As the produce season winds down and the melon season in full swing, it is an important time to review the insecticide chemistries that you may have used this winter/spring on produce crops and those that you may consider using on spring melons. To sustain the insecticide efficacy that annually provides PCAs and growers with cost-effective crop protection requires a conscious effort to prevent insecticide resistance. Over the past 20 years, the Agrochemical Industry has developed and brought to the market an unprecedented number of new chemistries that are highly effective, selective and more safe than their chemical predecessors. These include the neonicotinoids, spinosyns, tetramic acid derivatives and diamides to name a few. Most recently, a couple of new chemistries have been added including the sulfoxamines (Closer, Transform) and a mitochondrial complex I electron transport inhibitor (Torac). The development of new chemistries has slowed a bit and older chemistries are continually being phased out of the marketplace. Thus, it is imperative to sustain the efficacy of these newer IPM tools currently available, and makes insecticide resistance management (IRM) more important than ever. The most fundamental approach to IRM is to minimize the selection of resistance to any one type of insecticide. Historically, alternating or rotating compounds with different modes of action (MOA) has provided sustainable and effective IRM in our desert cropping systems. The Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC), a coordinated crop protection industry group, was formed to develop guidelines to delay or prevent resistance. Using their most recent IRAC MOA Classification Brochure we have produced a table which provides Insecticide Modes of Action on Desert Produce and Melon Crops We also provide general information on the route of activity and pest spectrum for each chemistry. These classification lists will provide you with an additional set of guidelines for the selection of insecticides that can be used in desert IPM programs.

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%). Spinach ‘Revere’ was seeded, then sprinkler-irrigated to germinate seed Jan 18, 2024 on beds with 84 in. between bed centers and containing 30 lines of seed per bed.  All irrigation water was supplied by sprinkler irrigation.  Treatments were replicated four times in a randomized complete block design.  Replicate plots consisted of 15 ft lengths of bed separated by 3 ft lengths of nontreated bed.  Treatments were applied with a CO₂backpack sprayer that delivered 50 gal/acre at 40 psi to flat-fan nozzles. 
 

Month	Max	Min	Average	Rainfall
January	68	42	54	1.14 in
February	73	47	59	0.50 in
March	77	50	63	0.31 in

 
Downy mildew (caused by Peronospora farinosa f. sp. spinaciae) was first observed in plots on Feb 19  and final reading was taken on February 26, 2024. Spray date for each treatments are listed in excel file with the results.   Disease severity was recorded by determining the percentage of infected leaves present within three 1-ft² areas within each of the four replicate plots per treatment.  The number of spinach leaves in a 1-ft² area of bed was approximately 144. 

The data (found in the accompanying Excel file) illustrate the degree of disease reduction obtained by applications of the various tested fungicides. Products that  provided effective control against the disease include Orondis ultra, Thrive 4 M, Fungout, Cevya, Eject and Zampro. No phytotoxicity was observed in any of the treatments in this trial.

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 pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed here.

 

Corn earworm: CEW moth counts down in most traps over the last 2 weeks; about average for early October

Beet armyworm: Moth Trap counts increased in several areas last week and appear to remain active in cooler temps, and well above average for early November.

Cabbage looper: Cabbage counts peaked last week in all locations, about average for this time of the season.

Diamondback moth: Adult activity declined in the past 2 weeks ago, Below average for this time of season.

Whitefly:  Adult movement continues with the termination of melon harvests; overall about average for early November.  

Thrips: Thrips adult movement still down, overall activity below average.

Aphids:Winged aphids movement peaked in the north Yuma and Gila Valleys; above average for early November.

Leafminers: Adult activity down in most locations, below average for this time of season.