We mentioned last month that Bagrada bugs were starting to show up in light numbers at the Yuma Ag Center (YAC) and on both transplanted and direct seeded crops throughout the Yuma area.  It was suggested that PCAs keep their eyes peeled for damage and adults on seedling Cole crops. Obviously, they have; numerous reports in the past 2 weeks indicate that Bagrada have been invading young seedlings throughout the area.  Much of the pressure appears to be in Bard and Dome Valley but reports of their presence have come in from throughout Yuma County.  We’ve also had numerous reports of Bagrada in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys.   In most cases, PCAs have noted that adult pressure was high enough to justify spray treatments.  Remember, it doesn’t take much damage to result in significant yield losses.  Our research has shown that yield/quality losses in broccoli, cauliflower and other cole crops occur when feeding damage exceeds 5% of seedling plants in fields.  In my estimation, bagrada bugs have been numerous enough this fall in many local growing locations to cause yield loss if not controlled, including the Yuma Ag Center (north Yuma Valley).  To put into perceptive Bragada’s presence relative to previous years, the chart below illustrates Bagrada abundance on untreated broccoli at YAC.  The data clearly shows that Bagrada are trending upward so far this fall in much higher numbers than what we’ve seen in the past 5 years.  In fact, we’ve had enough bagrada pressure to conduct efficacy trial, which is something that I haven’t done since 2015.  The fact they are rapidly moving into direct-seeded crops further suggests that the populations successfully over-summered in the area, presumably on cotton, alfalfa, grass crops and desert vegetation.  This is not surprising given the wet spring which likely enhanced their survival.  More information on bagrada bug management on can be found in:    Bagrada Bug Management Tips for the Low Desert 2019. 
 
 Note: based on research from recent and previous bagrada efficacy trials your best options for residual control of bagrada are two-fold.  Pyrethroids such as bifenthrin (e.g., Brigade, Bifenture, Sniper) or lambda-cyhalothrin (e.g., Warrior II, Lambda-Cy) should provide about 4-5 days of residual control. Neonicotinoid combinations such as Endigo ZC (thiamethoxam+Lambda-cyhalothrin) and Scorpion/Venom (dinotefuran)+bifenthrin are showing extended residual (~7 days).  Finally, remain vigilant; bagrada will likely be abundant for the next 2-3 weeks assuming normal our weather.  As George Herman Ruth Jr once quipped “It's hard to beat a person who never gives up.”  And who can forget the other great Yankee, “It ain’t over till it’s over”.  

Name That Pest:

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.

Late blight of celery is caused by fungi Septoria spp. The disease is named late blight as it is mostly seen at the later in the growing season but don’t be surprised if you see the symptoms in early season when the weather is conducive. With the rain and fog we had this week, it is possible that we get this disease in celery this growing season. Leaf spots are dark, circular to irregular in shape, and 3-10 mm in diameter. Dark colored fruiting bodies (pycnidia) of the fungus which form in the center of leaf spots give the spots a grainy appearance. In case of severe infection, large number of spots are formed and can significantly reduce yield. Sometimes, angular spots are seen as the symptoms are restricted by leaf venation. The stalk or petiole of the plants can also be infected and large number of pycnidia observed in the stalk. Pycnidia is basically huge amounts of asexual spores in dark fruiting bodies and are formed on the older lesions and their development is encouraged by moist weather.

The pathogen is seed borne but will survive in soil in decomposing celery tissue for months. Cool and wet weathers favor the disease. Temperatures below  75 F are conducive to disease formation. High humidity allows abundant production of spores and epidemics are initiated by splashing spores or by movement of spores by contact. Rain, heavy dew or fog, and sprinkler irrigation when temperatures are above 70°F encourage disease development; splashing water disperses spores and aids in spore germination and infection

 Acquiring clean seeds is the best management practice for the disease. Hot water treatments are effective but might interfere the germination percentage. Clean cultivation, not planting new crop next to the infected crop field, crop rotation, and fungicides can be used to manage the disease.  Avoid sprinkle irrigation after symptoms are observed. Copper sprays can be used in organic farming. 

 

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. 15, No. 20, Oct 2, 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 decreasing in most areas, and below average for late September
 
Cabbage looper:          
Cabbage looper trap counts low in all locations, typical for mid-late September.
 
Diamondback moth:   
Adult activity beginning to pick up in Dome Valley.  Overall, typical of late September with minimal monsson activity.
 
Whitefly:                       
Adult movement most active in Dome Valley; overall below average for mid September
 
Thrips:                          
Thrips adult movement light; overall activity typical for 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.