The Bagrada bug, Bagrada hilaris, has been major problem in desert cole crops the past two fall growing seasons. In 2010, widespread infestations were reported throughout the desert growing area in September and October where stand losses and yield/quality reductions to broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage and other Brassica crops were considered economically significant in some growing areas. In 2011, Bagrada populations did not appear until early October, but certainly caused crop losses and required control with insecticides. In an attempt to document the impact of these outbreaks on desert production, a survey of growers and PCAs from Yuma and Imperial Valley was recently conducted to estimate the severity of Bagrada bug infestations on direct-seeded and transplanted cole crops during 2010. A summary of the survey results can be found at Impact of the Bagrada Bug on Desert Cole Crops: A Survey of PCA/Growers in 2010 and 2011. In general, the results of surveys in 2010 and 2011 showed that more than 93% of direct-seed cole crop acreage (e.g., broccoli) was treated for Bagrada adult infestations with insecticides compared to transplanted cole crops (e.g., cauliflower) where about 86% of the acreage was reported to be treated. Similarly, estimates showed that direct-seeded cole crops sustained greater stand losses and plant injury from Bagrada feeding than transplanted crops. When averaged over both years, estimated stand losses and plant injury caused by Bagrada bug feeding exceeded 10 % in direct-seeded crops. PCAs also provided information on insecticides that provided effective control through both chemigations and foliar sprays. In general, they reported that products that have contact activity (i.e., Pyrethroids, OP/Carbamates) appeared to provide the most effective control against Bagrada adults on both direct-seeded and transplanted cole crops. Overall, the results of the PCA survey are consistent with results obtained in research trials conducted at the Yuma Agricultural Center last year. In addition, access to the 1080 database showed that insecticide usage on cole crops has nearly doubled since Bagrada outbreaks first occurred in the fall of 2010.

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 Yuma Valley Agricultural Center. The soil was a silty clay loam (7-56-37 sand-silt-clay, pH 7.2, O.M. 0.7%). Lettuce was seeded, then sprinkler-irrigated to germinate seed on Nov 28, 2023 on double rows 12 in. apart on beds with 42 in. 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, which contained two 25 ft rows of lettuce. Plants were thinned Jan 4, 2024  at the 3-4 leaf stage to a 12-inch spacing. 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.

Month	MaxTemp(°F)	Min Temp (°F)	Average Temp (°F)	Rainfall
November	80	51	65	0.08 in
December	71	44	57	0.82 in
January	68	42	54	1.14 in
February	73	47	59	0.50 in

 
Downy mildew (caused by Bremia lactucae) rating was done on variety Eblin, Bobcat, and 180 (partially funded by AILRC grant). Disease was first seen on 1-30-24. Please see attached excel file for chemicals application date. Disease rating was done on February 29^, 2024. Disease severity was determined  by rating 10 plants within each of the five replicate plots per treatment using the following rating system: 0 = no downy mildew present; 0.5 = one to a few very small downy mildew colonies on bottom leaves; 1 = downy mildew present on bottom leaves of plant; 2 = downy mildew present on bottom leaves and lower wrapper leaves; 3 = downy mildew present on bottom leaves and all wrapper leaves; 4 = downy mildew present on bottom leaves, wrapper leaves, and cap leaf; 5 = downy mildew present on entire plant.
The data in the table illustrate the degree of disease control obtained by application of the various treatments in this trial. Most of the treatments exhibited activity against the disease to some extent. Latitude, Amara, Eject, Previcure flex exhibited good control in the variety Eblin (highly susceptible variety). Whereas Cevya, Stargus, Latitude, Amara, Revus, Thrive 4 M, Actigard, Instigo+Carbose+intereact showed activity against the pathogen in variety Bobcat. Please see excel file for the full list of chemicals and their efficacy. The lettuce variety 180 was resistant to the disease and no downy mildew was observed on the particular variety. No phytotoxicity was observed in this field.

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 down in most traps over the last week; about average for early October.

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

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

Diamondback moth: Adult activity spiked 2 weeks ago, particularly in the Yuma and Dome Valleys, but down over the past week. Average for this time of season.

Whitefly: Adult movement increasing Tacna consistent with melon harvests; overall about average for early October.

Thrips: Thrips adult movement peaked 2 weeks ago but down ovr the past week, overall activity above average.

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

Leafminers: Adult activity increased significantly last week in several locations, above average for this time of season.