As fields are being prepared for fall plantings, PCAs and growers should be conscientious of weeds and how they may influence insect populations. Certainly, thorough weed management is important for the profitable production of vegetable crops in the desert southwest for all the obvious reasons. However, effective weed management is also essential for another important, but often overlooked, reason. Several common weed species found in and around vegetable crops can serve as host plants to many insect pests that can later infest nearby vegetable crops. Although flowering weeds can provide a reservoir for natural enemies (e.g., lady beetles, syrphid flies), and a source of nectar and pollen for pollinators, these same weedy refuges can serve as host sources for many key insect pests that cause economic damage to vegetable crops. Weeds found on field margins and ditch banks can provide insect pests with suitable resources needed for rapid population growth, which subsequently can lead to insect infestations occurring in adjacent vegetable crops. In addition, many weed species can provide insects with host plants that serve as a bridge between cropping seasons when vegetables crops are not in production (May-August). Volunteer melons emerging from previous spring plantings can also be considered weeds (“a plant out of place”). If not controlled in a timely manner, these volunteer weedy plants can sustain large numbers of insect pests (i.e., flea beetles and whiteflies), as well as plant viruses (e.g., CYSDV) that are transmitted by insect vectors, that can migrate onto newly planted fields. Finally, weeds left uncontrolled in vegetable crops can serve as impediments to insecticide applications. For example, dense weed foliage in vegetable and melon fields can negatively influence foliar spray applications by intercepting spray droplets before reaching the target crop, which can result in less insecticide deposition and unacceptable crop damage. Soil applied insecticides (e.g., Admire Pro, Verimark, Coragen) can also be impacted by unmanaged weed growth. Weeds growing unchecked during stand establishment can compete with the seedling plants for water and fertilizer, but they can also compete with crop plants for soil insecticides. Excessive weed densities can significantly intercept insecticides in the soil profile and reduce the amount available for uptake by the target crop. For more information on this topic, please visit this report: Interactions between Insects and Weeds in Desert Crops.

In response to the recent outbreaks of Diamondback moth (DBM) , Plutella xylostella in Yuma, we have established a pheromone trap network designed to monitor the activity and movement of adult populations of DBM. PCAs have had difficulty controlling DBM in cabbage, broccoli and cauliflower since October. Traps have been placed in Roll, Wellton, Dome Valley, Gila Valley and Yuma Valley in locations where cole crops are presently being grown or in areas where infestations were known to occur this fall.

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.
 
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