Temperatures are still warm and worm pressure remains steady in most growing areas.   Here at the Ag Center, beet armyworm pressure is about average for early October, and still troublesome on new stands. Cabbage looper eggs are beginning to now show up. Pheromone trap counts for armyworm and loopers remain below average in most areas. However, diamondback moth larvae are present on broccoli and transplants at the Ag Center.  I’ve had several PCA reports of diamondback pressure in transplanted brassica crops in Wellton and Roll, and in the Yuma Valley. Trap catches have begun to increase also. So far, all insecticide products we’ve tested are providing good Lep control and no complaints from the field.  
 
Fortunately for local PCAs, several insecticide alternatives are available that provide excellent residual activity on Lep pests.   Perhaps equally important, many of the products have unique modes of action (MOA) that can be alternated throughout the growing season. This is important because the most fundamental way to reduce the risk of insecticide resistance is to eliminate exposure of multiple generations of Leps to the same MOA.   By using a different MOA on each subsequent spray application, you can minimize the risk of resistance by Lep larvae to these insecticide compounds. In contrast, repeatedly applying insecticide products with the same MOA for Lep control in the same area will significantly increase the risk of resistance.  This is particularly important with the Diamide group of insecticides (IRAC group 28). These products can be applied as both foliar sprays and soil systemic treatments, and currently 7 Diamide products are labeled for use in leafy vegetables - all with the same MOA (Coragen, Durivo, Besiege, Minecto Pro, Verimark, Exirel and Harvanta).  To avoid confusion among the Diamides, the IRAC group number (28) is placed on each label, adjacent to the product name.  Furthermore, applying a Diamide product (i.e., Coragen/Verimark) to the soil at planting or as a tray drench, and then subsequently applying Diamide foliar sprays (i.e., Harvanta/Besiege) on the same field is not a good idea as it can expose multiple generations of Leps to the same MOA.  For example, under ideal weather conditions, one could potentially expose 5-6 generations of BAW or DBM to the same MOA given the residual efficacy of the diamides.  That’s not a good way to use these products if you want them to remain effective.   Since the Diamides, as well as the other key products currently available (e.g., Radiant, Proclaim, Intrepid, Avaunt, Bts), are critical to effective management of Leps in leafy vegetables, PCAs should consciously avoid the overuse of any of these compounds. The most effective way to delay the onset of resistance by Leps in leafy vegetables is to consider the recommendations provided in the guidelines entitled Insecticide Resistance Management for Beet Armyworm, Cabbage Looper and Diamondback Moth in Desert Produce Crops.

According to all available evidence, there are 20 total nutrients necessary for complete plant growth and development. Not all are required for all plants, but all have been found to be essential to some. Three of the 20 (carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen) and are derived from CO₂ and H₂O and are not usually considered in terms of managing a plant nutrition and soil fertility program. The remaining 17 are commonly referred to as mineral nutrients (N, P, K, Mg, Ca, S, Fe, Mn, Mo, Cu, B, Zn, Cl, Na, Co, V, and Si). Of the 17 mineral nutrients, N, P, and K are the macronutrients; Mg, Ca, and S are secondary nutrients; and Fe, Mn, Mo, Cu, B, Zn, Cl, Na, Co, V, and Si are referred to as micronutrients. The terms macro-, secondary, or micronutrients do not refer to any level of importance but rather to relative amounts required by plants.
 
The amount of a given nutrient found in a plant will depend on several; factors, governed in 
general by a broad range of plant and environmental interactions.  Therefore, the percentage composition of plant nutrients can vary tremendously among species and locations.  Since all the mineral nutrition is provided to the plant by nutrient uptake from the soil through the root system, an understanding of the soil conditions and the effects on plant nutrition are very important. A fundamental point to consider is that there is usually a rather poor relationship between the total amount of a given nutrient found in the soil (i.e., P or K) and the amount available to the plant for uptake and utilization. This is very true in Arizona where our agricultural soils are commonly rather young (geologically) alluvial soils with a high native fertility level. Soil tests are commonly used to establish a relationship
between an estimated level of a “plant-available” form of a given nutrient and its sufficiency, deficiency, or toxicity for the crop in question. The relationships between a soil test and actual crop nutrient needs are usually specific for a crop and region and a set of common soil conditions.
 
Developing a sound fertilization program begins with a good understanding of actual soil conditions. The collection and analyses of a good (representative) set of soil samples and then relating that information to established guidelines are the first steps toward developing a strong soil fertility and plant nutritional management program for any crop. This is important for the overall efficiency of a crop production system, including agronomic, economic, and environmental efficiency. 
 
To maximize nutrient management efficiency, it is good to consider the 4R concept of plant nutrient management and application, consisting of:
 1.   Right fertilizer source at the
 2.   Right rate, at the
 3.   Right time and in the
 4.   Right place
 
The 4R nutrient stewardship approach utilizes the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) that optimize the fertilizer use efficiency by the crop. The primary objective of the 4R approach and BMPs is to match nutrient supply with crop requirements and to minimize nutrient losses from fields.  Each case can vary among farms and fields, dependent on local soil and climatic conditions, crop, management conditions, and other site-specific factors.

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.

At last week’s 2^nd AgTech Field Demo: Automated Weeding Technologies, there were some practice fields that had extremely high weed pressure. It was a unique situation and company reps from the three commercial automated in-row companies participating in the Field Day wanted to test their machines to see how they would perform. We were all impressed at how well they worked in the challenging conditions –large weeds, high density (Fig. 1). Some crop plants were mistakenly removed, but not many. They also performed well in celery plots that were similarly heavily infested with weeds (Fig. 2).
It was readily apparent that image-based crop/weed differentiation using artificial intelligence and pattern recognition algorithms has come a long way in the last several years. In the past, when leaves of adjacent plants overlapped or crop plants and weeds were similarly sized, automated weeding machine imaging systems were not able to reliably detect crop plants and weeding performance was poor.
Our studies on automated in-row weeding machine performance (Lati et al., 2016) have confirmed the logical result that labor savings for follow up hand weeding operations are significant in fields where weed pressure is high as compared to where it is low. If you have a heavily infested field, it might be worth investigating the use of an automated in-row weeding machine. I was impressed at how well today’s machines work.
References
Lati, R.N, Siemens, M.C., Rachuy, J.S. & Fennimore, S.A. (2016). Intrarow Weed Removal in Broccoli and Transplanted Lettuce with an Intelligent Cultivator. Weed Technology, 30(3), 655-663.

Fig. 1. Representative image of cultivating performance of three commercial
automated in-row weeding machines (right) operated in heavily weed infested
lettuce (left). Photo taken 5 days after treatment. Machines included Stout AgTech
Smart Cultivator, FarmWise Titan FT-35 and K.U.L.T. Kress iSelect.


Fig. 2. Celery cultivated using an automated in-row weeding machine (left) and a standard cultivator (right).

Dacthal was first registered in 1959 but like most older products that are still used, we are constantly adapting it to our changing cultural practices. Dacthal is a mitotic inhibitor and kills germinating weeds by stopping cell division. This is the same mode of action as many other preemergence herbicides such as Trifluralin, Prowl, Balan, Kerb and others but its chemistry and how it moves in the soil and plant are different. Dacthal is absorbed by both shoots and roots of germinating seedlings although most of the activity is from shoot absorption. When absorbed by the shoots, it will move upward into the plant. It is not absorbed by foliage and can be safely applied over the crop. Dacthal has a strong affinity for soil and adsorbs strongly to soil particles. If Dacthal is applied to dry soil, it sometimes will not work because the herbicide it stuck on the soil and not available to kill weeds. Conversely, if the soil is saturated, it may not be adequately incorporated. The best time to apply Dacthal is when the soil is moist but not saturated. When Dacthal was first being developed it was tested for use on lettuce.If it is sprayed on or chemigated it will cause severe injury to lettuce. If it is mechanically incorporated it is surprisingly safe to lettuce. It is fairly broad spectrum but weak on mustards.

Area wide Insect Trapping Network   VegIPM Update, Vol. 13, No. 16, Aug 10, 2022
 
Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed here.
 
Corn earworm:            
CEW moth counts decreased considerably y in the past 2 weeks and about average for late summer
 
Beet armyworm:         
Trap counts stay active in some locations (Yuma Dome Valley and Wellton) particularly near alfalfa
 
Cabbage looper:         
Cabbage looper numbers remain low consistent previous years.
 
Diamondback moth:     
DBM moths were not caught in any trap since June; average for this time of the year.
 
Whitefly:                    
Adult movement decreased in past 2 weeks consistent with previous years
 
Thrips:                          
Thrips adults decreasing in most locations, and trending comparable to previous years.
 
Aphids:                       
Aphid movement is absent and consistent with what we typically see during the summer.
 
Leafminers:                  
Adult activity has highest in Wellton and Dome Valley, and slightly above average for early August