Over the past few weeks, there have been anecdotal reports suggesting that lettuce plants with INSV-like symptoms were showing up in the field.  Then last week, we received symptomatic plant samples from two different fields that confirmed the presence of Impatiens Necrotic Spot Virus (INSV).  Plant tissue collected from the symptomatic romaine plants tested positive for INSV using both Immunostrips and ELISA assays.   In each case, the plants were found in transplanted romaine lettuce fields.  So far the incidence of INSV symptomatic plants in fields is very low; almost non-detectable. Nonetheless, the thrips transmitted virus has returned to desert lettuce.  We suspect that these infected plants were either infected before they arrived in the desert, or later from infected adult thrips arriving with transplants. This hypothesis is supported by research conducted by our local team of UA scientists at the Yuma Ag Center (Bindu Poudel-Ward, Stephanie Slinski, Marco Pena, Samuel Discua-Duarte and myself) who are studying INSV epidemiology  and thrips ecology in weeds, lettuce, and alternate crops hosts.  To date, research has shown that INSV has not been detected in over 1600 weed samples collected since September from areas where INSV was present last spring. Furthermore, all thrips collected from weeds have also tested negative for the virus. This strongly indicates that INSV did not bridge the lettuce-free period between last spring and this season in our cropping landscape.

So keep a close lookout for INSV symptomatic plants in your fields as the season continues. In my experience most infected plants that test positive (+) for INSV have the following general symptoms:  

1. Have necrotic spotting or lesions on leaves that resembles chemical burn.This can look like chemical spotting or pooling resulting from a pesticide spray, or look like “cultivator blight”   -  a leak from a hydraulic or fertilizer hose.                                                                                               
2. Necrotic symptoms can be found on young and old growth.
3. Infected plants are generally smaller or stunted compared with the healthy, non-affected plants around it.  

But symptoms can be decieving. It is very important that plants be tested as soon as possible when INSV infection is suspected.  For example, the first two images below show symptoms observed on INSV infected (+) plants collected this season in Yuma. Note that the symptoms resemble chemical burns.  But, we’ve also been fooled a couple of times this season when we suspected plants were infected with INSV based on symptoms only to find the plants were INSV negative (+) following an ELISA assay.  There are rapid Immunostrip kits commercially available that allow you to quickly test in the field, and feel free to bring symptomatic plants into our labs here at the Ag Center for confirmation. 
Last but not least, western flower thrips numbers have steadily been increasing on older lettuce plants based on our weekly lettuce samples conducted throughout the area.  Keep in mind, even with the cooler weather ahead,  thrips won’t disappear in the winter.  They don’t move much and reproduce and develop at a slower rate.  However, the fewer thrips that develop during the winter means fewer that will likely be around to infest lettuce when temperatures warm up again in late January. So stay vigilant with your thrips management particularly now that fields are being harvested throughout the area. It is important that growers rapidly disk fields under as soon as practical following harvest to minimize movment of adult thrips to adjascent fields and weeds.  For more information on thrips management in desert lettuce go to:   Rethinking Thrips Management in Desert Lettuce.

Small romaine plant that tested (+) positive for INSV:   Note symptoms resembling chemical burn.


Older romaine plant that tested (+) positive for INSV:   Note symptoms resembling chemical burn.



Older romaine plant that tested (-) negative for INSV; most likely chemical burn

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.

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.

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.