with over 90% establishment, very
good vigour and early flowering and fruit set. In 2004, over 7 kg were harvested from 26 of
31 shrubs.
Figure 45 Plant survival, growth and vigour at Mt Gambier site (trees)
Mt Gambier Plant Growth
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Q QuarmbyQ CSIRO 9-26Q CSIRO 6-16Q otherAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeDesert limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP CaptFlatMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Height (cm)
0
15
18
21
24
Mt Gambier Plant Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Q QuarmbyQ CSIRO 9-26Q CSIRO 6-16Q otherAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeDesert limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP CaptFlatMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Vigour (10 - 100)
18
21
24
Mt Gambier Plant Survival
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Q QuarmbyQ CSIRO 9-26Q CSIRO 6-16Q otherAvic HawkerAvic otherBlood limeDesert limeSunrise limeMP
TooraMP CaptFlatMP otherL MyrtleL AspenR ANPIR CascadeR Vic's
Proportion of plants12
15
18
21
24
Ceduna (Figure 46)
Trees
Plants that performed well (survival > 75% and vigour >75 rating) – A. victoriae from
Hawker and Ivanhoe, Desert lime and Blood lime
Moderate performers – A. victoriae from Copley and Gol Gol, Sandalwood, quandong (Eyre
Peninsula Wildstuf Nursery and Quarmby’s Reedy Creek Nursery)
Poor performers (survival <25% and vigour <50 rating) – quandong (CSIRO and Frahn’s
Paringa Gem), Sunrise lime
Shrubs and “Climbers”
Data for shrubs (bush tomato and konkerberry) and “climbers” (munthari, bush banana and
sweet appleberry) at Ceduna are still being compiled for analysis.
Vigour (10 - 100)
Proportion of plants
Ceduna Plant Vigour
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
3
6
9
12
Q FPG
Q Wildstuf
Q Quarmby
Q Jacobs
Q CSIRO
A vic
Hawker
A vic Gol
Gol
A vic
Copley
A vic
Ivanhoe
Desert lime
Blood lime
Sunrise
limeSandalwood
Ceduna Plant Growth
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Q FPGQ WildstufQ QuarmbyQ JacobsQ CSIROA vicHawkerA vic GolGolA vicCopleyA vicIvanhoeDesert
limeBlood limeSunriselimeSandalwood
Height (cm)
0
3
6
9
12
Q FPG
Q Wildstuf
Q Quarmby
Q Jacobs
Q CSIRO
A vic
Hawker
A vic Gol
Gol
A vic
Copley
A vic
Ivanhoe
Desert lime
Blood lime
Sunrise
lime
Figure 46 Plant survival, growth and vigour at Ceduna site (trees) (months after planting in Spring 2002)
Ceduna Plant Survival
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
3
6
9
12
Sandalwood
5. Discussion of research findings
5.1 Quandong
The early establishment of quandong is problematic if treated in the same way as other
plants. In our trials, all plants were provided with plastic treeguards held with bamboo
stakes. However, there is preliminary evidence from our Kangaroo Island trial and also from
other growers, that survival can be increased with extra shading (e.g. shadecloth
enclosures). The quandongs which were planted later (1 year after the host plant) tended to
survive better, which could be attributed to a combination of better seedling vigour at planting
and planting alongside an established host. It was noticeable that in cases where the host
plant had grown to fill up the inside of the treeguard, the quandong seedling at the centre
was often protected and healthy. This adds further support to the idea that extra protection in
the early stages may be beneficial.
We used no chemical fungicides at planting. We may have increased the survival of plants if
this type of treatment had been used, as there is a suggestion that soilborne fungal diseases
can affect establishment (ANPI / PIRSA online fact sheets).
Those quandong seedlings that survived the first two summers often showed good vigour
and growth. This illustrates the importance of assisting the plants in the establishment phase
eg by extra shading and wind protection. Sites at which good growth and vigour have
occurred in plants which have survived the first 18 months: Lyrup, Jamestown, Moonta, Pt
MacDonnell and Stawell.
The quandong seedlings have survived and grown in locations outside the natural range (eg
Port MacDonnell and Kangaroo Island). However it remains to be seen whether they are
able to flower, set fruit and produce ripe fruit in those locations.
Each quandong plot contained a mixture of plants from different sources because of a need
to provide good opportunity for cross-pollination to occur (Lethbridge and Randell, 2003).
Quandong seedlings show a good ability to recover by re-shooting after a major trauma such
as loss of all leaves.
5.2 Acacia victoriae
This plant can tolerate and grow well in a very wide range of environmental conditions. It has
established well, and has maintained a good to very good vigour in most locations. Growth
of this plant is faster than for any other species being tested in the trials.
Flowering and seed set began in the third summer but was very sporadic, with perhaps one
tree in any 12-tree plot carrying a small amount of seed (<100 pods). No flowering or seed
set has yet been recorded from the southernmost sites (Kangaroo Island, Pt MacDonnell, Mt
Gambier – there were some flowers but no seed at the latter two sites).
Because of its shrubby habit, A. victoriae needs some pruning and staking to facilitate
harvest at later stages, and staking following pruning at windy sites.
From this trial and from other plantings it is clear that there is a great deal of genetic variation
between plants, in a range of characteristics, some of which will be important for plant
improvement. While we have not yet documented this, there are plants with very atypical
foliage, plants lacking spines (a desirable characteristic for cultivation). We can also anticipate that there will
be large variation in seed yield between plants in future. The selection of high yielding plants, of plants with
better adaptation to certain areas (soil, climate) and of plants with other useful characteristics is imperative
for the future development of A. victoriae as a cultivated crop.
Other Acacia species can also be cultivated for seed production (Maslin et al., 1998). Some
of these other species may have particularly useful agronomic or food characteristics.
Similar types of work on selection of plants for greater uniformity and higher yield etc will also
be required for these species. The cultivation and use of Acacia colei and other arid zone
acacias has been investigated scientifically during the past decade (House and Harwood,
1992). The future development of Acacia as a food crop at the cultivation end of the value
chain will depend on many factors including crop improvement, and the possibility of growing
the species as a dryland crop which includes efficient harvest methods.
5.3 Citrus
All three Citrus exhibited very good establishment across sites, with the Blood Lime and
Desert Lime standing out as the best. The high level of survival across sites is similar to that
of Acacia victoriae. The Troyer Citrange rootstock probably plays a large role in the
adaptability of the Citrus to different soils and climates. The vigour of Citrus has generally
been very good. However many of the plants are reduced in vigour at windy sites (Moonta)
and especially a combination of wind and cooler conditions (Kangaroo Is.). Growth in height
has been most dramatic at Lyrup and Junee. Future management of the Citrus is likely to
involve nutrient management.
5.4 Mountain pepper
Although no data has been collected specifically to confirm this, mountain pepper has the
greatest water requirement of all the species being trialled or, conversely, is the least tolerant
of dry soil conditions. It has only survived through the first two years at two of the sites, i.e.
Pt MacDonnell and Kangaroo Is (as well as in the small trial at Mt Gambier). The first
summer (2001-02) was relatively mild and this assisted the survival of mountain pepper at
many of the other sites, eg Jamestown, Moonta, Lyrup, Stawell, and the plants certainly did
grow in the first year, however they did not tolerate the hotter late summer conditions. This
indicates that it may be possible to grow mountain pepper in a wider range of environments.
However a good, reliable water supply would be needed and the economics of production
may not be favourable considering the high water requirement. Alternatively, it may be
possible to extend the range by developing a production system where mountain pepper is
grown as an understorey plant (as it is in nature). This would be analogous to the cultivation
of coffee as a shade (understorey) plant in tropical and sub-tropical areas. On the other
hand., production systems have been developed for growing coffee without shade (Drinnan
and Peasley, 1997). By identifying paying attention to its particular requirements, the same
may be possible with mountain pepper.
The Toora provenance, which has a more upright form, grew the fastest. The other forms
being trialled have a more branched, shrubby habit. More recent observation of plant vigour
at the Kangaroo Is site (J Melbourne, March 2004) strongly suggests that Captain’s Flat
provenance is much better suited to those conditions than Toora, even though Toora showed
the best growth during the first 2 years. The difference in vigour (appearance) is very clear
and, if it continues, demonstrates that it is extremely valuable to test a range of selections or
provenances when attempting to grow this crop in a new location.
5.5 Lemon Myrtle
Lemon myrtle can grow in a wide variety of locations. It appears to be tolerant of temporary
dry conditions and can often regenerate from the base of the plant after almost complete loss
of foliage due to drought. However, losses of plants at Jamestown and Stawell are likely to
be due to extended periods without sufficient water. Lemon myrtle does appear to require a
consistent water supply to do well. It has performed best at Junee, Jamestown, Pt
MacDonnell and in the early stages on Kangaroo Is. More recently wind damage has
restricted progress on Kangaroo Is. The plant is also sensitive to frost (e.g. Jamestown) but
has recovered well during the 2003-04 summer. Decreases in average height over time are
likely to have been due to frost (Jamestown), wind (Kangaroo Is) and low water supply
(Stawell).
Despite its ability to grow in a wide variety of locations, lemon myrtle will probably not yield a
good quality leaf product across this range. We have not done any detailed investigation of
produce quality in this project. Nevertheless it is clear that lemon myrtle does not enjoy
alkaline soil conditions and the leaves exhibit nutrient deficiency symptoms typical of acid-
loving plants when grown on alkaline soils. Some of these symptoms could possibly be
corrected by the application of foliar or other nutrients, if we could identify the primary
problems. We have made some chemical analyses of good and poor quality foliage but it is
not yet clear what the main problems are. The compost and mulch treatments may be able
to alleviate symptoms to some extent. Briefly, an early conclusion is that lemon myrtle is
best grown on acid to neutral soils with wind protection.
5.6 Lemon Aspen
Lemon aspen seems well adapted to surviving, growing and having a generally healthy
green appearance in a wide range of environments. Despite the limited fertiliser application,
these plants are not showing signs of deficiency. Establishment and early growth have been
quite reliable.
Flowers have been observed at several sites, but fruit set has only been seen at one trial.
Being a fruit crop, we may need to know more about the pollination mechanisms and
requirements of this species to be able to ensure reliable cropping.
The average vigour of lemon aspen has been rated moderate to very good. This plant is the
most susceptible to insect attack of all the species in these trials. We have not identified
what the particular pest/s is/are but these problems have generally not been of great concern
to the overall health and vigour of the plant. Lemon aspen also appears to be affected by a
hyperplasia (witches’ broom) which has developed more obvious symptoms at some
locations than others.
5.7 Riberry
“Cascade” hybrid was the hardiest of the three selections tested across sites and seasons.
“Vic’s Choice” was the least hardy and ANPI selection was intermediate. However it is
interesting that at Pt MacDonnell, “Vic’s Choice” performed particularly well. At sites with
restricted water supply such as Stawell, “Vic’s Choice” did not survive and both of the other
two selections declined dramatically and showed only poor to moderate vigour. This shows
the dependence of riberry on more moist conditions, probably rating in between lemon myrtle
and mountain pepper in its water requirements.
Riberry is sensitive to frost but was protected to some extent by the plastic treeguards at
Jamestown. It is also sensitive to wind damage. Riberry appeared to be somewhat
intolerant of alkaline soil conditions, though less so than lemon myrtle.
The best of the sites for cultivation of riberry at this stage are Pt MacDonnell and Junee, with
Kangaroo Is., Jamestown and Mt Gambier rated as reasonable. This could be improved if
potential for frost (Jamestown) and wind (Kangaroo Is) damage can be overcome. The
hardier selections also show some promise at Lyrup.
5.8 Munthari / muntries
Munthari survival was quite variable between sites and also within sites. Rows of munthari
often contained a number of vigorous healthy plants and also a number of failures alongside
them. Quite a number of plants were lost, more so at some sites than others, yet the vigour
of surviving plants was often very good, especially for “Rivoli Bay”. This suggests that there
are problems with seedling establishment that may be caused by soil-borne fungal diseases
or soil-borne pests. We can test this by attempting to replant in the same spot to see
whether the establishment problem recurs.
If the seedling establishment problem(s) can be identified and overcome, then the munthari
can be grown over a wide range of locations. The plant seems to be quite tolerant of a range
of soil pH, and is relatively unaffected by frost. It can be susceptible to wind damage,
however. This can be seen where plants are being trained on to trellises at Kangaroo Is and
Moonta: wind damage occurs when plants reach more than about 30 cm from the ground.
The low and decreasing survival at Pt MacDonnell was probably caused by alteration of the
soil profile prior to planting. This problem might be solved by some type of soil amelioration
(e.g. addition and mixing with lighter soil or sand) prior to replanting.
At all trial sites except Lyrup, trellises have been installed to train the munthari for ease of
crop management and picking. Simple, 4- or 5-wire trellises were installed at the end of the
second summer. Plants are being trained with the aid of vineyard tying tape. Protection
from the wind will be needed in order to successfully train the plants.
M4 munthari, which came from an inland location, in the Upper South East of SA, and “Rivoli
Bay” which originated from the south east coast of SA showed some differences in survival
that might relate to their origins. For example, while survival and vigour of “Rivoli Bay” was
better than that of M4 at several sites, this situation was reversed at Lyrup, a site which is
well inland and has an alkaline soil.
Munthari have flowered and fruited at several sites. Fruit were more commonly seen on the
M4 selection at this stage. This is because the M4 seedlings were older at planting, and fruit
forms on one-year-old wood. The “Rivoli Bay” set fruit at only one site (Mt Gambier) in the
second summer. Several more trials have reported fruit set on “Rivoli Bay” in the third
summer (2003-04).
5.9 Bush tomato
Growth, flowering and fruit set of bush tomato varied considerably across field trial sites. The
ability of the plant to become locally established (i.e. perennial) through suckering in spring
and summer also varied a great deal across the sites. There was good local (perennial)
establishment only at Junee, Jamestown and Moonta and to a lesser extent at Lyrup and
Stawell. These are clearly the warmer, drier sites. At Junee the soil ripping and formation of large (50 cm)
mounds before planting could have assisted perennial establishment of the
bush tomato, by ensuring good soil drainage. These mounds may also absorb more heat in
the summer, potentially stimulating faster growth and development through to flowering and
fruiting.
The development of management strategies for bush tomato, to achieve good yields in both
the first year and in subsequent years (at locations where it becomes perennial) requires
further attention. Bush tomato is probably best treated as a vegetable crop, for production
purposes, rather than as a “perennial shrub” as we have done in these trials. A production
system comprising soil ripping (to loosen the soil at depth, for better drainage), mounding,
weed control and irrigation, with planting in spring and harvesting at the end of summer
appears to be a feasible way to produce this crop.
6. General Conclusions
Overall summary of environmental tolerance of the species tested, referring particularly to
establishment and early growth rather than yield and quality which are still to be determined:
Plants which can tolerate a “wide range” of conditions demonstrating good early growth
and survival (i.e. showed good early growth and survival at all sites) -
* Acacia victoriae
* Citrus (but avoid cold + wind)
* Lemon Aspen
Intermediate range:
* Lemon myrtle – avoid alkaline soils if wanting a quality product, needs a reliable
water supply.
* Riberry – needs reliable water (eg irrigation).
* Bush tomato - if grown as an annual crop
* Munthari – this could move up to “wide range” as long as we can identify and
control the cause of the patchy seedling establishment problem that is
sometimes severe
* Quandong - this plant needs special attention (shading and planting some time after
establishment of a host, for best early survival, possibly also requires
fungicides). If these measures can be applied successfully, this plant could be
considered as adapted to a “wide range” of conditions. Quality of planting
material will strongly affect establishment.
Restricted range:
* Mountain pepper (high water requirement because it has a shallow root system,
and very low tolerance of heat wave conditions)
* Bush tomato (if wanting a perennial crop) – does not become established in cold +
wet conditions.
This report presents the results of a trial program that was designed to test what species /
selections of native food plants grew well in different locations. Some plants appear to be
adapted to a wide range of conditions; others are specific in their requirements and therefore
have a restricted range. Several species are intermediate. There are clear differences
between selections within species.
When making decisions about what to grow in a particular location, it should be borne in
mind that conditions will vary enormously even within a narrow geographic range.
When investigating the potential for native food production in a particular area, it will be
worthwhile to consider the following:
• establishment of trial plantings, especially if a plant is taken outside its natural range.
This can be done on a quite small scale, at lower cost than has been incurred in this
project. For example, a set of six tree species could be trialled using a dozen plants
of each, in an area of approx 40 m x 40 m with trees at 4m x 4 m spacings.
• testing different selections if they are available. We have seen clear differences in
hardiness among eg riberry and mountain pepper provenances at the one site.
• sourcing improved plant material or plant material of known good quality.
• use of irrigation to aid plant establishment, growth and production. This can be done
using various kinds of drip irrigation system, or hand watering if the planting is on a
small scale. Although irrigation may not be necessary in the longer term for some
arid zone species such as Acacia victoriae, faster growth and larger yields are very
likely to be achieved by applying irrigation.
• deep ripping of the soil, and also mounding (for better soil drainage) especially in
cooler wetter regions. Mounding is likely to assist the growth and production of bush
tomato in any location.
• investigation of potential markets for produce, before attempting plantings with a
commercial goal.
In addition, we have observed that specific horticultural management is likely to be
beneficial to particular plants. Following this discussion, the information is summarized in
Table 8.
Quandong
Shading and wind protection in the early stages – eg shade cloth enclosures are likely to be
more beneficial than plastic guards. Plant the host plant ahead of time and allow it to
become established. May need to use fungicide at planting.
Acacia victoriae
Provenance does not seem to be critical, but it is likely that production will be better when
using seed from high-yielding trees. A lot of variability between plants can be expected
owing to a lack of improved material. Pruning to remove spreading limbs is recommended
for ease of later management and harvest. Staking may be needed after pruning, depending
on windiness of location. Weediness of this plant may become an issue in the future,
depending on location.
Citrus
If using grafted plants, nutrition and water regimes will most likely be related to standard
citrus production methods. Trace element application may be needed on alkaline soils.
Removal of shoots from the rootstock is a part of routine maintenance. Cold and windy
situations are more difficult.
Mountain pepper
Avoid hot, windy locations, and situations where plentiful water cannot be supplied regularly.
Test different provenances if at all possible. Not tolerant of water stress.
Riberry
Treeguards have been beneficial for establishment, especially in situations prone to frost.
Test different selections if at all possible. Somewhat tolerant of alkaline soils.
Lemon myrtle
Treeguards have been beneficial for establishment, sensitive to wind damage; avoid alkaline
soils.
Lemon aspen
Does not appear to need much in the way of special treatment in early establishment, but
pay attention to insect pests – may need to control these if damage is too severe.
Munthari / muntries
There can be establishment problems (good soil drainage is likely to improve establishment)
Severity of the problem varied with location; fungicides may be helpful but causes are at
present unknown; trellising is helpful for management and harvest, but sensitivity to wind
means that wind protection is also necessary if attempting the vertical training of this plant.
Bush tomato
Ripping and mounding (plus weed mat) are likely to be beneficial. Possibly best managed as
an annual crop (plant in mid-late spring, harvest in late summer / early autumn) unless
conditions are particularly favourable for regrowth from suckers in later years. Perennial
establishment may lead to weediness depending on location. A lot of variability between
plants can be expected owing to a lack of improved material.
Greenhouse production of some species could be investigated, to extend the range of
conditions (e.g. lemon myrtle, bush tomato). This would clearly be a more expensive option
but could be considered where there is a local requirement for fresh produce.
Conclusions and future work on production
Further research is required to assist the future production of good, consistent yields of
adequate quality in a commercially viable manner in the following areas:
• Plant improvement
• Horticultural production: watering requirements, nutrient requirements, specific
requirements for certain species
• Pest and disease control: particularly soilborne diseases of quandong, munthari,
bush tomato
Harvest methods (for some species)
TABLE 8
Species
Soilpreparation1,2 Frosttolerance2
Droughttolerance2
Windprotection2 Soil pH2,3
Test differentselections /
varieties4
Special requirementsRip Mound
Quandong
9
C / W +++ +++ .. (early) (A) N C
Shading and windprotection early; hostplant (in advance); Crosspollination
A. victoriae
9
C / W +++ +++ Afterpruning A N C not available Pruning of lower lateralbranches, then staking
Citrus
9
C / W +++ ++ C / W A N C
MountainPepper
9
C / W + 5 -.. (hotconditions) A N (C)
High water requirement;
male and female plantsfor berry productionLemon Myrtle
9
C / W + +
9
A N not tested Nutrient management on
alkaline soils?
Lemon Aspen
9
C / W ++ ++ A N C not tested Pollination / fruit set?
Riberry
9
C / W (+) (+)
9
A N (C)
Frost protection(treeguard)
Bush Tomato
9
9
notapplicable6 ++ A N C not available Good soil drainage
Munthari /
muntries
9
C / W +++ ++ .. (on trellis) A N C
Good soil drainage
1 C / W = cooler wetter areas; 2 based on observation across sites rather than experimental evidence; 3 A =
acid, N = neutral, C = calcareous
(i.e. alkaline);
4 based on clear differences in performance (establishment, growth, vigour) within and / or between sites; 5
depends on provenance
6 plant dies off in winterScale increases in order: - = none, (+) = slight, + = low, ++ = moderate, +++ = high
7. References
Ahmed, AK and Johnson KA (2000) Horticultural development of Australian native edible
plants. Australian Journal of Botany 48: 417-426.
ANPI / PIRSA Online Fact Sheets http://www.anpi.com.au/farmserv/fs_idx.htm (on-line);
http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/pages/agriculture/agfactsheets/fs_index.pdf (horticulture / fact
sheets) (on line)
Drinnan, J. and Peasley, D. (1997) Coffee in “The New Rural Industries:
A handbook for Farmers and Investors” ed. Keith Hyde, RIRDC
House, APN and Harwood, CE (eds) (1992), “Australian Dry-Zone Acacias for Human Food”.
CSIRO Division of Forestry, Australian Tree Seed Centre, Canberra.
Isbell, RF (1996) The Australian Soil Classification. Australian soil and land survey
handbook series; v. 4. 143 pp. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.
Lethbridge B and Randell B (2003) Genetic and agronomic improvement of quandong.
RIRDC Publication No 03/110
Maslin BR, Thomson LAJ, McDonald, MW and Hamilton-Brown S (1998), Edible Wattle
Seeds of Southern Australia. A Review of Species for Use in Semi-arid Regions. CSIRO
Forestry and Forest Products-Western Australia Department of Conservation and Land
Management (CALM), CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.
Sykes SR (2002) ‘Australian Outback’, ‘Australian Blood’ and ‘Australian Sunrise’ Plant
Varieties J. 15(4): 18-21.
Williams ER, Matheson AC and Harwood CE (2002) Experimental Design and Analysis for
Tree Improvement Second Edition, 220 pp, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.