May 5, 2021Summer Sanitation Is Important as Ever
To contact John Palumbo go to: jpalumbo@ag.Arizona.edu
When known weedy fields are ready to plant and labor is expected to be short, it is tempting to use all the preplant herbicides that are available. In lettuce, there are three preplant herbicides available and it is not uncommon to use 2 and occasionally all 3 on the same crop. All three of these herbicides use the same mode of action to kill weeds. There are slight differences between them but they all either stop or disrupt cell division in the roots and or stems of the weeds. They are normally safe to lettuce unless the crop is stressed or the rate, timing or placement are poor. The rationale for using multiple preplant herbicides in lettuce is often to broaden the weed control spectrum or guard against misses caused by misapplication or environmental conditions. There are some hazards, however, that sometimes outweigh the benefits. Potential crop injury is increased. All 3 use the same mode of action and the chance of injuring developing crop roots is compounded. Sometimes herbicides are added that contribute nothing but potential injury to the mix. If you look at the following chart you can see that many weeds are controlled by Kerb, for instance, that are not controlled by Balan or Prefar. Why add them? All three control grasses, goosefoot and purslane. If environmental conditions and applications are optimal it is often possible to use only one. Herbicides are much less expensive than labor, but it is possible to overdo it and cause more problems and expense.
It is that time of the year! Every year, September starts with “Is it April yet?” If you did not say that, then you cannot sit with us!
This past growing season has been an interesting one. From wearing masks at 120 degree to maintaining social distancing; while producing same amount of produce, feeding same amount of people, and dealing with same amount of disease and pests. A big thank you to everyone involved in agriculture for your hard work and perseverance.
In regards to plant health, we had plenty of disease problems to deal with this year. Below is brief report of the major diseases observed in growing season 2020/2021 and the disease we should be keeping an eye on for next growing season.
We observed a lot of fields with fusarium wilt this year. We had a lot of infected watermelon fields from Winterhaven to Yuma, Wellton, and Mohawk Valley. Rain, and overwatering of fields when plants set fruits might have contributed to the disease development.
Disease management include planting clean seeds/transplants, use of resistant cultivars, crop rotation, soil fumigation, soil solarization, grafting, biological control. An integrated approach utilizing two or more methods is required for successful disease management.
Fusarium wilt of Lettuce
Though detected in a lot of fields and some new fields, the disease pressure in lettuce was relatively low. Please continue with proper management practice for next growing season. Avoid overwatering, add soil amendments/organic matter, practice crop rotation if possible.
Lettuce dieback associated virus
Lettuce dieback is a soil-borne disease caused by two closely related viruses from the family Tombusviridae Tomato Bushy Stunt Virus (TBSV) and Lettuce Necrotic Stunt Virus (LNSV) that has been reclassified as Moroccan Pepper Virus (MPV). The disease has been observed throughout the main lettuce producing areas of California and Arizona.
Sclerotinia rot (known as lettuce drop) is caused by fungi Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and Sclerotinia minor.The initial aboveground symptom is observed as wilting of outermost layer of leaves giving an impression of stress in plants. However, as infection progresses rapidly towards other leaf layers and the entire plant wilts including the head. The entire plant/planting can collapse within the matter of 2 days when the condition is favorable. Management practices include use of subsurface drip irrigation, keeping the top 5-8cm of soil on planting bed is crucial. Deep plowing, crop rotation with non-hosts like small grains and broccoli, removal of infected plant tissue from the field etc. help reduce the inoculum level. Soil fumigation is effective though may not be economical. In Florida growers flood fallow their lettuce field for 4-6 weeks in summer which has almost 100% control of S. sclerotiorum. This is something you might wan to consider doing this summer if you have had high disease pressure in your fields this growing season.
Downy mildew has been a problem for years in lettuce as well as spinach. One of the main reason that hinders the disease management is the complexity of the pathogen. Bremia lactucae (lettuce pathogen) consists of multiple races (pathotypes), and new races continue to occur as pathogen evolves. The pathogen is one of the fastest evolving plant pathogen. And each pathotypes have developed insensitivity to fungicides to different extent. Resistant cultivar, preventative application of fungicides are effective to some extent. Reducing leaf wetness and humidity by using drip or furrow irrigation can be helpful.
Impatiens necrotic spot virus (INSV)
INSV has been detected in a number in fields mostly in Tacna/Roll/Wellton area. It has been found in lower numbers in Gila Valley. If your field has been infected with INSV this growing season, be proactive next season in regards to clearing up the weeds, managing thrip population etc. If you see symptomatic plants please let me or Dr. Palumbo know.
This week in Clinic
If you haven’t submitted your entry for Melon powdery mildew fungicide trial for this spring please send it to Dr. Bindu Poudel-Ward (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Weed escapes are easy to spot in vegetable fields at harvest time. Some growers have these weeds pulled, bagged and removed by hand from the field because they are unsightly and to reduce seedbank loads. This can be a costly operation. An alternative solution might be to use high voltage electricity to kill these weeds. The idea of using electricity to “zap” weeds is not new. Machines for agriculture applications were developed decades ago and commercially available in the late 1970’s. Although the devices worked, they were not widely adopted due in part to the availability of low cost and efficacious herbicides.
Because of environmental concerns, herbicide resistant weed issues and increased organic production, non-chemical, high voltage weed control technology is seeing a resurgence. There are now five companies, three established within the last four years, offering or developing machines for commercial agriculture. Although configurations differ, all machines operate using the same principles. To explain, consider the example of the machine shown in Fig. 1. The unit comprises high voltage electrodes (8-15 kV) positioned above the crop canopy, an electric generator and a soil engaging coulter connected to ground. During operation, when an electrode touches a weed protruding above the canopy, current flows through the plant back to the generator via the ground contacting coulter. Current flow combined with electrical resistance in the plant causes rapid heating and plant fluids to vaporize. This ruptures cell walls and kills the plant. Although there are few recent reports in the literature, prior research on dated machines showed that the technique can provide better than 98% weed control in moderate weed densities (15,000 weeds/acre) at travel speeds of 2 mph (Diprose & Benson, 1984).
Modern approaches that utilize high voltage electricity in combination with smart machines to spot treat weeds are being developed. The idea is to use camera imagery and artificial intelligence to locate weeds and high voltage electricity to kill them. One such machine being developed by the MASCOR Institute1 and the Zasso Group is an autonomous robot equipped with cameras, on-board computers and robotic arms (Fig. 2). As the machine moves through the field, high voltage electrodes mounted on the movable, computer controlled robotic arms zap weeds. Another unit is being developed by Stekettee and RootWave. It is tractor pulled and designed to travel at 3 mph. Stekettee’s machine vision system identifies the weeds and RootWave’s high voltage electric technology shocks the weed with a pulsed 5 kV charge. Power is supplied by a generator connected to the tractor’s PTO. Both systems are in late stages of development with field tests conducted in 2020.
These systems appear promising and if they prove to be effective and economical, may be something to look for in the future.
1Reference to a product or company is for specific information only and does not endorse or recommend that product or company to the exclusion of others that may be suitable.
Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed HERE.
Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed HERE.
Corn earworm: CEW moth activity increased a bit in the past 2 weeks but remains well below average for late spring.
Beet armyworm: Moth counts increased slightly, but remain very low consistent with seasonal temperatures, and below average for this point in the season.
Cabbage looper: Significant increase in activity in Dome Valley, Gila Valley and Tacna, but moth counts remain unusually low for this time of year, as they have all season.
Whitefly: No adult movement recorded across all locations and overall low numbers consistent with temperatures.
Thrips: Thrips adult movement beginning to pick up considerably, particularly in Yuma and Dome Valleys. Movement is below average for late March.
Aphids: Seasonal aphid counts down considerably compared with the Feb and Jan. Counts highest in Bard and Gila Valley. Below average movement for this time of year. Majority of species found on traps were green peach aphid.
Leafminers: Adult activity up slightly in some locations, but well below average for late season.