May 5, 2021Summer Sanitation Is Important as Ever
To contact John Palumbo go to: jpalumbo@ag.Arizona.edu
When known weedy fields are ready to plant and labor is expected to be short, it is tempting to use all the preplant herbicides that are available. In lettuce, there are three preplant herbicides available and it is not uncommon to use 2 and occasionally all 3 on the same crop. All three of these herbicides use the same mode of action to kill weeds. There are slight differences between them but they all either stop or disrupt cell division in the roots and or stems of the weeds. They are normally safe to lettuce unless the crop is stressed or the rate, timing or placement are poor. The rationale for using multiple preplant herbicides in lettuce is often to broaden the weed control spectrum or guard against misses caused by misapplication or environmental conditions. There are some hazards, however, that sometimes outweigh the benefits. Potential crop injury is increased. All 3 use the same mode of action and the chance of injuring developing crop roots is compounded. Sometimes herbicides are added that contribute nothing but potential injury to the mix. If you look at the following chart you can see that many weeds are controlled by Kerb, for instance, that are not controlled by Balan or Prefar. Why add them? All three control grasses, goosefoot and purslane. If environmental conditions and applications are optimal it is often possible to use only one. Herbicides are much less expensive than labor, but it is possible to overdo it and cause more problems and expense.
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.
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.