May 5, 2021Summer Sanitation Is Important as Ever
To contact John Palumbo go to: jpalumbo@ag.Arizona.edu
Herbicide resistant weeds have received a lot of attention in recent years. It is often misunderstood. Three of the most misunderstood concepts regarding herbicide resistance are: 1- Weed tolerance and weed selection are not resistance,2- Weed resistance is not universal and does not affect every weed of a certain species from field to field or within a field and weed resistance often takes much longer than insect resistance that is more common and occurs faster.
No Herbicide controls all weeds. Those weeds that are not controlled are tolerant. They never were controlled by that particular herbicide and they are often selected for and become more prevalent over time if the same herbicide is used. Resistant weeds, on the other hand, were controlled at one time by a particular herbicide and have naturally developed a trait that stops the herbicide from working. These resistant weeds survive from generation to generation and become more prevalent over time.
Weed resistance does not occur in all weeds in a field at the same time. It can be just one plant of trillions in a field. As this plant survives the herbicide and goes to seed it becomes more widespread in the field and in other fields. We conducted a trial in Parker last year where sprangletop survived Glyphosate in one field and was killed by the same treatment down the road. If your neighbor has resistant weeds it doesn’t mean that you do too.
Lastly, insect resistance to insecticides has occurred in this region for many years and was the first exposure that many pest control advisers and growers had to pesticide resistance. The principals are the same although insects generally produce multiple generations per season and mutations that facilitate resistance occur faster than for weeds. Annual weeds often produce only one or two generations per season and resistance takes much longer.
With harvesting time getting closer to many field crops now, we are seeing higher incidence of bacterial diseases. We had few reports of bacterial spot on lettuce, cilantro, arugula, and parsley. Most times bacterial symptoms are not expected or simply ignored because we think the desert is too dry and bacterial diseases require high humidity. But as the plants grow bigger the space and aeration in between plants decreases, thus creating a humid microclimate. It is even more common on produces/herbs like cilantro, arugula, parsley etc. where the crops are grown densely, and sprinkle irrigation is used.
Initial symptoms of bacterial leaf spot are water-soaked lesions on leaves. The lesions develop into spots that are varying shades of tan or brown (see picture ‘B’ on parsley whereas advanced spots on cilantro can be black (see picture ‘A’ on cilantro). The lesions are usually limited by leaf veins and thus have an angular, square, or rectangular appearance, a typical feature of bacterial infection. Lesions tend to be relatively small about 1/8 to 1/4 inch (3–6 mm) in diameter and are visible from both the top and bottom of leaves. Under favorable conditions, free moisture from rain or sprinkler irrigation, leaf spots may coalesce and cause considerable blighting of the entire foliage.
Pseudomonas syringae pv. apii (Psa) and P. syringae pv. coriandricola (Psc). cause bacterial leaf spot on most vegetable. Pseudomonas syringae pv. apii (Psa) can cause leaf blight in celery and fennel as well. Though the problem is documented as more of a problem in cilantro and less in celery, in severe condition the disease can result in unmarketable produce in any host. The bacteria can be seedborne. However, water from rain, sprinkler irrigation, and heavy dews and fogs will splash bacteria from infected plants onto adjacent healthy foliage resulting in heavy infestation.
To manage the disease, always use tested/treated seeds, rotate crop with non-host to reduce inoculum level, switch from sprinkler to furrow irrigation to limit secondary spread, avoid excessive use of nitrogen fertilizer. If sprinkle irrigation has to be used, use light and more frequent irrigation, or irrigate in the morning or early afternoon so the plants dry off during the day. Copper spray/copper based fungicide provide limited control against the pathogens.
In next few weeks in the Clinic:
Because of the recent increase of Covid-19 related cases in Yuma, the Yuma Ag center is open only in limited capacity. Samples have to be dropped in the bench outside the main building. Please fill out the form provided when you drop samples. Our last day to take samples in the clinic for 2020 will be 18th of December. We will be using the remaining few days of the year to update the lab records, data, and prepare for 2021. Thank you for your love, support, and patience this year.
The Yuma Plant Health Clinic and Plant Pathology program wishes you safe and happy holidays!
Vol. 12, Issue 7, Published 4/7/2021
Over the last several years, there has been a tremendous amount of research activity towards the development of autonomous agriculture vehicles. A quick internet search will reveal over 50 companies or university research groups working in this space. A question I get often from groups developing such platforms is “What is a good agricultural application for our lightweight “robot”?”. It’s a great question, and for Arizona vegetable production, it’s also one that I’m not sure I have a satisfying answer for.
The calls I get regarding autonomous robots are mostly related to automated weeding applications. Automated weeding machines are commercially available, but their adoption has been limited not because of labor costs for tractor operation, rather it is the lack of the development of a functional and cost-effective means for identifying and removing weeds.
For decades, researchers have been attempting to develop sensing systems that are able to reliably detect weeds. Techniques such as 2-D and 3-D color imaging, x-rays, hyperspectral sensing and artificial intelligence have been tried (Slaughter, 2014; Bender et al., 2020). The best performing systems provide about 96% accuracy, meaning that 4% of the crops plants are identified as weeds and would be destroyed by the weeder. For high value vegetable crops like lettuce with gross revenues of roughly $10,000 per acre, killing 4% of the crop equates to $400 per acre of losses. Economically, this does not make sense as hand weeding labor costs are typically $300 per acre or less. The other main issue is that current automated weeding technologies are not highly precise and provide only partial control. Our studies with these types of machines have shown that these systems remove only about 1/3rd of the in-row weeds (Lati, et al., 2016) and a follow up hand weeding operation is often necessary. To be highly cost effective, elimination of the hand weeding step is needed.
In short, my recommendation to research groups asking about applications for autonomous robots is that their time and technical skills would best be served developing reliable crop/weed differentiation systems and a technique to remove a very high percentage of weeds.
Bender, A., Whelan, B. & Sukkarieh, S. 2020. A high‐resolution, multimodal data set for agricultural robotics: A Ladybird's‐eye view of Brassica. J. Field Robotics. 37(1): 73-96.
Lati, R.N, Siemens, M.C., Rachuy, J.S. & Fennimore, S.A. (2016). Intrarow Weed Removal in Broccoli and Transplanted Lettuce with an Intelligent Cultivator. Weed Technology, 30(3), 655-663.
Slaughter, D.C. The biological engineer: Sensing the difference between crops and weeds. Autonomous robotic weed control systems: A review. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 61(2008): 63-78.
The Yuma County Leaf Wetness Network remains in place for the 2018/19 vegetable season. Growers and PCAs may access information generated by the network by entering the following internet address: http://184.108.40.206:460
Upon entering the address above, you will be transferred to internet page that provides a series of tabs at the top of the page. Simply click on the tabs to access the information of interest.
Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed HERE.
Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed HERE.
Corn earworm: CEW moth activity increased a bit in the past 2 weeks but remains well below average for late spring.
Beet armyworm: Moth counts increased slightly, but remain very low consistent with seasonal temperatures, and below average for this point in the season.
Cabbage looper: Significant increase in activity in Dome Valley, Gila Valley and Tacna, but moth counts remain unusually low for this time of year, as they have all season.
Whitefly: No adult movement recorded across all locations and overall low numbers consistent with temperatures.
Thrips: Thrips adult movement beginning to pick up considerably, particularly in Yuma and Dome Valleys. Movement is below average for late March.
Aphids: Seasonal aphid counts down considerably compared with the Feb and Jan. Counts highest in Bard and Gila Valley. Below average movement for this time of year. Majority of species found on traps were green peach aphid.
Leafminers: Adult activity up slightly in some locations, but well below average for late season.