We continue to trap diamondback moth (DBM) in traps throughout the area. We currently have 57 pheromone traps stretched from Texas Hill to San Luis. In the past few weeks we’ve seen moth activity decrease in general in traps at Texas Hill, Tacna Roll, Wellton, Dome Valley and Bard/ Winterhaven. In contrast, we’ve recorded increases in trap captures in some traps in the Gila and Yuma Valleys. (See DBM Trap Network). 

One trap located at the Yuma Ag Center captured more than 28 moths /trap per night last week. That trap is adjacent to several acres of untreated broccoli that are infested with DBM larvae. However, most traps throughout the Yuma area are not catching anywhere near those numbers of moths, and not surprising, the fields adjacent to these traps have little to no DBM larvae. Furthermore, to date no PCAs have reported failures in controlling DBM like they experienced last fall. On the Yuma Ag Center, we have had plenty of DBM in our cole crops. This allowed us to conduct a number of efficacy trials with both soil and foliar applied insecticides. In our Verimark tray-drench trial in cauliflower, we observed DBM control for almost 40 days. Soil shank applications of Verimark in broccoli provided DBM efficacy for ~ 30 days. Our foliar spray trials consistently showed that the all conventional insecticides we evaluated provided significantly better control of DBM larvae compared to the untreated check following multiple spray applications (for results see Efficacy of Foliar Insecticides Against Diamondback Moth, Fall 2017 andEfficacy of Foliar Insecticides Against DBM and Whitefly). On the other hand, we found it more difficult to control DBM with organically-approved biopesticides (see Organic Insecticide for DBM Control on Broccoli, Fall 2017). 

An important lesson was learned from these studies. This fall DBM was not an issue, unlike last season. We’re obviously dealing with a different population this year. It is highly likely that the present DBM populations found at the Yuma Ag Center and throughout the Yuma area moved into the area via monsoon/tropical storms. I base this on the fact that the DBM have been easy to control with our standard insecticides (unlike last season), and we have been trapping moths adjacent to direct-seeded broccoli fields since early September. We’ve also been trapping them next to fallow fields. This clearly suggests that the DBM in Yuma this fall did not exclusively arrive on transplants, nor did last season’s resistant population over-summer here. I believe this explains why DBM is seldom a problem for Yuma PCAs. DBM populations have to migrate in and over the past 20 years or so, they have been susceptible to our industry standards. The exception would be last year, where the DBM outbreaks we experienced were associated with a resistant population that moved into fields from infested transplants. One last thing to consider: it is possible we may see additional DBM move into the area via winter storms from the coast. Hopefully we can pick up such movement with our traps.

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 JV farms at Gila Valley. Lettuce variety ‘Guapo’ was seeded, then sprinkler-irrigated to germinate seed on September 19, 2023, on double rows 12 in. apart on beds with 42 in. between bed centers.  Rest of the irrigation 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, which contained two 25 ft rows of lettuce. Plants were thinned on October 9, 2023 at the 3-4 leaf stage to a 12-inch spacing. Treatment beds were separated by single nontreated beds. Treatments were applied by incorporating in soil before seeding or 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
September	100	71	86	0.71 in
October	93	61	77	0.00 in
November	80	51	65	0.08 in
December	71	44	57	0.82 in

 
Fusarium wilt (caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lactucae ) rating was done in the field by observing the typical symptom of lettuce wilt. Confirmation was done by cutting the cross section of roots. Disease scoring/rating was done on December 6, 2023. 
 
The data in the table illustrate the degree of disease control obtained by application of the various treatments in this trial. The disease pressure was extremely high in 2023, and most treatments showed little or no control against the disease. The treatments that showed some activity were Bexfond, Cevya, Rhyme, and Serifel. Plant vigor was normal and phytotoxicity symptoms were not observed in 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.

Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed here.
Area wide Insect Trapping Network   VegIPM Update, Vol. 14, No.6, Mar 22, 2023
 
Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed here.
 
Corn earworm:           

CEW moth counts increased in some trap locations this week (Tacna, Roll, Dome Valley, North Gila) and average for this time of year. 
 
Beet armyworm:          
Trap counts increased over the past 2 weeks, particularly in Tacana; average compared to previous years.
 
Cabbage looper:          
Cabbage looper counts decreased slightly in most traps and below average for this time of season.
 
Diamondback moth:    
DBM moths remained low in most areas and well below average for this time of the year.
 
Whitefly:                       
Adult movement was negligible and typical for this time of year. 
 
Thrips:                          
Thrips adult counts increased slightly in Tacna over the past 2 weeks. Currently, well below average compared with previous years.
 
Aphids:                        
Aphid movement increased in many locations (Gila, Dome and Yuma Valleys), and above average activity for mid-March.
 
Leafminers:                  
Adult activity up in some locations, and below average for late-February.