Over the past 20 years, there has been an unprecedented development of insecticide chemistry that has had a major impact on how PCAs manage insects on leafy vegetables and melons. Among these were several breakthrough chemistries including the neonicotinoids, spinosyns, ketoenols and diamides. Without question these products (along with other recently registered compounds) are more effective and safer to use than compounds used prior to 1993. It appears that the AgriChemical Industry is beginning a new cycle of insecticide discovery and development where several new products are nearing registration. In 2014, it is anticipated that several new insecticide products will be available for management of the key pest found on desert crops. Closer (Sulfoxaflor) is currently registered for use in leafy vegetables and melons in Arizona and should have an excellent fit for aphid management in leafy vegetables. Although it has a similar target site as the neonicotinoid chemistry, it is not considered a neonicotinoid by IRAC because of differences in how insects metabolize the toxin. Rather, it is classified as a sulfoximine and the first of the chemical class to be registered. Exirel/Verimark (Cyazypyr) are anticipated to be registered in Arizona/California in early 2014. Cyazypyr is not a new chemistry, but rather a 2nd generation Anthanilic diamide. What sets Cyazypyr apart from the other diamides is its unique cross-spectrum activity against major chewing and sucking pests via soil systemic or foliar applications. Two other compounds, Sivanto (flupyradifurone) and Torac (tolfenpyrad) are anticipated to be available in late 2014-early 2015. Sivanto, like Closer, is not a neonicotinoid, but rather is considered a Butenolide. It has good activity against whiteflies as both a foliar spray and as a soil-applied systemic treatment. As a soil systemic in fall melons, it has shown to be very effective against adult whitefly and CYSDV suppression similar to Venom. Finally, Torac is a pyrazole; a mitochondrial complex I electron transport inhibitor. In essence, it is a metabolic toxin that inhibits energy metabolism when the insect comes in contact with the compound. It has shown good thrips activity when used in combination with Radiant or Lannate, and may be an alternative to pyrethroids in tank mixtures. More detailed information on these compounds can be found in the following publications: New Insecticides for Desert Produce and Melons.

As reductions of agricultural water allocations in central Arizona from the Colorado River are going into place in 2022 from the Tier 1 of the Drought Contingency Plan provisions, it is important for every segment of the Arizona agricultural industry to continue to review and refine our practices associated with water management and irrigation.  
 
Seasonal conditions are a benefit to vegetable crop production and water management in the desert Southwest, both in terms of cool-season crop adaptability and the general climatic conditions that create lower environmental crop water-use demands.  For example, based on more than 30 years of Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET) data from the Yuma, Arizona area, approximately 20% of the total annual reference evapotranspiration demand typically occurs between August and May.  
 
Reference evapotranspiration (ETo) is the collective loss of water from a field due to evaporation from the soil surface and transpiration of water vapor from the plants.  Collectively, water movement from the soil and plant systems in a field is referred to as “crop consumptive use” and it is important to understand this process in our efforts to steward our water resources most effectively.
 
The AZMET system provides both historical and real-time weather information that can be used to assist in crop water and irrigation management.  Reference evapotranspiration values can be obtained daily from AZMET for the Yuma area and applicable to most of the region in the lower Colorado River Valley.  The ETo values multiplied by an appropriate crop coefficient (K_c) can provide very good estimates on actual crop evapotranspiration (ET_c) rates, ETo * K_c = ET_c.
 
The appropriate K_c values are specific for each crop species and stage of growth.  We commonly use crop coefficient K_cvalues that are provided in the publication “Consumptive Use by Major Crops in the Desert Southwest” by Dr. Leonard Erie and his colleagues, USDA-ARS Conservation Research Report No. 29 (see attached).  Reference information for K_cvalues can be obtained in this publication for common vegetable crops grown in this region.
 
Estimating and tracking actual crop-water use can be a valuable tool in understanding crop-water demand and irrigation management.  Comparing actual crop-water demand and crop irrigation practices can be important in our efforts to understand crop management needs and field-level efficiencies.
 
Reference:
Erie, L.J., O.A French, D.A. Bucks, and K. Harris. 1981. Consumptive Use of Water by Major Crops in the Southwestern United States.  United States Department of Agriculture, Conservation Research Report No. 29.

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.

Automated thinning machines were first commercialized in 2012, almost a decade ago. Since then, the machines have improved tremendously, and automated thinning has become the standard practice in the Yuma area. As such, I was a bit surprised to see numerous fields this year with sub-optimal thinning performance. Many fields had numerous amounts of excess seedlings that should have been thinned and needed to be removed during the follow-up hand weeding/double removal operation (Fig. 1). There were also some fields where the machine was apparently not readily detecting seedlings, resulting in long sections of plants being killed and a poor final stand (Fig. 2).

Automated thinning machines can and do perform very well when set-up and calibrated correctly. However, field conditions such as lighting, levels of crop residue, weed pressure or soil type (color) change throughout the day and affect the way the machine chooses which plants to selectively thin.

As such, it may be beneficial to establish a protocol where automated thinning machine settings are checked at regular intervals throughout the day to ensure the unit is performing optimally. Doing so may help lower follow-up hand weeding/double removal costs and minimize the number of unnecessary skips in the field.

Fig. 1. Labor crew removing excess lettuce seedlings and weeds after machine thinning.


Fig. 2. Poor final stand establishment following machine thinning, possibly due to incorrect machine calibration.

Preemergence herbicides can be very effective in the low deserts where weeds germinate with every irrigation or rainfall. It is essential, however, that they be at the right place in the soil at the right time. The right place is in the soil around the weed seeds and the right time is when they are germinating. Only fumigants kill seeds. For most other herbicides, the seed must germinate and are then killed. When weed seeds germinate is dependent on a great number of interdependent variables.  These include weed species, soil type, moisture, soil temperature, condition of the seed, depth, organic matter and many other variables. Many seeds have biochemical mechanisms that allow them to germinate at different times. Some may germinate in a few hours and some may not germinate for several years. If they all germinated at the same time, they would be easier to control. The methods used to predict when weed seeds will germinate vary from very sophisticated numeric equations to Farmers Almanac type lore involving things like the thickness of gopher fur, the cuticle thickness of plants or the condition of bird feathers. Some methods will give you a precise day while others will give you just a general idea. In general, as the precision goes up, the accuracy goes down. Regardless of what technique you use, now is the best time to apply preemergence herbicides for the control of annual weeds. It is better to be a month early than a day late.We have conducted trials to determine how long it takes various weed species to germinate after receiving moisture. Results will vary depending on several factors and from field to field and year to year. Results are summarized below for individual species and by month. An average of all species is also included.
   Hours to Germination

NG = No germination

Results of recent pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed here.
 
Corn earworm:           
CEW moth counts decreased in the past 2 weeks and about average for this time of summer.
 
Beet armyworm:         
Trap counts stay active in some locations (Yuma Valley and Wellton) but about average for July.
 
Cabbage looper:          
Cabbage looper numbers remain low consistent with the lack of activity this fall compared to last season.
 
Diamondback moth:       
DBM moths were not caught in any trap in the past 2 weeks; average for this time of the year.
 
Whitefly:                       
Adult movement continuing to increase, particularly in Gila and Yuma Valleys consistent with melon harvest.
 
Thrips:                           
Thrips adults decreasing in most locations, and trending comparable to previous years.
 
Aphids:                        
Aphid movement is absent consistent with what we typically see in the summer. 
 
Leafminers:                  
Adult activity has highest in Yuma and Dome Valley, and above average for early July.