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.
It is about that time of the year/growing season when you start seeing bacterial diseases. With the rain we got last week and as plants get more vegetative growth bacterial issues become more prevalent. Cilantro and parsley are two crops grown in desert southwest that often suffer from bacterial leaf spots. Most times, the disease incidence is also high because of sprinkler irrigation used in these cropS. On both crops, initial symptoms of bacterial leaf spot are water-soaked lesions on leaves. The lesions develop into spots that are varying shades of tan or brown (see picture ‘B’ on parsley whereas advanced spots on cilantro can be black (see picture ‘A’ on cilantro). The lesions are usually limited by leaf veins and thus have an angular, square, or rectangular appearance, a typical feature of bacterial infection. Lesions tend to be relatively small about 1/8 to 1/4 inch (3–6 mm) in diameter and are visible from both the top and bottom of leaves. Under favorable conditions, free moisture from rain or sprinkler irrigation, leaf spots may coalesce and cause considerable blighting of the entire foliage.
Pseudomonas syringae pv. apii (Psa) and P. syringae pv. coriandricola (Psc). cause bacterial leaf spot on parsley and cilantro. Pseudomonas syringae pv. apii (Psa) can cause leaf blight in celery and fennel as well. Though the problem is documented as more of a problem in cilantro and less in celery, in severe condition the disease can result in unmarketable produce in any host. The bacteria are likely seedborne in both crops. However, water from rain, sprinkler irrigation, and heavy dews and fogs will splash bacteria from infected plants onto adjacent healthy foliage resulting in heavy infestation.
To manage the disease, always use tested/treated seeds, rotate crop with non-host to reduce inoculum level, switch from sprinkler to furrow irrigation to limit secondary spread, avoid excessive use of nitrogen fertilizer. Copper spray/copper based fungicide provide limited control against the pathogens.
There are many innovative automated weeding technologies coming out of Europe. One of these is the autonomous weeding robot being developed by Ecoroboti (Yverdon-les-Bains, Switzerland). The device is lightweight and solar powered. Early prototypes used a spider like, three-axis delta robot to precisely deliver herbicides to target weeds. Videos of the device were futuristic and intriguing to watch. The company has since moved on to a simpler weeding robot equipped with a fixed boom for spot spraying weeds (Fig. 1 & 2). The autonomous robot has some specifications that are plausible for use in Arizona vegetable production. Machine travel speed is 2.2 mph and work rate is 15 acres/day (10 hour day). Spot spray resolution is reasonable at 2.5 inch2 (1.5 x 1.5 inch). This is accomplished using a series of 52 nozzles mounted on an 80 inch wide boom (Fig. 2). The machine uses computer imaging and artificial intelligence for crop/weed differentiation to identify and target weeds.
This past summer, the system was tested in sugar beets in Germany. Results showed the system correctly sprayed about 80% of the weeds. For a first time, real-world, field scale test, this outcome is encouraging.
There are some limitations however. According to product literature, the machine’s artificial intelligence system will identify a crop plant as a weed approximately 5% of the time. Given the high value of vegetable crops, killing 5% of the crop as a trade-off for robotically controlling weeds is probably not viable. It should be noted that this level of crop/weed recognition performance is consistent with other artificial intelligence-based systems reported in the literature.
Don’t give up hope though. This type of technology is advancing rapidly, and may become feasible in the future. Computing speed and sensor capabilities are advancing all the time. A review of literature indicates that systems that combine 3-D morphology, optical color and accurate location data with deep learning techniques may be a viable approach to reliably differentiate crops from weeds. It will be interesting and exciting to watch this technology as it develops. That’s for sure.
As I have mentioned before, automated thinning and weeding technologies are advancing at a very rapid pace. If you know of a new technology that would be of interest and appropriate for this newsletter, please feel free to contact me.
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.
Beet armyworm: Moth counts remain very low consistent with seasonal temperatures, but below average for this point in the season.
Cabbage looper: Slight increase in activity, but moth counts remain unusually low for late January.
Whitefly: Dult movement is at seasonal low consistent with temperatures and lack of melons or cotton.
Thrips: Activity remains lower than normal for this point late January. Increased movement noted in Roll/Tacna.
Aphids: Seasonal aphid counts peaked during the past 2 weeks, suggesting movement with recent winter storms and lack of desert vegetation. Counts were particularly high in North Yuma and Gila Valleys, and Bard. Above average for this time of year.
Leafminers: Adult activity remains light in most trap locations. Trap counts increasing slightly in the South Gila Valley.