With the desert produce season almost completed and the spring melon season beginning, now is a good time to review the insecticide chemistries commonly used in your insect management programs. This is an important consideration as you make the transition from winter produce to alfalfa, spring melons and summer cotton where many of the same insecticide products are available in all these commodities. Sustaining long-term insecticide efficacy that provides cost-effective crop protection requires a conscious effort on the part of PCAs and growers to use insecticides responsibly. Over the past 30 years, Agrochemical Manufacturers have developed and brought to market over 20 new classes of chemistry that are highly effective, selective, and significantly safer than their chemical predecessors. These include the neonicotinoids, spinosyns, tetramic acid derivatives and anthranilic diamides to name a few. Most recently, we have seen new feeding disruptor products, PQZ (pyrifluquinazon) and Versys/Sefina (afidopyropen) being applied to fall melons for virus management and in winter vegetables for aphid management. Although, the development of new insecticide chemistries has been a bit slow over the past few years, we’re now seeing industry beginning to develop several new experimental insecticides for desert crops. You’ll be pleased to know that several compounds are being targeted for western flower thrips. Of course, at best many of these products are a few years away from registration. But this is great news as many of the older products are slowly being phased out of the marketplace. It was just a couple of years ago that flubendiamide (Belt, Vetica) was removed from the market, chlorpyrifos (Lorsban) is now gone, and EPA is currently proposing label changes to the neonicotinoids which could impact their use on many important crops. Thus, it is imperative to sustain the efficacy of the newer insecticide tools currently available and Insecticide Resistance Management (IRM) is now more important than ever. The most fundamental approach to IRM is to minimize the selection of resistance by a pest to any one type of insecticide chemistry. The key to sustaining insecticide susceptibility is to avoid exposure of successive generations of an insect pest population to the same MOA. Historically, alternating, or rotating compounds with different modes of action (MOA) each time you spray has provided sustainable and effective IRM in our desert cropping systems. When it is comes to IRM; “rotation, rotation, rotation”. In other words, never expose a generation of insects to the same MOA more than twice. 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 information we have produced a brief publication which provides the latest local information on the modes of actions, routes of activity and pest spectrum for important insecticide chemistries used in desert produce and melon crops - see the attached Insecticide Modes of Action on Desert Produce Crops. This classification list will provide you with an additional set of guidelines for the selection of insecticides that can be used in desert IPM programs.
The soft-rot bacterium, Erwiniacarotovora subsp. carotovora (syn.= Pectobacteriumcarotovorum subsp. carotovorum), enters through growth cracks or wounds caused by cold temperatures, insects, other disease organisms, or by mechanical means. Under warm, humid conditions, uninjured tissue may become infected through natural openings. Prolonged moisture from rain or irrigation and mild temperatures encourage disease development. Insects, tools, rain, clothing, or affected plant tissue can spread the bacteria. The bacteria survive in soil and plant debris.
Symptoms appear as small, water-soaked areas and enlarge rapidly. Tissue becomes soft and mushy, and within a few days the affected plant part may collapse. An offensive odor usually is present.
Management:
Cultural:
Set out plants in rows to allow good air drainage.
Cultivate carefully to minimize injuring plants.
Control frequency and source of irrigation water.Avoid frequent irrigation during head development. Time irrigation to allow the head to dry rapidly. Avoid stagnant water sources.
Clean and spray storage walls and floors with copper sulfate solution (1 lb/5 gal water). Bactericides such as Clorox, Lysol, and quaternary ammonium products also are effective.
In storage, use a buffering material such as straw or paper to prevent injury to the heads.
Keep storage house humidity between 90% and 95% and the temperature between 32°F and 39°F.
Chemical control
· Cueva at 0.5 to 2 gal/100 gal water on 7- to 10-day intervals. May be applied on the day of harvest. 4-hr reentry.
Cease at 3 to 6 quarts in 100 gal water. For greenhouse plants only. Preharvest interval is 0 days. 4-hr reentry.
Controlling Disease and Weeds with Band-Steam – Yuma Trials Show Good Promise
In previous articles (Vol. 11 (13), Vol. 11 (20), Vol. 11(24)), I’ve discussed using band-steam to control plant diseases and weeds. Band-steaming is where steam is used to heat narrow strips of soil to temperature levels sufficient to kill soilborne pathogens and weed seed (>140 °F for > 20 minutes). The concept is showing good promise. This past season, three trials were conducted examining the efficacy of using steam for disease and weed control in Yuma, AZ. In the studies, steam was applied in a 4-inch-wide by 2-inch-deep band of soil centered on the seedline using a prototype band-steam applicator (Fig.1). The band-steam applicator is principally comprised of a 35 BHP steam generator mounted on top of an elongated bed shaper. The apparatus applies steam via shank injection and from cone shaped ports on top of the bed shaper.
Trial results were very encouraging as the prototype applicator was able to raise soil temperatures to target levels (140°F for >20 minutes) at viable travels speeds of 0.75 mph. Steam provided better than 80% weed control and significantly lowered hand weeding time by more than 2 hours per acre (Table 1). Results also showed that Fusarium colony forming units (CFU) were reduced from 2,600 in the control to 155 in the 0.75 mph and 53 in the 0.5 mph treatments, respectively (a more than 15-fold reduction). A significant difference in Fusarium wilt of lettuce disease incidence was not found, however disease infection at the field site was low (< 2%) and differences were not expected. At 0.5 mph, fuel costs were calculated to be $238/acre which was considered reasonable and consistent with the values reported by Fennimore et al. (2014).
An unexpected finding was that plants in steam treated plots appeared to be healthier and more vigorous than untreated plots (Fig. 2). This trial is still in progress and it will be interesting to see if this improved early growth translates into increases in crop yield.
In summary, early trial results are showing good promise for use of band-steam as a non-herbicidal method of pest control. We plan on conducting further trials in this multi-year study. If you are interested in evaluating the device on your farm and being part of the study please contact me. We are particularly interested in fields with a known history of Fusarium wilt of lettuce and/or Sclerotinia lettuce drop that will be planted to iceberg or romaine lettuce.
As always, if you are interested in seeing the machine operate or would like more information, please feel free to contact me.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by Crop Protection and Pest Management grant no. 2017-70006-27273/project accession no. 1014065 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, the Arizona Specialty Crop Block Grant Program and the Arizona Iceberg Lettuce Research Council. We greatly appreciate their support. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
A special thank you is extended to Mellon Farms for allowing us to conduct this research on their farm.
References
Fennimore, S.A., Martin, F.N., Miller, T.C., Broome, J.C., Dorn, N. and Greene, I. 2014. Evaluation of a mobile steam applicator for soil disinfestation in California strawberry. HortScience 49(12):1542-1549.
Click link below or picture to see the band-steam and co-product applicator in action!
Carryover of Vegetable Herbicides to Wheat Grown in Rotation
Almost all the herbicides used on lettuce, cole crops and melons have restrictions on how soon wheat can be planted in rotation after they have been used. Experience has demonstrated, however, that safe intervals can vary considerably based upon many factors and are almost always much longer than they need to be. The most important factors are rate applied, irrigation practices and tillage. For example, when Kerb used to be banded at 2 to 4 lbs. per acre after planting and incorporated with furrow irrigation, it was common to see treated strips across wheat fields which followed. This is uncommon now that lower rates are Chemigated. We still see some Balan injury at ends of fields or in overlaps especially when sudan is planted. Wheat it not very sensitive to Prefar and carryover injury is uncommon.
