May 5, 2021Summer Sanitation Is Important as Ever
To contact John Palumbo go to: jpalumbo@ag.Arizona.edu
Contact herbicides are those that only affect the part of the weed that they “contact” They don’t move into or affect any other part of a plant. They were the first herbicides used and surprisingly, they still are better at controlling some weeds than any other products that have been developed. They usually control only small weeds with good coverage although some of them will kill large malva , Purslane and some other difficult to kill weeds. Goal, Sharpen, Treevix and Gramoxone, which are all contacts, will kill malva and purslane while systemic herbicides like Glyphosate and 2,4-D, misses them. Maestro or Bucril (Bromoxynil), also an old contact, will kill swinecress while many systemics like the growth regulators ,miss it. Glufosinate( Liberty, Rely) is a contact that is very broad spectrum and kills more grasses and broadleaves than many systemic herbicides. These all work very fast and in this age of immediate gratification ,you don’t have to wait long. Most have little soil residual activity (except Goal, Chateau and a couple others) Goal and Chateau are contacts but used mostly preemergence to the weeds. They “ contact” the weeds when they emerge at the surface. which is a benefit where double or triple cropping is common. Most( again except Goal) are not volatile but will cause pretty clear contact injury when the spray moves to sensitive crops. Paraquat was registered in 1959 and is still a very useful tool for desiccating plants. Many restrictions have been put on its use because of its toxicity to humans. Most contact herbicides are non-selective and will injure most living plant tissue. They are used selectively with directed spray or timing. Adjuvants are often required to increase absorption, spreading and sticking.
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://18.104.22.168:460
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.
Area wide Insect Trapping Network VegIPM Update, Vol. 11, No. 21, October 14, 2020
Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed here.
Corn earworm: Moth activity is above normal for early October ad has been steadily increasing since mid-September, particularly in Dome Valley and south Yuma Valley.
Beet armyworm: Moths remain active throughout the desert, especially in Texas Hill and Dome Valley growing areas.
Cabbage looper: Cabbage looper activity remains unusually low for early October, likely a result of unusually hot weather. Larvae just starting to show up in some fields.
Whitefly: Adult movement has been about average for this time of year. Activity highest in Wellton and Roll near fall melons.
Thrips: To date, thrips activity has been seasonably low at all trap locations; most activity found in Bard. Numbers beginning to slowly trend upward
Aphids: Aphids have been caught in only one trap thus far (Bard). Normal for this time of year. Still early, anticipate they will begin to show up in heavier numbers in mid-late October.
Leafminers: Adult activity below normal for September, but moderate numbers caught in Wellton and south Gila Valley in areas where cotton was recently harvested and disked under.