Now that we’re experiencing shorter days and changing weather patterns--cooler temperatures and winds consistently blowing out of the north and west-- PCAs may begin to see an increase in winged aphids and colonies showing up on desert produce crops. Experience tells us that this is an annual occurrence. The key aphid pests found on winter produce do not over-summer here, but rather migrate into our cropping system from mountainous regions of southern California via wind currents during the late fall. Once the aphids reach our desert valleys, they typically move from crop to crop until they find a suitable host to feed and colonize on. No need to panic if you suddenly find a few winged aphids on a lettuce plant. But it is important that you correctly identify the aphid species found on your crops. It is not uncommon to find winged aphids on lettuce or broccoli that do not colonize on the crop. An example of these would be cabbage aphid which will colonize and infest cole crops but not lettuce, spinach or celery. Other examples would include aphids that colonize small grains (i.e., corn leaf aphid) or alfalfa (i.e., pea aphid). Because these aphid species will not colonize produce crops, it is important to be able to distinguish them from the aphids that do colonize and require management to prevent problems at harvest (i.e., green peach aphid, foxglove aphid, lettuce aphid, cabbage aphid). Proper aphid ID can also influence your choice of insecticide, but more on that in a later update. Don’t be surprised if you start finding small colonies of cowpea aphids showing up on frame leaves in lettuce. That is a common occurrence every fall. Not to worry, experience has shown us that although small cowpea aphid colonies may be found on lettuce, the populations generally stay low on the plant on the frame leaves and rarely increase to levels causing contamination issues. But you never know. So keep a close watch out for these aphids found in your crops, as our weird weather this year may be more conducive to their development than normal. Bottom Line: proper aphid identification is important; it can save a PCA time and money, and prevent unnecessary insecticide applications. If you find an unusual aphid in your produce, don’t hesitate to drop it by the Ag Center and we’ll get it identified for you. Just recently we identified melon aphids that were found colonizing celery, and green peach aphid nymphs were brought in from a cabbage in Dome Valley. If you want to make fast and accurate IDs, you might use the attached publication Aphid Identification in Desert Produce Crops that can assist you in identifying winged and wingless (apterous) aphids important in leafy vegetables and cole crops. 

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.

Viruses vectored by insects 
 
We are on the final section of virus transmission. Virus transmission by insects is one of the most efficient and economically important transmission in agriculture. When you have insects in your crops, not only you are losing your crops because of feeding/chewing by insects, a lot of insects also act as a vector of plant viruses. 
 
Seven out of 29 orders of insect feeding on living green land plants are vectors of plant viruses. 
Insect transmit viruses in 4 distinct modes: 
 

1. Non persistent transmission: The insects can acquire the virus in a matter if seconds/minutes and they are immediately viruliferous. The virus in retained in the stylet of the insect and are transmitted to the next plant the insect feeds on. The virus is retained in the vector only for few minutes and is lost after insect molting. Most viruses transmitted by aphids are non persistent. So when you see few aphids in your melon field and see cucumber mosaic virus symptoms 1-2 weeks later in your field, don’t be surprised. Aphids are efficient vectors, and since viruses are systemic it takes anywhere from few days to 2-3 weeks for the plants to show symptoms. Thus it is very important to manage insects in the field even if you don’t think the ‘pressure’ is not as high. 

Viruses transmitted in non-persistent manner:
 Papaya ringspot virus 
Zucchini yellow mosaic virus 
Watermelon mosaic virus

1. Semi-persistent transmission: The insects can acquire the virus in minutes/hours and there is no latent (incubation) period in the insect. The virus can stay in the insects foregut for hours and is lost after insect molting. Some species of aphids and whiteflies fall in this category.  Example: Cucurbit yellow stunting disorder virus in melons transmitted by whiteflies. 

1. Persistent circulative: Insects have to feed on virus infected plants for hours/days to acquire the virus and the virus has to incubate for hours/days in the insect. After insect can transmit the virus for weeks. Virus can be present in the vectors hemolymph but there is no multiplication of virus in the insect body. Vectors in this transmission includes: Aphids, leafhopper, whiteflies, treehopper. 

Example: Beet curly top virus transmission by beet leafhopper 
 

1. Persistent propagative:  Insects have to feed on virus infected plants for hours/days to acquire the virus and the virus has to incubate for hours/days in the insect. After insect can transmit the virus throughout its lifespan. The virus can multiply in the vector system and often times the virus particles are also passed on to the insect offspring. Tomato spotted wilt virus is transmitted on persistent propagative manner by 9 different species on thrips. 

 

Save the Date : 2024 Plant Pathology Workshop 
When: August 29^th 8AM-12 PM ( breakfast and Lunch provided by Gowan Company and BASF) 
Where: Yuma Ag Center, 6425 W 8^th Street 
What will covered: Plant Pathology program Updates, past season field trial results (we
have some exciting results to share), Q&A to help better Plant pathology program,
Industry panel discussion for all your industry related questions! See you in few weeks! 

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. 17, Aug 21, 2024
 
Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed here.
 
Corn earworm:           
CEW moth counts decreased areawide; about average to previous years.
 
Beet armyworm:         
BAW moth counts are up in south Yuma valley and Dome valley; about average for August

Cabbage looper:           
Cabbage looper numbers are low consistent with previous years and higher temperatures.
 
Diamondback moth:      
DBM moths were not caught in any trap; average for this time of the year.
 
Whitefly:                      
Adult movement continues to decrease, average for this time of the year.
 
Thrips:                          
Thrips adult activity continues to decline, average for August.
 
Aphids:                       
Aphid movement is absent and consistent with what we typically see during the summer.
 
Leafminers:                  
Adult activity declining and average for August.