Ecosystem services are the natural processes responsible for clean air, clean water, healthy uncontaminated food and a host of other environmental goods that we take for granted. Natural control of pests on farms, the maintenance of biologically active and productive soils, water filtration, the breakdown of wastes and pollutants, provision of shade and shelter, and pollination are some of the services that we all depend on to a lesser or greater extent, but probably give little thought to. Ecosystem services can be damaged through ignorance and mismanagement or simply because there are no markets in which to trade particular services or their products. The concept of ecosystem services is broad and a new field of research endeavour in natural resource management. Research in ecosystem services potentially offers quantitative ecological, economic and social information (the 'triple-bottom line')to aid decision makers and is a useful framework for establishing equitable and transparent resource management policy at state, regional and local scales. There may be trade-offs between ecological and economic goals, and we are attempting to quantify those trade-offs using bio-economic models.

No clear signal for either wet or dry precipitation for the April-June period Most models showing a trend towards average temperatures through the April-June period

As anyone who has tried to kill cotton will know, controlling unwanted plants goes from being difficult with small plants, to almost impossible with larger plants. However it is a skill all cotton growers need to know.

The world's first case of glyphosate-resistant sowthistle has been found at Gunnedah in the Upper Namoi, providing a start reminder to growers that vigilance is needed in integrated weed control.

Dryland salinity is on the increase in the upper catchments of the central and northern river valleys of New South Wales (Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council- MDBC, 1999). Tile consequence of this is increased salinity in river water. This could adversely affect irrigated schemes downstream: as irrigation with moderate to highly saline water can lead to increased salinity in the root-zone, if there is insufficient leaching. In order to determine the potential impact and long-term sustainability of irrigated production we need to know the spatial distribution of soil and effects of water quality changes. Important also is the soil-water balance, which needs to be modelled in order to provide estimates of potential salinity accumulation and deep drainage as affected by the current quality of irrigation water. Worst-case scenarios can be applicable in this case.

These end of season resistance management tactics are key components of the Bollgard II resistance management plan (RMP). The success of the Bollgard II RMP in managing resistance is due to the implementation of these tactics, along with the other key components of the RMP such as the use of mandatory refuges.

Many Australian cotton growers sow rotation crops after irrigated cotton assuming that they will improve soil quality, reduce pest and disease incidence, and maintain profitability of cotton. Commonly used rotation crops include wheat, faba bean and field pea (Cooper, 1999). Research suggests, however, that in cracking clay soils, wheat may be a better rotation crop than legumes such as field pea and faba bean due to several factors; viz. wheat results in better soil structure, is more tolerant of moderate salinity and high sodicity, facilitates recycling of Ieached N and is not an alternative host for black root rot of cotton (Hulugalle et al. 1999, 2001, 2002). Consequently sowing wheat after cotton results in greater long-term profitability than sowing legumes (Hulugalle et al. 1999, 2001, 2002). With respect to soil N, short-term studies suggest that legumes sown after cotton can greatly increase root zone soil N (Rochester et al, 1998). Over a long-term, however, differences in soil N between legumes and wheat are less dramatic due to recycling of leached N by the latter (Hulugalle et al, 1999, 2001).

Stinkbugs have recently re-emerged as an important late season sucking pest complex of cotton in Australia. The 'stinkbug' complex includes green vegetable bug (GVB), Nezara viridula (Linnaeus), green stink bug (GSB), Plautia affinis (Dallas), red banded shield bug (RBSB), Piezodorus hybneri (Gmelin), brown stink bug (BSB), Dictyotus caenosus (Westwood), harlequin bug (HRLQB), Tectocoris diophalmus (Thunberg) and cotton stainer bug (CSB), Dysdercus sidae (Montrouzier). In conventional cotton use of broad-spectrum insecticides to manage Helicoverpa spp. effectively controlled the stinkbugs, but with the introduction of single gene transgenic cotton (INGARD) the use of broad-spectrum insecticides to control Helicoverpa spp. has been reduced (Fitt 2000). Further reductions in insecticides is expected with the release of two-gene transgenic cotton and increased uptake of IPM which may allow the stinkbug problem to develop further. Over this past cotton season, chemical sprays were required against GVB in different valleys including the South Burnett and Macquarie. GVB is also a problem in USA cotton and has been studied thoroughly (Barbour et al. 1990, Lee et al 1999, Bundy and McPherson 2000, Bacheler and Mott 2000, Greene et al. 2001). In Australian cotton, the potential of GVB and other stinkbugs to damage crops has not been investigated thoroughly until the initiation of this project. In this paper we present an account of some Australian research on stinkbug damage and sampling and propose action thresholds for the bugs.

WEEDpak - A guide for integrated management of weeds in cotton . This weed guide has been updated at intervals since its release - Two chapter -on Herbicide Damage of cotton is and weed ID provided as a seperate document due to size constraints. and ease of use. This document was originally created in 2002 and has been maintained and added to in the light of new research in the life of the Cotton Catchmemt Communities CRC to 2012

At various times, strong interest develops within the industry for early crop maturity. Earliness can allow the manager to harvest the crop in a more timely manner and thus reduce the risk of quality downgrades due to weather damage. It can also mean a saving on water and late season spray costs if the period for which protection is required can be reduced. In this paper we will bring together some pieces of ongoing research which are dealing with aspects of the timing of crop maturity. In this article we use the term earliness to describe the time taken from sowing to crop maturity, defined as 60% of the boils open. Thus, a crop which is sown ten days later than a normal crop but harvested only five days later, has greater earliness because the growth period is reduced.