Preparations for fall melons has started and planting will be underway in a few weeks. Growers and PCAs are well aware of Cucurbit Yellow Stunting Disorder Virus (CYSDV) and the impact it has on fall melons. This whitefly transmitted crinivirus was first identified on desert melons in the 2006 where widespread infections on cantaloupes, honeydews and other melons occurred.  CYSDV can cause significant losses in melon fruit yield and quality, and without question, desert melon crops have been seriously affected by this virus. Melon IPM programs have also been impacted the virus where insecticide usage on fall melons has increased significantly.  However, in the past two fall growing seasons, whitefly populations have been lighter than normal, and CYSDV incidence on fall melons was the lowest we’ve recorded on melons since the virus as first reported in Yuma (see graphs below).  Thus far, whitefly numbers this spring and summer have been relatively light compared to previous years. Although, the incidence of CYSDV was generally light on spring melons, it was still present in some fields.  How these low numbers translate into virus incidence on the fall melon crop is unknown? Regardless, experience suggests that growers should anticipate CYSDV to be present.  Further, given the aggressive management programs that PCAs and growers are now using, it will be interesting to see how CYSDV impacts melon production this fall.

 

We have been studying the epidemiology of CYSDV for over 10 years to understand the complex relationships between the virus, vector and our local cropping system.  Our goal is to develop practical approaches for reducing CYSDV impact on fall melon production. In addition, we continue to develop new information on chemical control of the whitefly vector.  Our research to date suggests that fall melons produced near cotton or near areas where spring melons were recently produced are at the highest risk of infection. When possible, growers should attempt to isolate fall melon plantings as far away as possible from these sources of whiteflies and CYSDV. Growers forced to plant fall melons near these crops should be vigilant in minimizing adult whitefly infestation levels with insecticides during pre-bloom growth stages. Furthermore, two new insecticides, PQZ and Sefina, were registered for use on Arizona melons in 2019. Both of these compounds are feeding disruptors with a high degree of bee safety, and based on local research will provide excellent adult knockdown and CYSDV suppression when used in a management program.  To view a summary of the status of CYSDV in Yuma County and guidelines for management visit 2019 Guidelines for Whitefly and CYSDV Management on Fall Melons.  We’ll be tracking both whiteflies and CYSDV incidence again in 2019.   To learn more about PQZ and Sefina visit New Insecticide Chemistries for Desert Produce and Melon Crops.

Can you Name the PEST below?

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.

Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed here.
 
Corn earworm:            
CEW moth counts decreased considerably y in the past 2 weeks and about average for late summer
 
Beet armyworm:         
Trap counts stay active in some locations (Yuma Dome Valley and Wellton) particularly near alfalfa
 
Cabbage looper:         
Cabbage looper numbers remain low consistent previous years.
 
Diamondback moth:      
DBM moths were not caught in any trap since June; average for this time of the year.
 
Whitefly:                      
Adult movement decreased in past 2 weeks consistent with previous years
 
Thrips:                         
Thrips adults decreasing in most locations, and trending comparable to previous years.
 
Aphids:                       
Aphid movement is absent and consistent with what we typically see during the summer.
 
Leafminers:                  
Adult activity has highest in Wellton and Dome Valley, and slightly above average for early August