Historically, our Areawide Pheromone and Sticky Trap monitoring for insects was terminated around the first of April as the produce season ended. Beginning 4 years ago however, we continued our Areawide Trapping Network throughout the summer to collect trapping data from all 15 areawide trap locations year-round.  So why is this additional trapping data useful? For several reasons: 

1) Understanding the activity of some of our key pests when produce is not grown during the summer may give us an indication of what to expect as the fall produce season begins. This may be particularly helpful for predicting moth flights and whitefly flights in August-September coinciding with early transplanting and direct seeded crops.  Another example is keeping track of corn earworm which can unexpectedly show up near the beginning of fall harvests. 
 
2) Trapping for pests during the summer has shown us that 2 of our more important produce pests are not caught in traps during the summer. We presume this is due to the absence of brassica crops and weeds for diamondback moth, and high daytime/nighttime temperatures lethal to aphids. The fact that trap catches resume in the fall supports our conclusion that these pests are absent in the summer, only to reenter the desert via winds and/or transplants in the fall. And finally, 

3) It gives me something to do in the summer other than write reports and papers. 
So, visit the Areawide Summer Trap Network if you’re curious what our key pests are up to.

The drought-related pressures on the Colorado River system that have been impacting the entire basin and region for 23 years have slackened briefly due to the wet winter in 2023 that included a good snowpack in the mountains, better rainfall throughout the basin, and improved flows into the river.  The current water level at Lake Mead on Hoover Dam is 1,068.25 ft. above sea level on 3 January 2024.  That level is 160.75 ft below full pool of 1,229.00 ft. (Figure 1).

 

In mid-December 2023 representatives from each of the seven Colorado River Basin states met in Las Vegas, NV during the annual Colorado River Water Users Association conference.  The focus of current discussions among the basin states is 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.  The immediate goal is to draft proposals by March 2024.
 
The negotiations are incentivized by having the opportunity for the post-2026 guidelines being developed by the basin states themselves as opposed to litigation or legislation.  A major concern driving this process among the basin states that basin state representatives should be able to do this better than turning the process over to people and entities that have less direct familiarity with the situation and no real “skin” in the game.  
 
The 1963 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in of the Arizona v California case directed the federal authority on the management of the Colorado River to the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation (BoR).  However, the basin states have the chance to negotiate their future management plans on the Colorado River.  If they fail to do so in the allotted time, the process will be managed by the federal government.  
 
The basic water budget challenge is based on the following basic statistics:
 

• The current water budget on Colorado River allocations is 16.5 million acre-feet (maf)/year.
• Average annual flow on the Colorado River from 1906-2017 was 14.8maf/year.
• The average annual flow between the years 2000 - 2018 has been approximately 12.4maf/year.
• That is 16% lower than the 20^th century average flow.
• It is estimated that 1.5 maf/year is lost due to evaporation and system loss.
• Thus, the 4 maf/year target reduction that has been identified by the BoR is basically the difference between the 16.5 maf/year allocated versus the 12.4 maf/year average flow in the first two decades of this century.

 
Some notable progress is being made for conservation of Colorado River water with agreements among lower basin states and tribes that will conserve more than 1.5maf/year through 2026.  For example, California water agencies have recently agreed to conserve up to 643,000 acre-feet/year through 2025.  The Quechan Indian Tribe has reached an agreement with federal water managers to save up to 39,000 acre-feet/year through 2025.  Arizona has agreed to conserve up to 348.00 acre-feet/year through 2026.  All these temporary agreements are being supported with federal funding.
 
With agriculture responsible for 70% of the diversions on the Colorado River, these negotiations are extremely important for the future of agriculture in this region and our capacity to support high population densities that are now common and rapidly growing.
 
These types of negotiations are certainly challenging in dealing with a limited water supply and a lot of demand.  There are many competing interests involved.  Yet, we are confident that the representatives we have will be able to work this out and come to a set of functional agreements.

Plant viruses cannot penetrate the intact plant cuticle and cellulose cell wall that acts as barrier to infection. The virus overcomes the problem by either avoiding the need to penetrate (example seed transmission) or by using the wound in plants as infection site, or transmission by insects, nematodes or fungi as a vector.  
 
Mechanical transmission involves the introduction of infective virus or viral RNA into the wounds of plants. Viruses such as Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV), Potato virus X are highly stable, and reach high concentration in plants.  As you all know TMV can readily contaminate hands, clothings, and implements and can be spread by worker. TMV can even spread mechanically by tobacco smokers as the virus is present in cured tobacco leaves. 
Mechanical transmission is of great importance.  In field and greenhouse, great amount of caution has to be implemented to not transmit the infection. Field sanitation, tool sanitation is very important to avoid the spread of virus. 
However, in experimental world mechanical transmission is a very useful tool to study viruses. Mechanical inoculation of virus to a heathy host plant is done for assays, to produce local lesions, in the propagation to of viruses for purification, in host range study, diagnosis, and to understand the interaction between virus and susceptible cells. 
 
 
Seed transmission:  About 1/7 th of the known plant viruses are transmitted through seeds. Different viruses have different host ranges (the plants that they can infect). Tobacco mosaic virus, Cucumber mosaic virus are some viruses with a very wide host range and they may not be seed transmissible in all plants they infect. Seed transmission plays a huge role in virus epidemiology. Not only they can be a primary source of infection, leading to an epidemic in the field upon conducible environment, seed transmission is an effective way for long distance travel of the virus, thus introducing the virus to new places. You have heard of USDA regulations/restrictions on different crops, from certain foreign countries to avoid introduction of infected seeds/plant materials. 
 
Seed transmission can occur simply by contamination of seeds, as in tomato seeds by Tobacco mosaic virus. This can be readily inactivated by seed treatments. 
The second type of seed transmission occurs when the virus is present in the embryo tissue that can happen prior to fertilization or takes place at pollination. Pea seed-borne mosaic virus is a well studied plant virus in this category. 
 
 
Pollen Transmisison:  Some viruses are transmitted from plant to plant via pollen. As in seed transmission, pollen transmission has two mechanisms, gametic infection of embryo and direct infection of mother plant. 
 
Vegetative propagation: An important horticultural practice, and unfortunately a very effective method for perpetuating and spreading viruses. In clonally propagated plants, an infected mother plant which could be asymptomatic could be used to make hundreds and thousands of daughter plants, which will all have the virus. Any vegetative parts  such as bulbs, corms, runners, and cutting will be infected. 
 
Grafting: Essentially a form of vegetative propagation, once the organic union has been established and plants (Scion and Stock) function as a single plant. In experimental front, grafting is used as a virus transmission methods, when all other methods fail.

Time flies. February is right around the corner and that means it is farm equipment/ag trade show season. Upcoming regional events include the World Ag Expo, Tulare, CA, February 13-15, the Southwest Ag Summit, Yuma, AZ, February 20-22, and AgroBaja, Mexicali, Mexico, March 7-10.  If you are interested in the latest ag tech and farm machinery, all are outstanding events and well worth attending. For more information, click on the links below.

Fig. 1. Upcoming farm equipment/ag trade show events: World Ag Expo, Tulare,
CA, February 13-15, 2024 theSouthwest Ag Summit, Yuma, AZ, February 20-
22,2024 and AgroBaja, Mexicali, Mexico, March 7-10, 2024.

Before making decisions for weed control it’s imperative to have a proper identification of the plant species. There are two names for plants:
The common name, which is a name that people come up with in a certain region to describe a particular weed and it varies by region and therefore can be confusing. Then we have an exact scientific name for each species that is based in the binomial nomenclature system started by Carl Linnaeus in 1753. This binomial (or two term) system includes the genus and the species, which is used worldwide¹.
 
Some very close species from the same family can be controlled by the same product but occasionally their herbicidal susceptibility varies. Such is the case of Chenopodium murale (goosefoot) and Chenopodium album (lambsquarter) two very close and similar species. A product like Pursuit (Imazethapyr) has good activity on goosefoot but can’t control lambsquarters. With accurate identification in a mixed population, you would be able to determine what strategy to use or select the herbicide that would control both species. 
 
There are about 75 weeds most common in Arizona and are included in the PCA² study guide, but many other species could be introduced to the State and complicate our crop production systems. Two great tools for weed identification are the books “An Illustrated Guide to Arizona Weeds” that lists 172 species, and “Weeds of California and Other Western States” which has at least one photograph of 735 weeds.
Another weed identification tool is the book “Weeds of the West”.
Additionally, there are many phone applications that can be used as identification tools such as “id weeds”, “PlantNet”, “PictureThis”, “iNaturalist”, “Seek”, “PlantSnap” and “LeafSnap”. When we have problems with weed ID we contact the UA herbarium.
Thank you for sending samples for Weed ID to the IPM Team it is always a learning experience.

Area wide Insect Trapping Network   VegIPM Update, Vol. 14, No. 14, Jul 12, 2023
 
Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed here.
 
Corn earworm:           
CEW moth counts decreased in the past 2 weeks and about average for this time of summer.
 
Beet armyworm:         
Trap counts stay active in some locations (Yuma Valley and Wellton) but about average for July.
 
Cabbage looper:          
Cabbage looper numbers remain low consistent with the lack of activity this fall compared to last season.
 
Diamondback moth:       
DBM moths were not caught in any trap in the past 2 weeks; average for this time of the year.
 
Whitefly:                       
Adult movement continuing to increase, particularly in Gila and Yuma Valleys consistent with melon harvest.
 
Thrips:                           
Thrips adults decreasing in most locations, and trending comparable to previous years.
 
Aphids:                        
Aphid movement is absent consistent with what we typically see in the summer. 
 
Leafminers:                  
Adult activity has highest in Yuma and Dome Valley, and above average for early July.