With the produce season rapidly winding down, it’s time to begin thinking about insect management in melons. Spring melon crops are rapidly growing, and so are insect pest populations. Cabbage loopers and leafminers are becoming evident in some areas, and PCAs should start ramping up their monitoring and sampling. More importantly, whitely populations are quietly becoming abundant on the spring melons of all sizes. Adults can easily be found on recently planted melons located at the Yuma Ag Center, and reports from local PCAs suggest that adult populations are beginning to show up on older plantings. As temperatures increase and crops/weeds mature, avoidance of excessive feeding from whitefly nymphs should be the primary concern on all melon types. Although CYSDV does occur in later spring melons, it is rarely yield limiting. But honeydew and sooty mold contamination on cantaloupes, mixed melons and watermelons can significantly reduce quality and marketability is whiteflies are not adequately controlled.  Our research has shown that to prevent fruit yield and quality losses on spring melons, a foliar insecticide treatment should be applied on threshold; that is, when average adult numbers exceed 2 per leaf when averaged across an entire melon field. At this level of adult abundance, immature populations are beginning to colonize. Timing sprays based on the adult threshold has been shown to significantly reduce the chance of yield / quality losses during spring harvests.  This threshold applies for the use of recommended IGRs (Courier, Knack, Cormoran, and Oberon), foliar applied neonicotinoids (Assail, Venom, Scorpion), neonicotinoid-like compounds (Sivanto prime and Transform), diamides, (Exirel and Minecto Pro) and the new feeding disruptors (PQZ and Sefina).  For more information on whitefly management and available insecticides, go to these documents on Insect Management on Spring Melons: Whiteflies and Whitefly Control Chart-Spring Melons -2023. Also, be aware of honey bees and other pollinators in or around melon fields. If bees are present, be sure to carefully read labels and determine bee safety of a product before making an application in a melon field.  If applications are necessary during bloom, only apply a product that is considered bee safe (e.g., PQZ, Sefina, Sivanto, Assail). We also recommend that insecticides only be applied when honeybees are not actively working in the field (e.g. 10:00 pm – 3: 00 am). 

For those of us working in agriculture, we develop an appreciation for how much water is required to produce crops.  The average American citizen does not really think about water requirements for food or anything we use daily beyond what we directly consume or pour out of the faucet.
 
The real dangers in not having a good understanding of individual water requirements on a personal level are the impacts on water policy and management.  This is certainly true in a desert environment and particularly during times of drought and water shortages.  
 
Every day in the United States every person generally consumes about 100 gallons of water to support our basic needs for drinking, bathing, cooking, toiletries, etc.  (USGS, 2019; Kobir, 2024; and Philadelphia City Government, 2024).  The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that the average American needs 80-100 gallons per day for basic use and consumption (indoor use).  The Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) estimates that Arizonans consume an average of 146 gallons of water per day (ADWR, 2019 and 2024).
 
As discussed in recent articles in this newsletter (Silvertooth, 2024a and b) the water required to produce the food supporting an average Arizonan can range from 800 to 1,500 gallons per day, depending on a person’s diet.  Thus, we can use an estimate of 1,000 gallons consumed per day per person to support our basic food requirements (Anyabwile and Walker, 2019; Wheeler, 2022; Food Print, 2024; Michel, 2023; Smith, 2012).  
 
If this estimate of “virtual water” use is expanded to include clothing, appliances, vehicles, and other items in our common daily use, the average water footprint for Americans easily comes up to 2,000 gallons of water per day (ASPE, 2022).
 
Considering daily indoor use and diet, a person can develop estimates on their own personal daily water consumption and water footprint by use of one of the water footprint calculators available on-line (i.e., Water Footprint Calculator).
 
Some recent surveys have been conducted to measure the perceptions of American citizens regarding the water required to produce our food (ASPE, 2022 and Martin, 2021).  The results reveal a significant gap between the reality of the water required to produce a person’s food and other basic items regularly used to support daily life.  For example:

• Almost 90 million Americans believe it takes no water at all to make a pair of jeans.  In fact, a fresh pair of jeans requires around 2,600 gallons to make.
• It takes 713 gallons of water to make a new cotton t-shirt to pair with those jeans.  Americans think it just takes 136 gallons.
• Americans believe it takes 158 gallons of water to produce a smartphone, whereas it is more than 3,400.
• Men, on average, estimate higher water consumption than women,140 gallons vs. 60 gallons, but neither group estimated anywhere close to the American’s calculated water footprint of 2,000 gallons per day.
• Gen Z respondents, ages 18–24, had the closest estimate at 365 gallons; however, this is still more than 1,500 gallons lower than the actual amount.  The average estimate drops off steeply for Millennials, ages 25–40, at 36 gallons and American citizen estimates remain low throughout older generations as well.
• 77 percent of Boomers, ages 57 and up, stop to appreciate access to clean drinking water fairly often, with 48 percent of Gen Z respondents reporting they do the same.  This is based on a national survey but hopefully that is higher in places like Arizona.
• Homeowners estimate their daily water consumption at nearly 130 gallons, compared to renters who believe they use only 33 gallons of water each day.  Both are extremely low estimates.
• The actual water consumption for homeowners and renters, based on a national average, is 1,188 and 818 gallons, respectively.

One survey was conducted in the fall and respondents were asked to estimate how much water is required to produce some common food items consumed at Thanksgiving.  Some of those results include:

• One 16-pound holiday turkey takes 4,688 gallons vs. the citizen estimated 158 gallons.
• A pecan pie takes 1,068 gallons vs. the citizen estimated 135 gallons; and a pumpkin pie takes 458 gallons vs. the estimated 135 gallons. 
• The traditional green bean casserole – with fried onions on top! – takes 547 gallons of water to hit the holiday dinner table vs. the estimated 116 gallons.

With the importance of electronics in our world and daily operations, we can also consider the water requirements for microchip production.  When creating an integrated circuit on a 300mm wafer, approximately 2,200 gallons of water are required, including 1,500 gallons of ultrapure water.  Consequently, a single large semiconductor fabrication facility processing around 40,000 wafers monthly could consume up to 4.8 million gallons of water daily (approximately 15 acre-feet per day or about 4,000 acre-feet per year).  This is equivalent to the annual water use of a city of 60,000 residents (CWR, 2013).
 
Water is essential to support all life and it takes a lot of water to grow plants and support animals that everyone needs to live and survive.  The important point to consider is that we all use more water every day than is commonly realized.  
 
Some responses to this may be “Who cares what people think and what difference does it make?”  The problem is that water policy is determined largely by politicians who are often not fully informed, and they are driven by voters who are commonly ignorant of the facts.  This can be a real problem when politicians enact policies based on perceptions and feelings that affect agricultural water allocations.
 
As the saying goes, “Facts may be facts, but perceptions become people’s reality.”  That is certainly true, and perceptions often only change when confronted with harsh realities.  We all have a significant water footprint with everything consumed and the more people understand that the better water management decisions we can make. 
 

References:
 
Anyabwile, A. and S. Walker.  2019.  5 Ways to put food on a water diet.  World Resources Institute.  https://www.wri.org/insights/5-ways-put-food-water-diet
 
Arizona Department of Water Resources.  2019.  Water Your Facts.  Arizona Water Facts.  https://www.arizonawaterfacts.com/water-your-facts
 
Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR).  2024.  Conservation.  https://www.azwater.gov/conservation/public-resources
 
ASPE.  2022.  New research shows most Americans are unaware of their daily water consumption.  ASPE Pipeline.  https://aspe.org/pipeline/new-research-shows-most-americans-are-unaware-of-their-daily-water-consumption/#:~:text=Most%20believe%20they%20use%20less%20than%20100%20gallons,indirectly%20%28e.g.%2C%20the%20water%20required%20to%20produce%20food%29.
 
China Water Risk (CWR).  2013.  8 Things You Should Know About Water & Semiconductors China Water Risk, 11 July 2013.
 
Food Print.  2024.  The Water Footprint of Food.  https://foodprint.org/issues/the-water-footprint-of-food/
 
Kobir.  2024.  How many gallons of fresh water do we use per day.  https://medium.com/rocklinca/how-many-gallons-of-freshwater-do-we-use-per-day-7987edf6b1bb
 
Martin, L. 2021.  New Research Shows Most Americans are Unaware of Their Daily Water Consumption.  Business Wire.  https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211021005669/en/New-Research-Shows-Most-Americans-are-Unaware-of-Their-Daily-Water-Consumption
 
Michel, D.  2023.  Water and Food: How, When, and Why Water Imperils Global Food Security.  Center for Strategic and International Studies.  https://www.csis.org/analysis/water-and-food-how-when-and-why-water-imperils-global-food-security
 
Philadelphia City Government.  2024.  Gallons Used Per Person Per Day.  https://water.phila.gov/pool/files/home-water-use-ig5.pdf
 
Silvertooth, J.  2024a.  Arizona Water Footprint.  University of Arizona Vegetable IPM Newsletter.  15 May 2024, University of Arizona No. 10
 
Silvertooth, J.  2024b.  Water Requirements for the Production of Common Food Products, University of Arizona Vegetable IPM Newsletter, 29 May 2024, No. 11
 
Smith, T.  2012.  World Water Day: How much water do you use in a day?  Climate Home News.  https://www.climatechangenews.com/2012/03/22/world-water-day-how-much-water-do-you-use-in-a-day/
 
United States Geological Survey. 2019.  How much water do I use at home each day? https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/water-qa-how-much-water-do-i-use-home-each-day
 
Water Footprint Calculator. 2024.  https://watercalculator.org/water-footprint-of-food-guide/
 
Wheeler, M.  2022.  Did You Know’ Series: How Much Water Are We Actually Using?  Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Virginia Tech University.  https://www.vwrrc.vt.edu/2022/03/31/did-you-know-series-how-much-water-are-we-actually-using/
 

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.

I thought I’d change pace this week and take the opportunity to ask you, the readers of this newsletter, if there are any ag automation/mechanization topics you would be interested in hearing more about. I am happy to do some research and share the findings in future articles. Drop me a line at siemens@cals.arizona.edu or feel free to call me at 928.782.5869. I’d love to know your interests.

Fig. 1. Futuristic farming.
(Image credits: AgTech Media Group, Dover, DE)

Today, the EPA posted in the Federal Register an Emergency Order suspending the Registrations of All Pesticide Products Containing Dimethyl Tetrachloroterephthalate (DCPA). We will include the link to the official document at the end of the article.
The notice says in the II. Emergency Order paragraph the following:
“Effective immediately, no person in any state may distribute, sell, offer for sale, hold for sale, ship, deliver for shipment, or receive and (having so received) deliver or offer to deliver to any person any pesticide product containing DCPA. Additionally, in accordance with FIFRA section 6(a)(1), EPA has elected not to permit the continued use of existing stocks, consistent with its policies applicable to cancellations where the Agency has identified significant risk concerns. See 56 FR 29362, 29367, June 26, 1991 (FRL-3845-4)”.
Also, the same paragraph in the document states clearly: “Accordingly, this Emergency Order expressly prohibits any person from using any pesticide product containing DCPA for any purpose. However, EPA will allow continued distribution of existing stocks of DCPA for the express purpose of returning any DCPA product to the registrant of such products”.
You can find and download the document posted in the journal today following this link:

https://live-azs-vegetableipmupdates.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/2024-08/240807_EPA_DCPA_ORDER_2024-17431.pdf
 
References:

1. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-08-07/pdf/2024-17431.pdfhttps://cals.arizona.edu/crop/vegetables/advisories/more/weed193.html
2. https://federalregister.gov/d/2024-17431
3. https://live-azs-vegetableipmupdates.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/2024-08/240807_EPA_DCPA_ORDER_2024-17431.pdf

Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison have developed a device called “Insect Eavesdropper” that allows real-time detection of insect pests attacking crops. The Insect Eavesdropper is equipped with highly sensitive contact microphones which allow it to capture the sounds of insects eating and moving inside plants. The researchers claimed that by eavesdropping on the sounds within the plants, one can gain insights into insect presence, insect density, insect interaction with the crops, insect feeding behaviors, etc. The device works by clipping a sensor onto plants in the field while the data is monitored remotely to determine when pests are active and where they are concentrated. According to the inventors, by using advanced algorithms, the device can accurately identify the type of pest present, even before visual signs of infestation become apparent. 

If this device works as described, it would be a very useful tool for pest monitoring. I you would like to read more about the Insect Eavesdropper technology click on this link.

Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed here.
Area wide Insect Trapping Network   VegIPM Update, Vol. 12, No. 24, Dec 1, 2021.
 
Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed here.
 
Corn earworm:             
CEW moth counts remained low over the past 2 weeks across all locations and about average for this time of the season. 
 
Beet armyworm:          
Trap counts decreased in most locations, and well below average for late-November. Most activity in Yuma Valley.
 
Cabbage looper:          
Cabbage looper trap counts remained low in most areas but increased in the Yuma Valley. Activity below average for late November.
 
Diamondback moth:     
Adults peaked in Bard, Gila and Yuma Valleys and slightly above average for this time of year. Traps located adjacent to cauliflower seed crops had the highest trap captures 
 
Whitefly:                      
Adults remains active in Dome Valley and Roll consistent with melon crops completing harvest, but below average movement for this time of season. 
 
Thrips:                          
Thrips adult movement decreased in most locations last week, and most active in Dome Valley, Wellton, and Tacna. Activity about average for mid-November.
 
Aphids:                         
Aphid movement peaked so far this season with highest activity in Dome Valley, Bard, N. Yuma Valley and N. Gila Valleys over the past 2 weeks. Activity average for this time of year.
 
Leafminers:                  
Adult activity increased sharply in the Dome, Yuma, and Gila Valleys, about average for this time of season.