In last week’s update, we noted that PCAs would soon begin finding aphids infesting local lettuce and cole crop fields. As predicted, we have received reports from two PCAs that small colonies of wingless aphids have been found on lettuce, along with winged adults. These populations have been found in both the Yuma Valley and Wellton; we’ve also found winged green peach aphid at YAC. Timing of aphid colonization in leafy vegetables varies by species, and depends largely on temperature, rainfall and planting dates. However, my experience over the years, as well as observations from numerous field trials, suggests that aphid species that infest leafy vegetables are historically most severe on crops planted from mid-November through December. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule and aphids can occur when least expected. Consequently, you should begin planning now for spring aphid management. Growers and PCAs have effective options for aphid management on spring leafy vegetable crops. First, there is the responsive approach that relies on foliar insecticide sprays to reduce aphid numbers when they are found on crops. A number of insecticides are available that have cost-effective activity against aphids when applied as foliar sprays targeted at aphid populations as they begin colonizing plants. There is also the preventative approach where growers can apply neonicotinoid insecticides at-planting, 1.5 to 2 inches below the seedline. The insecticide is taken up by the plant roots, systemically translocated throughout young plants for several weeks following emergence, and ultimately prevents aphid colonization early in plant development. Both approaches can be very effective, and both can be used on the same field. Among the neonicotinoids, imidacloprid has been the standard soil insecticide applied on spring lettuce for aphid control for 20 years and continues to provide long residual control when used properly. More recently, Movento, with its excellent systemic activity against aphids via foliar application, has been incorporated into lettuce IPM programs along with other novel insecticides with aphid activity. Other effective foliar options include Beleaf, Assail and the newly registered Closer. However, the question has recently been posed: Which approach to aphid management is better? Our research suggests a combination of both; imidacloprid applied at planting, followed by foliar insecticides if needed under heavy late season pressure. For more information on this topic please visit the research report - Aphid Management on Head Lettuce Using Imidacloprid and Foliar insecticides.

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.

Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed here.
 
Corn earworm::            
CEW moth counts continuing to increase in areas, and about average for late-September
 
Beet armyworm:         
Trap counts increased in most locations, bet well below average for mid- September.
 
Cabbage looper:          
Cabbage looper activity slowly increasing, particularly in  Dome Valley and Wellton. About average for this time of season.
 
Diamondback moth:     
DBM moths starting to become active in a few areas (Dome and Wellton); below average for this time of the year.
 
Whitefly:                      
Adult movement increased in the past week, but below average for this time of year. 
 
Thrips:                          
Thrips adults increased markedly in many locations (Tacna, Dome, Yuma Valley), and higher than previous years.
 
Aphids:                        
Aphid movement is absent and consistent with what we typically see during September. 
 
Leafminers:                   
Adult activity up in a few locations (Yuma Valley), below average for September.