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.
We talked a bit about INSV in last newsletter and the importance of the virus in produce industry.
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.
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.
3. Let it sit for a minute and Insert the inmmunostrip on the side of the mesh bag in the tissue blended solution. You will see the plant sap going up in the immunostrip.
4. Results: 2 bands means positive and one band means negative!
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.
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.
Growers and PCAs can monitor data from the Yuma Leaf Wetness Network through the AZMET website located at the following URL: http://184.108.40.206:460
The website updates information on leaf wetness and near-surface air temperature every 15 minutes. Wetness data are provided in graphical format (see figure below). Output from the leaf wetness sensors increase from the grey (dry) zone of the graph to the blue (wet) zone when wetness (dew or rain) is detected by the sensors.
Beet armyworm: Moth activity has declined in most trap location and remains below average for this point in the season.
Cabbage looper: Cabbage looper activity remains unusually low for early November. Trap catches picked up a bit in Wellton and Gila Valley.
Whitefly: Adult movement has been about average for this time of year. Activity highest in Wellton near fall melons being harvested.
Thrips: Thrips activity picking up significantly in several trap locations; activity increased significantly in Bard and Dome and Gila Valleys.
Aphids: Aphid numbers peaked last week in many locations, particularly in the Gilas and Yuma Valleys.
Leafminers: Adult activity increased significantly last week, particularly in the Wellton area near melons.