Now that the desert produce season is almost completed and the spring melon season is beginning, now is a good time to review the insecticide chemistries commonly used in your insect management programs. This is an important consideration as you make the transition from winter produce to alfalfa, spring melons and summer cotton where many of the same insecticide products are available in all these commodities.  Sustaining long-term insecticide efficacy that provides cost-effective crop protection requires a conscious effort on the part of PCAs and growers to use insecticides responsibly.  Over the past 35 years, Agrochemical Manufacturers have developed and brought to market over 20 new classes of chemistry that are highly effective, selective, and significantly safer than their chemical predecessors. These include the neonicotinoids, spinosyns, tetramic acid derivatives and anthranilic diamides to name a few.  Most recently, we have seen new feeding disruptor products, PQZ (pyrifluquinazon) and Versys/Sefina (afidopyropen) being applied to fall melons for virus management and in winter vegetables for aphid management. Although the development of new insecticide chemistries has been a bit slow over the past few years, we’re now seeing industry beginning to develop several new experimental insecticides for desert crops. You’ll be pleased to know that several compounds are being targeted for western flower thrips (i.e., Plinazolin). Of course, at best many of these products are a few years away from registration. But this is great news as many of the older products are slowly being phased out of the marketplace. It was just a couple of years ago that flubendiamide (Belt, Vetica) was removed from the market, chlorpyrifos (Lorsban) is now essentially gone, and EPA is currently proposing label changes to the neonicotinoids which could impact their use on many important crops. Thus, it is imperative to sustain the efficacy of the newer insecticide tools currently available and Insecticide Resistance Management (IRM) is now more important than ever. 
 
The most fundamental approach to IRM is to minimize the selection of resistance by a pest to any one type of insecticide chemistry. The key to sustaining insecticide susceptibility is to avoid exposure of successive generations of an insect pest population to the same MOA. Historically, alternating, or rotating compounds with different modes of action (MOA) each time you spray has provided sustainable and effective IRM in our desert cropping systems.  When it is comes to IRM; “rotation, rotation, rotation”. In other words, never expose a generation of insects to the same MOA more than twice.  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 information we have produced a brief publication which provides the latest local information on the modes of actions, routes of activity and pest spectrum for important insecticide chemistries used in desert produce and melon crops - see the attached  Insecticide Modes of Action on Desert Produce Crops. This classification list will provide you with an additional set of guidelines for the selection of insecticides that can be used in desert IPM programs. 

As part of the Southwest Ag Summit (SWAS) that took place in Yuma in late February, we conducted a breakout session on Thursday, 22 February 2024 titled “Colorado River Water Shortage: Agricultural Perspectives”.  
This session provided a brief review of the background, the current situation on the Colorado River, and very importantly it included an outlook on the current discussions among the basin states to negotiate a new compromise for the guidelines of use under conditions of water shortage.  These new guidelines will go into place at the end of 2026.  Both the upper and lower basin states have now submitted draft proposals to the Bureau of Reclamation (BoR) on 6 March 2024.
This breakout session at the Southwest Ag Summit provided up to date information and first-hand insight into the process.  The participants were each uniquely qualified to offer valuable perspectives on these issues.  
The participants included Elston Grubaugh, Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District, who introduced the discussion and served as program moderator.  Bart Fisher, Palo Verder Irrigation District and State of California Colorado River Water Board member, Fisher Ranch, Blythe CA, provided a California perspective with a background of extensive experience in Colorado River management over several decades.  Hank Auza, Yuma County Water User’s Association President and Yuma Ag Water Coalition representative, Barkley Co. of Arizona, Yuma AZ, provided an Arizona perspective.  
Elston has extensive experience working in irrigation districts on both the California and Arizona sides of the Colorado River.  He has a valuable perspective, and he plays an important role in the management of Colorado River water in the Yuma area.  We are fortunate to have Elston provide his direction for this program and offer his point of view.
Both Bart and Hank are directly involved in the ongoing reconsultation negotiations directed at developing the new Colorado River management guidelines that will go into place in 2026.  Both are part of their state's delegation in the current negotiations and represent the lower basin.  Bart and Hank are not only responsible for representing California and Arizona, but they are both active farmers in the Palo Verde Valley and Yuma area valleys, and they bring valuable perspectives to the discussions.
The goal of negotiations among the seven U.S. Colorado River basin states has been to submit a single document proposing guidelines to the BoR.  However, as was discussed at this program at the SWAS, the upper and lower basin state groups have been dealing with significant differences and were not able to come to a consensus agreement.  As a result, the upper and lower basin delegations each submitted separate proposals to the BoR in early March.
There is still a chance that both the upper and lower basin state groups can reach a common agreement for a unified proposal.  In the meantime, both proposals are under review by the BoR. Officials with the BoR have indicated that they will be working with the basin states in the next six months to develop a consensus draft proposal for post-2026 river management by the end of 2024.
Further details on the two proposals submitted on 6 March 2024 by the upper and lower basin groups and contrasting the two will be forthcoming in a future article.
For the excellent program that was provided at the 2024 SWAS, I want to thank Elston, Bart, and Hank for their outstanding presentations.  Each of the participants in this program brought a wealth of knowledge and experience to the discussion.  
Specifically for Bart and Hank, we are all indebted to them for their contributions and hard work while serving on the lower basin state delegations during these critical and challenging negotiations.  Their firsthand perspectives and contributions to this program are very much appreciated.

This study was conducted at the Yuma Valley Agricultural Center. The soil was a silty clay loam (7-56-37 sand-silt-clay, pH 7.2, O.M. 0.7%). Variety: Deluxe (HMX2595) was seeded, then sprinkler-irrigated to germinate seed on March 20, 2024on 84 inches between bed centers. All other water was supplied by furrow irrigation or rainfall. Treatments were replicated five times in a randomized complete block design. Each replicate plot consisted of 25 ft of bed. Treatment beds were separated by single nontreated beds. Treatments were applied with a tractor-mounted boom sprayer that delivered 50 gal/acre at 100 psi to flat-fan nozzles spaced 12 in apart. 

Spray treatments were done on 05-21-2024, 05-31-2024, 06-07-2024 and 06-14-24. Powdery mildew was first seen on 06-05-24. Please see excel file for additional details.  

Disease severity of powdery mildew (caused by Sphaerotheca fuliginea and S. fusca) severity was determined 6-17-2024 by rating 10 plants within each of the four replicate plots per treatment using the following rating system: 0 = no powdery mildew present; 1 = one to two mildew colonies on leaves  ;2 = powdery mildew present on one quarter of leaves; 3 = powdery mildew present on half of the leaves; 4 = powdery mildew present on more than half of leaf surface area ; 5 = powdery mildew present on entire leaf. These ratings were transformed to percentage of leaves infected values before being statistically analyzed.

The data in the table illustrate the degree of disease control obtained by application of the various treatments in this trial. Most treatments significantly reduced the final severity of powdery mildew compared to nontreated plants. Quintec, Merivon, Tesaris, Luna Sensation, and V6M-5-14 V gave the best disease control. Phytotoxicity symptoms were not noted for any treatments in this trial.

ANR Webinar 10/17 click link for details.

Our newly constructed self-propelled steam applicator is designed to inject steam into the soil and raise soil temperatures to levels sufficient to kill weed seed and soilborne pathogens (140°F for > 20 minutes). After the soil cools (< ½ day), the crop is planted into the disinfested soil. We have done some preliminary testing and are very encouraged. Results show that the machine is able to reach target temperatures at reasonable travel speeds, provide uniform temperature distribution across the bed and form nicely shaped beds suitable for subsequent planting. We still have some bugs to work out and identified improvements to make before shipping the unit to Salinas, CA where we will conduct field trials with crops this summer. If you are interested in seeing the machine operate or more information about soil steaming for soilborne pest control, please feel free to contact me.
Check out a video of the machine operating by clicking here or on the image below.

Fig. 1. Initial testing of self-propelled steam applicator video.

Acknowledgements
This project is sponsored and funded in part by the Propane Education and Research Council (PERC), Arizona Specialty Crop Block Grant Program and USDA-NIFA. We greatly appreciate their support.

We did some trials at the University of Arizona Yuma Agricultural Center in broccoli to evaluate and compare Napropamide (Devrinol) liquid formulation 2XT versus the Dry formulation DF-XT. 
This product inhibits the production of fatty acids in plants, which is crucial for plant development. It affects primarily the meristematic cells which are in growing points of the stems and roots. We saw activity especially on seedling development that we show in some pictures at the end of the article. 
Some growers expressed their concern on the safety of different levels of incorporation with sprinkler irrigation. Therefore, we established a test in which we applied the product as a broadcast application after planting. Then we used different levels of incorporation in some sections using 12, 24 and 36 hours of sprinkler irrigation. No difference was observed with the incorporation level in our trial. We observed temporary phytotoxicity from 4-10%. The data was obtained from visual evaluations. Also, a 0.5 to 1” height reduction was exhibited when compared to untreated plots. 
It is common that growers and PCAs make management decisions on herbicide applications in different crops knowing that some injury is expected. Such is the case for alfalfa, wheat, spinach, lettuce and in this case broccoli. Frequently slight stunting it is not noticed because commercial fields don’t have untreated areas for comparison.
We talked to PCA’s and growers at the SW Ag Summit and asked for their experience with napropamide this past season. Some noticed the broccoli exhibited similar levels of phyto, which they considered economically tolerable. 
We noticed that good soil prep was important for before the application of the product and avoiding direct contact of the seed with the product for best results.
On weed control we noticed good activity on nettleleaf goosefoot and lambsquarter. 
At the 45day we collected data counting SMALL and LARGE weeds and at the 60 day evaluation we noticed most of the SMALL goosefoot and lambsquarter in the high rate of napropamide plots stayed small (pic. below).

 Area wide Insect Trapping Network   VegIPM Update, Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan 11, 2023
 
Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed here.
 
Corn earworm:             
CEW moth counts are down areawide average for this time of year. 
 
Beet armyworm:         
Trap counts increased in most ll locations; about average compared to previous years.
 
Cabbage looper:           
Cabbage looper counts increased in most traps and about  average for this time of season.
 
Diamondback moth:      
DBM moths continue to increase in all areas. About average for this time of the year.
 
Whitefly:                       
Adult movement light and is typical for this time of year. 
 
Thrips:                          
Thrips adult counts beginning to slowly increase in the past 2 weeks. Currently, below average compared with previous years.
 
Aphids:                        
Aphid movement increased significantly in North Yuma and Gila Valleys consistent with winds and storms. About average for early January.
 
Leafminers:                   
Adult activity up in many locations, and above average for January.