With the produce season winding down rapidly, now is a good time to reflect on pest activity and insecticide usage you experienced this season in desert lettuce. The 2023 Lettuce Crop Losses Workshop will be held live, in-person Tuesday, May 9^th at the Yuma Agricultural Center from 11:30 until 3:00 pm (see agenda below).  Get there early as lunch will be provided.    The meeting has been approved for 2.5 CA/AZ CEUs.  Participants will be asked to complete two short surveys to document pest pressure and control tactics used on lettuce this season. This workshop has been invaluable to our Vegetable IPM Team over the past 18 years because it allows us to develop accurate “real world” data on crop losses and pesticide usage which is important to the assessment of IPM programs in Arizona. It’s also valuable to PCAs, as it can translate their efforts into economic terms for their growers and confirms their value to the lettuce industry by showing the importance of key insect pests and their cost-effective management in desert lettuce production.  
 
It's no secret, the insect activity this spring was exceptional.  Lettuce aphids and green peach aphids were abundant most of the spring, and thrips numbers were down until late in the season. As I’ve reported previously, I think this may be one of the heaviest aphid years I’ve experienced in the desert in a long time. Earlier Lettuce Insect Losses surveys from theses workshops estimated that over a 18-year period, PCA made on average 1.5 sprays on lettuce for aphids (ranging from 1.0 to 2.5 sprays). For the complete report see:  Insect Losses and Management on Desert Lettuce: An 18-year Summary.  Based on reports from PCAs this spring, it is likely that considerably more sprays were applied this spring for green peach aphid, and perhaps fewer for thrips. Also, a wide variety of insecticides products were reportedly used by PCA’s, some with mixed results. You can review the historical database of insecticides used for aphids and other insects here: Insecticide Usage on Desert Lettuce, 2021-2022  The bottom line: from a historical perspective, it would be quite useful to document insect pressure and sprays applied this year compared to previous years.   In addition to the reporting, Marco Pena will be presenting the latest results of his herbicide trials and areawide weed survey. Finally, I will be providing the latest efficacy trial results on aphids, thrips, worms, and whiteflies. So, we hope you can make it to the workshop and participate in this important process.  
 
 
Lettuce Crops Losses Workshop
 
May 9, 2023       11:30-3:00 pm
 
Yuma Agricultural Center Conference Room
 
Agenda
11:30-12:00 pm          Lunch  (It will be yummy)                                                       
12:00- 12:30 pm         Impact of IPM on Lettuce Insect Losses                                John Palumbo
12:30-1:00 pm             Individual Completion of LIL Questionnaires                       Attendees
1:00-1:30 pm              Historical Results of Insect Losses /Insecticide Usage          John Palumbo 
1:30-2:00 pm              Weed Management Research Update                                  Marco Pena
2:00-3:00 pm              Insect Management Research Update                                  John Palumbo

In 2023 Arizona and the lower basin states were operating under Tier 2 reductions, consistent with the Drought Contingency Plans (DCP) for Colorado River conservation in response to the drought conditions (Figure 1).  Tier 2 conditions imposed a 592,000 acre-feet (kaf) reduction in Arizona’s 2.8 million acre-feet (maf) total allocation from the Colorado River.  These reductions have primarily impacted the irrigation districts in central Arizona.
 
For 2024, the Bureaus of Reclamation (BoR) has announced in August 2023 that the river operations will follow Tier 1 DCP reductions (Figure 1).  That is due to an increase in the water levels in Lake Mead in the past year with an excellent snowpack last winter and above average runoff in 2023.  That increase in water level at Hoover Dam in Lake Mead is primarily a function of an excellent snowpack and higher rainfall in the Colorado River basin in 2023.  Significant conservation efforts have been employed as well.

Figure 1.  2024 Tier 1 Shortage for the Colorado River operations.  Source:
Arizona Department of Water Resources.

With agriculture responsible for 70% of the diversions on the Colorado River, tracking the snowpack is an important exercise for forecasting and managing the precious water resources in this region and this watershed for sure.
 
The pressures on the Colorado River system because of the drought that has been impacting the entire basin and region for 23 years have slackened briefly due to the wet winter in 2023 with a good snowpack in the mountains, good rainfall throughout the basin, good flows into the river, and conservation.  
 
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 2).

Figure 2.  Lake Mead water height (feet above sea level at Hoover Dam) history
and critical Tier conditions.  Source: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

The current snowpack in the Colorado River Basin is at 74% of average and below levels of this time last year.  However, hydrological records indicate that most of the snowpack in this basin accumulates between February and April.  
 
So, it is worth watching the snowpack accumulation and it is always good to pray for more snow in mountains to the north for those of us working and living in this desert with a heavy dependence on this water.  However, while monitoring the snowpack gives us a capacity to project, none of that really counts until there is water in the river and in the reservoirs, like money in the bank.

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.

In the preceding issue of UA Veg IPM Updates, the article below was published with an incorrect link to the video mentioned. For those interested in the video, which contains trial results and insightful videos of the technologies in action, the article has been updated with the correct link and is being reposted.


A couple years ago, we conducted evaluations of various “new” technologies for cultivating weeds in cotton as compared to conventional methods. The new technologies included 1) a camera-guided side-shift hitch and 2) finger weeders, an in-row weeding tool (Fig. 1). Camera-guidance of the maneuverable hitch allows cultivating tools to be positioned close to the seed row. In the study, the uncultivated band was 3.5" for the camera-guided system, and 6” for the conventional cultivator.  The aim of evaluating these technologies was to determine their efficacy in controlling herbicide resistant weeds. Trials conducted over 3 years showed that use of camera-guidance improved weed control by more than 30% and finger weeders removed about 45% of the in-row weeds. Overall weed control using the two technologies together was roughly > 90% for broadleaf weeds and about 85% for all weeds species.
Studies conducted by Texas A&M over two years showed similar results (Dotray et. al, 2021).

It is logical to think that similar type results would be realized in vegetable crops such as broccoli and cauliflower, plants that also have fairly long plant stems at the seedling stage of growth. A better than 40% reduction of in-row weeds would significantly lower hand weeding requirements. If you are interested in trying these technologies in vegetable or other crops on your farm, please contact me. We still have the equipment and I’d be happy to work with you.

A presentation given on the trial results and videos of the equipment used operating can be found by clicking here or on image below.

References
Dotray, P.A., Keeling, J.W., & Russell, K.R. 2021. Precision cultivation with finger weeder systems. Project No. 20-190 Final Report. Cary, N.C: Cotton Inc.

Acknowledgements
Project partially funded and supported by Arizona Cotton Growers Association, Cotton Inc., KULT-Kress, LLC and Keithly-Williams Fabrication. We thank them for their support.

Fig. 1. Technologies for precision cultivation and in-row weeding
used in efficacy trials included a a) a camera-guided side-shift hitch
attached to a cultivator and b) in-row weeding tools (finger weeders).

Fig. 2. Click on image above to watch presentation on precision cultivation and in-row weeding technologies.

There are many different types of pests that affect crops grown in Arizona. The three types of pests most often cited as the source of most problems are insects, diseases and weeds. These are the same types of pests that are cited as causing the major agricultural pest problems across the U.S. and worldwide. Graphs 1-3 illustrate, however, that the relative importance of these types of pest problems differ in Arizona from the rest of the U.S. and worldwide. In terms of pesticide use, worldwide herbicides accounted for 36% of total usage, insecticides 25%, and fungicides 10% and other 29% (nematicides, rodenticides, fumigants, bird, fish and aquatic pests). In the U.S., herbicides accounted for 44%, insecticides 10%, fungicides 6%, and other 40% of pesticide use. In Arizona, however, insecticides accounted for 58%, herbicides 17% and fungicides 12%. This is only an indirect measure of the relative importance of these three areas of pest management and may be heavily influenced by the amount of pesticides used. For instance, it is common to spray for insects five or more times per season while it is uncommon to spray for weeds more than twice. None the less, these graphs illustrate that weeds are the predominant pest problem in agricultural areas across the U.S. and worldwide.

We wanted to share the information above obtained from the PCA Study Guide Section VI prepared by our "amigo" Barry Tickes who is teaching the Applied Weed Science Class at the University of Arizona this semester.

Area wide Insect Trapping Network   VegIPM Update, Vol. 15, No. 21, Oct 16, 2024

Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed here.

Corn earworm: CEW moth counts increased in most traps; about average for early October.

Beet armyworm: Trap counts increased in most areas last week, and about average for early October.

Cabbage looper: Cabbage looper trap counts still most locations, below average for this time of the season.

Diamondback moth: Adult activity increasing, particularly in the Yuma and Dome Valleys.  Above average for this time of season.

Whitefly: Adult movement increasing Tacna, Dome Valley and Yuma Valley; overall about average for early October.

Thrips: Thrips adult movement picking up in all areas, overall activity above average.

Aphids: Winged aphids beginning to show up the north Yuma and Gila Valleys; about average for early October.

Leaf miners: Adult activity light in all areas, about average for this time of season