The winter vegetable season is finally winding down a bit and the spring melon season is getting underway, and now is an important time to review the insecticide chemistries that you may have used this winter/spring on produce crops and those that you may consider using on melons. Sustaining long-term insecticide efficacy that annually provides cost-effective crop protection requires a conscious effort on the part of PCAs and growers to prevent insecticide resistance. Since the early 1990’s, the Agrochemical Industry has been actively developing and bringing to the vegetable/melon market an unprecedented number of new chemistries that are highly effective, selective and significantly safer than their chemical predecessors. These include the neonicotinoids, spinosyns, tetramic acid derivatives and diamides to name a few. In the last few years, new chemistries have been added including the sulfoxamines (Sequoia, Transform), butenolides (Sivanto) and a METI inhibitor (Torac). The development of new insecticide chemistries has slowed a bit and older chemistries are continually being phased out of the marketplace. It was only a few years ago that endosulfan was removed from the market, and EPA is presently proposing a total ban of chlorpyrifos for agricultural uses. Thus, it is imperative to sustain the efficacy of the newer IPM tools currently available. Consequently, insecticide resistance management (IRM) is now more important than ever. The most fundamental approach to IRM is to minimize the selection of resistance to any one type of insecticide chemistry. Historically, alternating or rotating compounds with different modes of action (MOA) has provided sustainable and effective IRM in our desert cropping systems. The Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC), a coordinated crop protection industry group, was formed to develop guidelines to delay or prevent resistance. Using their most recent IRAC MOA Classification Brochure we have updated a brief publication which provides Insecticide Modes of Action on Desert Vegetables. This publication also provides general information on the route of activity and pest spectrum for each chemistry. These classification lists will provide you with an additional set of guidelines for the selection of insecticides that can be used in desert IPM programs. You should note that Beleaf (flonicamid) has now been placed in a separate MOA category (group 29); whereas in the past it was in group 9B along with Fulfill (pymetrozine). Now these two products, with unique MOAs and similar pest spectrum, can be rotated in an effort to prevent insecticide resistance.

Viruses vectored by insects 
 
We are on the final section of virus transmission. Virus transmission by insects is one of the most efficient and economically important transmission in agriculture. When you have insects in your crops, not only you are losing your crops because of feeding/chewing by insects, a lot of insects also act as a vector of plant viruses. 
 
Seven out of 29 orders of insect feeding on living green land plants are vectors of plant viruses. 
Insect transmit viruses in 4 distinct modes: 
 

1. Non persistent transmission: The insects can acquire the virus in a matter if seconds/minutes and they are immediately viruliferous. The virus in retained in the stylet of the insect and are transmitted to the next plant the insect feeds on. The virus is retained in the vector only for few minutes and is lost after insect molting. Most viruses transmitted by aphids are non persistent. So when you see few aphids in your melon field and see cucumber mosaic virus symptoms 1-2 weeks later in your field, don’t be surprised. Aphids are efficient vectors, and since viruses are systemic it takes anywhere from few days to 2-3 weeks for the plants to show symptoms. Thus it is very important to manage insects in the field even if you don’t think the ‘pressure’ is not as high. 

Viruses transmitted in non-persistent manner:
 Papaya ringspot virus 
Zucchini yellow mosaic virus 
Watermelon mosaic virus

1. Semi-persistent transmission: The insects can acquire the virus in minutes/hours and there is no latent (incubation) period in the insect. The virus can stay in the insects foregut for hours and is lost after insect molting. Some species of aphids and whiteflies fall in this category.  Example: Cucurbit yellow stunting disorder virus in melons transmitted by whiteflies. 

1. Persistent circulative: Insects have to feed on virus infected plants for hours/days to acquire the virus and the virus has to incubate for hours/days in the insect. After insect can transmit the virus for weeks. Virus can be present in the vectors hemolymph but there is no multiplication of virus in the insect body. Vectors in this transmission includes: Aphids, leafhopper, whiteflies, treehopper. 

Example: Beet curly top virus transmission by beet leafhopper 
 

1. Persistent propagative:  Insects have to feed on virus infected plants for hours/days to acquire the virus and the virus has to incubate for hours/days in the insect. After insect can transmit the virus throughout its lifespan. The virus can multiply in the vector system and often times the virus particles are also passed on to the insect offspring. Tomato spotted wilt virus is transmitted on persistent propagative manner by 9 different species on thrips. 

 

Save the Date : 2024 Plant Pathology Workshop 
When: August 29^th 8AM-12 PM ( breakfast and Lunch provided by Gowan Company and BASF) 
Where: Yuma Ag Center, 6425 W 8^th Street 
What will covered: Plant Pathology program Updates, past season field trial results (we
have some exciting results to share), Q&A to help better Plant pathology program,
Industry panel discussion for all your industry related questions! See you in few weeks! 

Stay tuned for more on this highly effective technique for controlling soilborne pathogens and in-row weeds. Traditionally the entire soil bed profile is treated which is energy intensive... cost prohibitive?...Check out video below:

The volatility of herbicides, or the change from a solid or liquid to a gas, is dependent on several environmental factors and is extremely variable. We have been working on finding a replacement for Glyphosate for non-crop weed control and have tried to determine the stability of the potential  herbicide alternatives. There are various methods used to measure herbicide volatility. All herbicides are initially tested in the laboratory to determine volatility and other properties. Volatility is specifically measured by placing a given volume of herbicide in a container, exposing it to various temperatures and humidity’s and then weighing how much is left. This is done under very controlled conditions. Another technique that is often the next step is to conduct bioassay studies in a greenhouse. This usually involves placing a container with the herbicide spray solution in a closed environment with sensitive plants. Injury to the bioassay plants are measured visually or by some other means.  Field Studies are often conducted to measure herbicide volatility. This technique is the most applied, but the results are often imprecise and variable depending on environmental conditions. This commonly involves spraying an isolated area in the field and after the spray has settled placing sensitive plants at variable distances and directions away. Injury is observed or measured at variable time periods. We used this technique on June 10 to June 15 this year at the Yuma Valley Agriculture Center to measure volatility of 13 herbicides we are evaluating as alternatives to Glyphosate. Seven X 10 Ft. plots were sprayed, and tomato plants were placed 25Ft. away from each sprayed area on the north, south, east and west corners 1 hours after application A 50 Ft. buffer separated each sprayed plot. Visual injury was measured to the tomato plants at 24 and 48 hours after they were placed in the field. The 13 herbicides were used in this trial included 5 modes of action and are listed below.

The temperature reached above 100 F, the humidity was 10 to 20% and wind was 5 to 10 MPH during the trial. No injury symptoms were observed to any of the tomato plants from any of the herbicide treatments. The trial included low volatility formulations of the plant growth regulators, 2-4-D (Embed) and Dicamba (Enginia) which are often volatile under these hot and dry conditions. Neither of these two, or any of the other included herbicides, moved 25 ft or more in this one trial. We know, however, that in other trials the results have sometimes been different. Volatility is variable and difficult to measure in field trials.

Area wide Insect Trapping Network   VegIPM Update, Vol. 15, No. 19, Sep 18,2024
 
Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed here.
 
Corn earworm:           
CEW moth counts low in most traps; below average for this early produce season. 
 
Beet armyworm:         
Trap counts high in Tacna and Wellton, and about average for early September
 
Cabbage looper:           
Cabbage looper trap counts low in all locations, typical for early September.
 
Diamondback moth:    
Adult activity not picked up in traps yet.  Overall, typical of early September with minimal Monsson activity.
 
Whitefly:                      
Adult movement most active in Dome Valley and S. Yuma Valley; overall below average for early September
 
Thrips:                          
hrips adult movement beginning to increase in Tacna and dome; overall activity typical for early September. 
 
Aphids:                         
Aphid movement absent so far; anticipate activity to pick up when winds beginning blowing from N-NW. 
 
Leafminers:                 
Adult activity light in all areas, about average for this time of season.