May 5, 2021Summer Sanitation Is Important as Ever
To contact John Palumbo go to: jpalumbo@ag.Arizona.edu
Clovers can be very difficult to control weeds here, but it is also a major crop and common ornamental. Clovers can survive under poor growing conditions and are not controlled with glyphosate and seem to get worse every year. There are more than 50 types and 300 species of clover and they can be easily misidentified. They are all in the legume (Fabracea) family and can use a bacterium (rhizobium) in the soil to convert nitrogen in the atmosphere to a form that they and other plants can use for fertilizer. There are only 4 or 5 clover species that are agricultural pests here. The ones we get the most questions on are white and yellow sweet clover. These are in the Melilotus family. White sweet clover (Melilotus albus) is tall for a clover and can get 3 to 5 foot in height. The leaves are thinner than most clovers and this difficult to control weed lives at least 2 years and sometimes longer. Glyphosate and most of the contact herbicides do not control it. The plant growth regulator herbicides work best. Yellow sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis) is less common here. The flowers are yellow, and it is not as tall and vegetative as white sweet clover. Yellow is more common at higher elevations. California burclover (Medicago polymorpha) and Black medic (Medicago lupina) are in the same genus as alfalfa and are more of a problem in landscapes, parks and golf courses than in agricultural fields here. They do not grow upright and spread below the crop or turf. The true clovers are in the Trifolium genus and include white and strawberry clover. These creep along the ground and root at the nodes of the stem. These are more of a urban landscape weed and not considered an agricultural problem. Creeping woodsorrel or Oxyalis looks like a clover but it is not related. It is a turf weed that spreads rapidly along the ground and can live for several years. Preemergent herbicides are effective against all these clovers before they become established. The postemergence herbicides that are most effective in controlling these clovers are the plant growth regulators. Contact herbicides and glyphosate are generally ineffective.
In the past couple of weeks, the reports of INSV in fields has increased dramatically. INSV has been found in fields in Yuma/Gila Valley, Wellton, Tacna, Roll, and Imperial Valley.
PCAs have reported thrips pressure as low this year and most fields have infection less than 1% but some fields have been reported to have higher incidence. The virus has been detected in direct seeded field as well as transplants imported from Salinas, CA.
Impatiens necrotic spot virus, also known as INSV is a tospovirus closely related to Tomato spotted wilt virus. Infected plants usually have leaves with brown to dark brown necrotic areas. Sometimes the symptoms may be confused with “chemical burn”. As necrosis progresses the leaf browns or die out. Plants infected in early stage may become stunted and die, or become unmarketable.
What makes this virus of high economic importance?
The plants become unmarketable which is the ultimate economic loss. But there are factors that facilitate the virus outbreak.
The first one is efficient transmission by its vector (s). The virus is transmitted by western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis.
If you remember our virus transmission series in past newsletters, thrips transmit viruses in persistent propagative manner. 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. Adult thrips can transmit these viruses only if acquired in the larval stage of development. Larval thrips will feed on a virus-infected plant, pupate, and emerge as a winged adult capable of transmitting the virus. The thrips then will carry the virus for life.
The next contributing factor is host range. INSV infects large number of ornamental and vegetable plants. We are talking 600 species of plants that are susceptible to INSV and thrips love flowers.
While it may not be practical to remove all your ornamentals in fear of INSV, it is definitely practical to monitor thrips population in your field. As the legend says “When in doubt, scout”.
And if you need diagnosis, drop the samples in the clinic! But then if you have immunostrips, you don’t have to make the drive to the Ag Center!
DIY testing: Impatiens necrotic spot virus (INSV)
As visual diagnosis of the virus is confusing and could even be misleading at times, it is very important to confirm a symptomatology via clinical diagnosis.
The good news is there are tools available for quick and easy diagnosis of INSV. You can order the immunostrips from Agdia (https://orders.agdia.com/agdia-immunostrip-for-insv-isk-20501)
The immunostrips cost anywhere from $5-20 depending on how much you buy. They perform better when they stay refrigerated until just before use.
Immunostrips are quick and easy tool to use. The kit comes with a buffer bag and immunostrip.
One band means that the positive control worked which means the system worked. Sometimes you see no bands at all. This means the system did not work and you have to repeat the test.
If you are seeing symptoms in your field please let Bindu Poudel-Ward know via email (firstname.lastname@example.org or text (928-920-1110). Please keep a note of weed species you are consistently seeing in your fields and keep the thrips population under check.
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.
Area wide Insect Trapping Network VegIPM Update, Vol. 11, No. 22, October 28, 2020
Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed here.
Corn earworm: Moth activity is about average for mid-October, particularly in Dome Valley and south Yuma Valley.
Beet armyworm: Moths remain active throughout the desert, especially active in Tacna and Dome Valley.
Cabbage looper: Cabbage looper activity remains unusually low for early October, likely a result of unusually hot weather. Larvae are yet to show up in many fields.
Whitefly: Adult movement has been about average for this time of year. Activity highest in Tacna near fall melons.
Thrips: To date, thrips activity has been seasonably low at all trap locations; activity increased significantly in Roll.
Aphids: Aphids beginning to show in most traps along the Colorado River (Bard, Gila, Yuma) which is normal for this time of year. Recent high winds may begin to disperse them throughout the area.
Leafminers: Adult activity below normal for September, but high numbers caught in Wellton in areas where melon harvest has commenced.