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.
Damping off is a common problem in spinach. This season we have observed the occurrence of the disease from Imperial valley, to Yuma and all the way to Wellton.
Symptoms of damping‑off and root rot consist of poor seed germination, preemergence death of seedlings, postemergence death of newly emerged seedlings, stunted plants, yellowed lower leaves, general poor growth, wilting, and eventual collapse and death of older plants. The upper taproot may be girdled by a necrotic lesion, or the tip of the taproot may be necrotic. In severe cases, nearly all roots may be girdled or rotted off. Damping-off is problematic in spinach production areas throughout the world. Severity is influenced by cultivar, soil texture, irrigation, and pathogen populations. Severe damping-off is associated with clay or poorly draining soils with a history of frequent spinach production. While all stages of spinach can be infected by root rot organisms, newly emerging plants and young seedlings are very susceptible.
Symptoms are more prominent in areas with poor drainage. These spinach problems are caused by a complex of pathogenic soil fungi that include one or more of the following: Fusarium oxysporum, Pythium (several species), and Rhizoctonia solani. These fungi are present in most soils and can get aggressive and cause loss when the environment is favorable. However, aboveground symptoms of plants that are overwatered are similar to symptoms of root rot. Excess water can damage roots, causing tan to brown, water‑soaked symptoms on roots even if no pathogen is present.
Plant spinach in well draining soils. Prepare seed beds so that even, rapid germination is enhanced. Carefully manage the irrigation schedule to prevent flooding and saturated soil conditions. Plant seed that is treated with fungicides and fumigate the beds. Preplant application of mefenoxam will only control damping-off caused by Pythium. Avoid planting consecutive spinach crops and practice good crop rotation.
Always remember the disease triangle, the necessity of a susceptible host, the favorable environment, and virulent pathogen. To create unfavorable environment avoid overwatering, do light but frequent irrigation to avoid standing water in the field, schedule watering in the morning or earlier part of the day. Addition of soil amendments to increase microbial activity can be helpful.
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://188.8.131.52:460
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.