Now that spring has officially arrived, one question I've been contemplating is how did the cold weather this past winter impact pest pressure on our winter vegetables. There is no doubt that temperatures throughout Yuma County were considerably cooler this winter relative to last year, particularly during January and February. Based on my observations at the Yuma Ag Center, I would say that aphid and thrips numbers were lower than what we typically see during this period. It is quite reasonable to assume that the lower winter temperatures, coupled with lower rainfall amounts, likely kept aphid numbers relatively low. These cooler temperatures may also explain why, in some cases, Movento appeared to provide inconsistent activity against aphids. The systemic activity of the compound is influenced by the growth of the plant, and with the cooler temperatures and multiple freezes experienced this winter, both lettuce plant growth and aphid activity were likely negatively influenced. Thrips numbers are beginning to rapidly increase now, but during Jan and Feb, their numbers remained very low. Although we saw less rainfall this winter, the cooler temperatures clearly suppressed population growth. In addition, it appeared to be a little windier this winter, but average wind speeds varied within Yuma County. Wind can influence insect movement, several abiotic/biotic factors, and of course, the ability of PCAs to spray crops. Finally, the hard freezes we experienced this winter certainly impacted plant growth, quality and insect management. This was especially evident in the Gila Valley for instance where the AZMET weather station recorded 7 days when temperatures dropped below 32°F for an average of about 5 hours per freeze. This is significant when you consider that no freeze events were recorded all of last growing season. In contrast, Roll had 30 days of below 32°F temperatures, compared to 19 last year. Looking forward, what impact these freezes have had on key pests of spring melons (i.e., whiteflies, cabbage loopers) remains to be seen. For a detailed summary of the winter weather data described above, please go to Winter Weather Conditions Yuma. For a more detailed discussion on the impact of weather on insects refer to the article Weather and Insects.

On Tuesday, 15 August 2023 officials from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) presented their 24-Month study reports with projections and operational plans for 2024 (USBR, 15 August 2023).  We are still dealing with the drought but there is some improvement in the 2024 plans for Colorado River water allocations for Arizona.
 
The wet winter and spring experienced in the Southwest in 2023 has provided some relief on the dire situation we were facing on the Colorado River system and reservoir levels have improved.  But unfortunately, one good precipitation season does not solve all the problems and they will still need to be dealt with.
 
The current plan for lower Colorado River water management is basically a return to the Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) Tier 1 schedule (Figure 1).  

Fgure 1.  Drought Contingency Plan Tier reductions for Arizona.

Tier 1 plans take us back to an 18% reduction or 512,000 acre-feet (KAF) of Arizona’s Colorado River allocation of 2.8 million acre-feet (MAF).  Arizona was operating under Tier 1 guidelines in 2022.  
 
The irrigation districts in central Arizona that have lost access to Central Arizona Project (CAP) water will not be receiving any additional water in 2024 based on this plan.  The districts immediately adjacent to the mainstem of the Colorado River will continue to receive the same amount of water as they have been receiving the past two years.  For Arizona and the other lower basin states, these are basically the same water allocation guidelines that were in place in 2022.
 
The urban areas and American Indian tribes will not experience any additional reductions based on the USBR plans. However, some cities and tribes have volunteered to reduce their Colorado River water allocations in exchange for payments from the federal government.
 
For example, in 2023 Arizona, California, and Nevada agreed to a plan that will conserve an additional 3 MAF of Colorado River water through 2026 in exchange for $1.2 billion from the federal government.  If approved by the USBR, this plan would reduce Colorado River allocations to the Imperial Irrigation District in California, which has some of the most senior water rights on the river.
 
The Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), which has a Colorado River allocation of 653 KAF, committed in April 2023 to relinquish temporarily 125 KAF in exchange for $400 per AF from the federal government.  The federal government is also funding GRIC infrastructure projects to increase wastewater reuse in irrigation.
 
Thus, some of the Colorado River water that is technically allocated to Arizona under Tier 1 guidelines will stay in Lake Mead due to previously agreed upon conservation measures.
 
Regarding other lower basin states and the current USBR plan, Nevada will have slightly more Colorado River water in 2024 than in 2023.  Mexico will deal with a 5% reduction in Colorado River water from their base and once again California will not be suffering any required cuts in their Colorado River water allocation.
 
Overall, this is good news.  We have some temporary relief on the Colorado River system and no additional reductions will be required in 2024.  This puts the seven Colorado River basin states and Mexico in a better position to negotiate the guidelines and agreements required for 2026 since all the existing agreements expire in two years.
 
Reference
 
USBR, 15 August 2023. 24-Month Study reports.   

• 24-Month Study Projections (Overview)
• August 2023 Most Probable  
• August 2023 Probable Minimum 
• August 2023 Probable Maximum   

August 2023 Lake Powell and Lake Mead: End of Month Elevation Charts

This study was conducted at the Yuma Valley Agricultural Center. The soil was a silty clay loam (7-56-37 sand-silt-clay, pH 7.2, O.M. 0.7%). Variety: Deluxe (HMX2595) was seeded, then sprinkler-irrigated to germinate seed on March 20, 2024on 84 inches between bed centers. All other water was supplied by furrow irrigation or rainfall. Treatments were replicated five times in a randomized complete block design. Each replicate plot consisted of 25 ft of bed. Treatment beds were separated by single nontreated beds. Treatments were applied with a tractor-mounted boom sprayer that delivered 50 gal/acre at 100 psi to flat-fan nozzles spaced 12 in apart. 

Spray treatments were done on 05-21-2024, 05-31-2024, 06-07-2024 and 06-14-24. Powdery mildew was first seen on 06-05-24. Please see excel file for additional details.  

Disease severity of powdery mildew (caused by Sphaerotheca fuliginea and S. fusca) severity was determined 6-17-2024 by rating 10 plants within each of the four replicate plots per treatment using the following rating system: 0 = no powdery mildew present; 1 = one to two mildew colonies on leaves  ;2 = powdery mildew present on one quarter of leaves; 3 = powdery mildew present on half of the leaves; 4 = powdery mildew present on more than half of leaf surface area ; 5 = powdery mildew present on entire leaf. These ratings were transformed to percentage of leaves infected values before being statistically analyzed.

The data in the table illustrate the degree of disease control obtained by application of the various treatments in this trial. Most treatments significantly reduced the final severity of powdery mildew compared to nontreated plants. Quintec, Merivon, Tesaris, Luna Sensation, and V6M-5-14 V gave the best disease control. Phytotoxicity symptoms were not noted for any treatments in this trial.

ANR Webinar 10/17 click link for details.

Mark C. Siemens, Department of Biosystems Engineering
Vol. 14, Issue 16, Published 8/9/2023
Pre-Season Vegetable IPM Workshop
Mark C. Siemens
Vol. 14, Issue 17, Published 8/23/2023

The Pre-Season Vegetable IPM Workshop will be taking place TOMORROW, Wednesday, August 23^rd at the Yuma Agricultural Center. Come learn about the latest IPM products, practices and trial results from university and industry experts. Registration begins at 7:30 am and the program starts at 8:00 am. Agenda below. Looking forward to seeing everyone there!

 

In the absence of Dacthal (DCPA) growers are looking for different herbicide options for Broccoli and Onions.
The following is data from a broccoli trial done in 2010 by Tickes/Pena, which compares Prowl, Goal Tender, Prefar, Treflan, Devrinol and Dacthal at different application timings. Plots were visually evaluated for weed control of  Goosefoot (Chenopodium murale), Malva (Malva parviflora), and Yellow Sweet Clover (Melilotus oficinalis). The label recommendations for Devrinol are “Use the lower rate on light soil (coarse textured-sandy), and the higher rate on heavy soil (fine textured-clay)”. The rate goes from 1-2 lbs on the DF-XT 50% formulation.
We hope this information is useful in our decision making for broccoli herbicide programs. 

 

Area wide Insect Trapping Network   VegIPM Update, Vol. 15, No. 21, Oct 16, 2024

Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed here.

Corn earworm: CEW moth counts increased in most traps; about average for early October.

Beet armyworm: Trap counts increased in most areas last week, and about average for early October.

Cabbage looper: Cabbage looper trap counts still most locations, below average for this time of the season.

Diamondback moth: Adult activity increasing, particularly in the Yuma and Dome Valleys.  Above average for this time of season.

Whitefly: Adult movement increasing Tacna, Dome Valley and Yuma Valley; overall about average for early October.

Thrips: Thrips adult movement picking up in all areas, overall activity above average.

Aphids: Winged aphids beginning to show up the north Yuma and Gila Valleys; about average for early October.

Leaf miners: Adult activity light in all areas, about average for this time of season