Historically, our Areawide Pheromone and Sticky Trap monitoring for insects was terminated around the first of April as the produce season ended. Beginning 2 years ago however, we continued our Areawide Trapping Network throughout the summer to collect trapping data from all 16 areawide trap locations year-round.  So why is this additional trapping data useful? For several reasons. First, 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. Secondly, 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, it gives me something to do in the summer.  So, visit the Areawide Summer Trap Network if you’re curious what our key pests are up to. We also continue to monitor thrips activity during the summer. This involves plant sampling using a dislodgement sampling method (beat pan) to determine the relative abundance of thrips adults and larvae on alfalfa, cotton, melons, wheat, Sudan grass, and weeds.  This is being conducted to supplement our yellow sticky trap data that only indicates thrips adult flight movement an area. With this plant sampling we should be able to determine the primary host plants thrips are colonizing in the cropping season during the long hot summer. We are also trying to determine whether these crops allow for the reproduction of thrips. So far, all the crops and weeds we have sampled have shown that thrips will reproduce and complete their life cycle on them. This is important, particularly for weeds, as we are trying to determine whether INSV can be survive the summer in the absence of lettuce. It is also important because it allows us to determine potential exposure of thrips to key insecticides like Radiant and Lannate for resistance management purposes. These crops essentially serve as untreated refugia that likely sustains insecticide susceptibility and is the reason these products are still effective against thrips.  We will be conducting this work throughout the summer, as well as through next produce season. We will periodically provide updates of these thrips monitoring results throughout the summer.  As my dad used to say, “to solve the problem, you must first understand the problem”.

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.

 

Bindu Poudel-Ward, Martin Porchas Sr. Martin Porchas Jr. , and Neeraja Singh, Johan Murcia, Jason Furr and Rebecca Ramirez
Yuma Agricultural Center, University of Arizona, Yuma, AZ

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 29, 2023 on 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.  
 

Month	Max	Min	Avg	Rain
March	75°F	46°F	62°F	0.28
April	88°F	52°F	71°F	0.00
May	91°F	61°F	76°F	0.00
June	98°F	65°F	83°F	0.00

 
Spray treatments were done on 5-19-2023, 5-30-2023, 6-09-2023 and 6-21-23. Powdery mildew was first seen on 06/02/23. 
Disease severity of powdery mildew (caused by Sphaerotheca fuliginea and S. fusca) severity was determined 6-27-2023 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. Miravis prime rotated with Quadris Top, UA-3 experimental, Torino and Merivon gave the best control. Most treatments significantly reduced the final severity of powdery mildew compared to nontreated plants. Phytotoxicity symptoms were not noted for any treatments in this trial.  

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. 7, Apr 3, 2024
 
Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed here.
 
Corn earworm:            
CEW moth counts remain  at low levels  in all areas, well below average for this time of year. 
 
Beet armyworm:          
Trap increased areawide; about average compared to previous years.
 
Cabbage looper:           
Cabbage looper counts increased to seasonal highs; above average for this time of season.
 
Diamondback moth:       
DBM moth counts increased in most areas. About average for this time of the year.
 
Whitefly:                      
Adult movement negligible, average for late winter. 
 
Thrips:                          
Thrips adult counts increased in most areas. Below average compared with previous years.
 
Aphids:                         
Aphid movement decreased in all areas; below average for late-March.
 
Leafminers:                   
Adults remain low in most locations, average for March.