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.

In arid and semi-arid regions, water is our first limiting factor in a crop production system, followed closely by bio-available nitrogen (N).  Thus, our management of water and N are critically important to produce a healthy crop with good yields and quality.
 
Water and nutrient demands coincide with the fruiting cycle and efficient management of irrigation water and plant nutrients is enhanced by tracking crop development in the field.  The use of heat units (HUs) with 86/55 ^oF upper and lower thresholds can be applied to warm season crops in the desert Southwest in relation to the thermal environmental impacts on the development of all crop systems (Brown, 1989), including chiles, (Figures 1 and 2).
 
Crop Phenology Relationship to Water and Nitrogen Demand
 
Phenological guidelines have been developed for many crops, including New Mexico type chiles (Soto-Ortiz and Silvertooth, 2007 and Silvertooth, et al, 2010; Figure 1).  This phenological guideline can be used to identify or predict important stages of crop development that impact physiological requirements.  For example, a phenological guideline can help identify stages of growth in relation to crop water use (consumptive use) and nutrient uptake patterns (Figure 3).
 
This information allows growers to improve the timing of water and N inputs to improve production efficiency.  For some crops or production situations HU based phenological guidelines can be used to project critical dates such as harvest or crop termination.  Many other applications related to crop management (e.g., pest management) can be derived from a better understanding of crop growth and development patterns.

Figure 1.  Typical relationship between the rate of plant growth and development
and temperature.  Growth and development ceases when temperatures decline
below the lower temperature threshold (A) or increase above the upper
temperature threshold (C).  Growth and development increases rapidly when
temperatures fall between the lower and upper temperature thresholds (B).


Figure 2.  Basic phenological guideline for irrigated New Mexico-type chiles.

References
Brown, P. W.  1989.  Heat units.  Bull. 8915, Univ. of Arizona Cooperative Extension, College of Ag., Tucson, AZ.
Silvertooth, J.C., P.W. Brown, and S. Walker.  2010. Crop Growth and Development for Irrigated Chile (Capsicum annuum).  University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Bulletin No. AZ 1529
Soto-Ortiz, R. and J.C. Silvertooth.  2007. A Crop Phenology Model for Irrigated New Mexico Chile (Capsicum annuum L.) The 2007 Vegetable Report. Jan 08:104-122. 

DISEASE: Center Rot of Onion
PATHOGEN: Pantoea ananatis, Pantoea agglomerans, Pantoea alli and Pantoea stewartii subsp. indologenes
HOSTS: Onion (Allium cepa L.), garlic (Allium sativum L.), shallots (Allium cepa var. aggregatum L.), leeks (Allium ampeloprasum L.), chives (Allium schoenoprasum L.).

Symptoms and signs
Center rot of onion has not been a major problem in the desert southwest but when the environment is favorable, the disease can cause up to 90% loss. Foliar symptoms (symptoms on leaves) may start with water-soaked lesions spanning the length of the leaf blade, which gradually become blighted resulting in desiccation and collapse of the tissue. Experiments have shown that the bacteria can move from leaves to the bulbs, thus protecting foliage is important to manage the disease.  
 
The  bacteria can overseason to infect onions in a number of different ways.  Like many bacterial pathogens, P. ananatis can be seed-borne with infested seed serving as a survival mechanism as well as a means of dissemination. It has been demonstrated that P. ananatis can be both naturally seed-borne and seed-transmitted in onion. The significance of the bacterium's ability to colonize seed is uncertain, as most onion seed production sites are located in arid climates but extremely important to understand to manage the disease. 
Although P. ananatis can be seedborne, the proposed primary mode of transmission is by two insect vectors. Two species of thrips, tobacco thrips (Frankliniella fusca (Hinds)) and onion thrips (Thrips tabaci), have the ability to transiently acquire and transmit P. ananatis and P. agglomerans . The bacterium can persist in a non-circulative manner in the gut of thrips for 128 h, allowing the vector to infect plants over an extended period of time. 
 
P. ananatis can survive epiphytically and endophytically on a wide range of hosts. These alternative hosts can serve as a source of inoculum in fields where susceptible crops are grown. In Georgia alone, 25 weed species, including carpetweed (Mollugo verticillata), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum), curly dock (Rumex crispus), Florida pusley (Richardia scabra), sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia), stinkweed (Thlaspi arvense), Texas panicum (Panicum texanum), vaseygrass (Paspalum urvillei), wild radish (Brassica spp.), yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and other multiple crop plants were found to harbor P. ananatis populations asymptomatically.

Pic Credit: Colton Tew


Center rot-onion pathosystem: Multiple sources of inoculum (seed, weed and
thrips) contribute to center rot epidemic in field; A: foliar symptom resulting in
reduced yield (pre-harvest) and B: bulb rot in storage resulting in post-harvest
losses

Onion cultivars resistant to Pantoea sp. are not commercially available. Use of certified onion seeds is encouraged to avoid introduction of Pantoea sp. inoculum in the production field. Planting early maturing or mid-maturing onion varieties are often recommended for growers. Late maturing varieties provide a larger window for infection and a potential epidemic to occur, which are favored by thrips pressure, hot and humid conditions, and lack of effective bactericides. Overhead irrigation should be avoided as it promotes bacterial spread compared with sub-surface or drip-irrigation. Controlling thrips population can be an effective management strategy to reduce center rot incidence as these vectors play an important role in bacterial transmission. 
Center rot management in onion fields relies heavily on copper applications mixed with an ethylenebisdithiocarbamate fungicide (EBDC), such as mancozeb, which growers may apply weekly as a protectant.  In addition, researchers found P. ananatis strains to be copper-tolerant indicating overuse and potential risk of insensitivity to this chemistry. Repeated applications of copper sprays during susceptible growth stages can be effective only to a limited extent and does not offer a robust solution to the problem. Perhaps the inefficacy of these sprays could be due to thrips preference to colonize certain parts of the onion plant, e.g. the basal meristems (neck region). 
 
The implementation of successful weed management strategies are important in reducing P. ananatis inoculum in the field. By reducing weeds, growers can potentially reduce initial inoculum. 
 
 
https://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/disimpactmngmnt/topc/Pages/CenterRotOnion.aspx

LAST CALL FOR MELON POWDERY MILDEW TRIALS
 
If you are planning to include your treatments in the melon powdery mildew field efficacy trial, this is the last  week to send the protocol. Contact Bindu Poudel-Ward (bpoudel@arizona.edu) for details and collaboration.

At the UC Cooperative Extension 2024 Automated Technology Field Day in Salinas, CA a couple of weeks ago, 12 of the latest automated and robotic technologies were demonstrated in the field. Most were designed for weed control or thinning vegetable crops. Several of the technologies shown are relatively “new” for the 2024 season. These included laser weeders that also are capable of thinning lettuce (Fig. 1 & 2), a smart cultivator/side-dresser that cultivates between individual crop plants and simultaneously applies fertilizer at a variable rate depending on plant size (Fig. 3), a spot sprayer that utilizes superheated vegetable oil to kill weeds (Fig. 4), and a self-propelled machine that disinfests soil prior to planting using steam. Although the test runs were short, I was impressed with the possibilities for these machines. Company representatives said they will be in Arizona this upcoming season and are interested in meeting with growers. Company contact information can be found at their respective websites, or feel free to contact me if you would like additional information.

Fig. 1. Carbon Robotics’¹ (Seattle, WA) LaserWeeder^TM. The unit utilizes a vision
system to detect crop plants and weeds. A laser is used to kill unwanted plants.
The machine can be used for weeding or thinning lettuce crops (bottom).


Fig. 2. L&A¹ (Chico, WA) autonomous laser weeding/thinning robot. The unit is
equipped with a vision system to detect crop plants and weeds, and a laser to kill
unwanted plants. The machine can be used for crop thinning or weeding (weeded
carrot crop, bottom).


Fig. 3. Stout Industrial Technology’s¹ (Salinas, CA) smart cultivator/side
dresser. The unit is equipped with a vision system for detecting crop plants, and
blades that move in and out of the crop row to remove in-row weeds. Liquid
fertilizer (shown colored with blue dye) is applied at a variable rate depending on
plant size.


Fig. 4. Tensorfield Agriculture¹ (Union City, CA) precision spot spray weeding
machine. The unit has an 80” wide spray boom equipped with 232 individually
controllable spray nozzles to spot spray weeds with superheated vegetable oil
(bottom left, bottom right). A vision system is used to detect weeds and spot
spray resolution is ¼”.


Fig. 5. UA/UC Davis self-propelled band-steam applicator. Device injects steam
into the soil to kill weed seed and soilborne pathogens prior to planting.

[1] Reference 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.

Question to IPM team:
I applied Raptor and Pursuit to an alfalfa field. Can you provide some information on the carryover and phytotoxicity to onions?
IPM Team:      We haven’t done plant back evaluations with these products. The soil persistence that is mentioned in the AZ PCA study guide is 2-4 months for the Raptor and 3-12 months for Pursuit. The label specifies longer replanting intervals for various crops and suggests that “before planting any crop not listed elsewhere in Rotational Crop Restrictions, a successful field bioassay must be completed. The field bioassay consists of a test strip of the intended rotational crop planted across the previously treated field and grown to maturity”.
An interesting journal article “Injury to Vegetable Crops from Herbicides Applied in Previous Years”, mentions In 1995, residual imazethapyr delayed tomato maturity but did not reduce tomato yield. Other vegetable crops were not injured by herbicide residues. Then in 1997 “imazethapyr carryover injured cabbage, onion, and tomato plants and reduced tomato yield most injury occurred at 2X and 4X rates¹.
The “Carrington Research Center in NDSU did an herbicide carryover study included here which presents the “response of onions to herbicides applied to soybean the previous year²” including Raptor and Pursuit.  Also, in this study (table below) onion injury was significant in the 2X and 4X rates.

Another “Evaluation of Pre and Post Emergence Herbicides on Yield Contributing and Quality Characters in Onion” found that “Imazethapyr @ 100 g a.i / ha as post emergence application (20 DAT) coupled with preemergence herbicides produced the lower (yield) values than weedy check as Imazethapyr found to be toxic to the Onion^3”.
The field study “Efficacy of imidazolinone herbicides applied to imidazolinone resistant maize and their carryover effect on rotational crops” showed sensitivity of rotational crops, from high to low, was the following: Beta vulgaris>Capsicum annum>Lycopersicum esculentum>Cucumis melo>Hordeum vulgare>Medicago sativa>Lolium multiflorum>Avena sativa>Pisum sativum>Allium cepa (onion)>Zea mays.
The label’s recommendation of doing a bioassay is very useful. Many factors can affect herbicide carryover and every case is different. Low soil moisture might not permit appropriate soil conditions for an efficient microbiological and chemical degradation of imidazolinone herbicides³. Other elements to consider are the soil texture, pH, soil temperature, microbial activity, photodegradation, previous crop, water applied after application of the herbicide, soil tillage intensity. The combinations of these elements could contribute to dissipation of these products. Also, having this information would help us determine the best IPM strategy.
 



References:

1. Greenland RG. Injury to vegetable crops from herbicides applied in previous years. Weed Technology. 2003;17(1):73-78. doi:10.1614/0890-037X(2003)017[0073:ITVCFH]2.0.CO;2
2. Herbicide Carryover Study, 1997 Richard Greenland
3. Evaluation of Pre and Post Emergence Herbicides on Yield Contributing and Quality Characters in Onion cv. N-53 M. Venkateswara Reddy* , K. Umajyothi, P. Syam Sundar Reddy and K. Sasikala
4. Efficacy of imidazolinone herbicides applied to imidazolinoneresistant maize and their carryover effect on rotational crops C. Alister1 , M. Kogan

Resistant varieties are crucial for effective insect pest management, more specifically in organic crop production. When growing crops organically, resistant varieties should be the first line of defense against insect pests. Compared to nonresistant varieties, insect-resistant crop varieties are less vulnerable to insect attacks or yield well despite insect attacks. 

Resistance in crops can be expressed through different mechanisms, including antibiosis, antixenosis, and tolerance. For the antibiosis mechanism, the resistant crops act on the life history traits of the pest, such as affecting fecundity, growth, development, and survival. Thus, this reduces the pest population. On the other hand, antixenosis is characterized by the ability of the crop to affect the behavior of the pest by deterring it after initial tasting or probing, which is non-preference. For the tolerance mechanism, however, the crops can sustain a high density of pests and still maintain their yield potential. In most cases, the overall resistance of a variety is a combination of all these three mechanisms. 

There is also a type of resistance called phenological resistance, field resistance, or pseudo-resistance, which is when the crop appears to be resistant because it is at a less susceptible stage when a pest attack occurs. This may happen either because of the rate of development of the crop or due to management practices implemented, causing the crop to escape the pest pressure. Thus, the implementation of proper agronomic practices plays a significant role in improving the ability of crops to resist pest attacks. 

In certain scenarios, additional insect control measures such as the use of bioinsecticides (in organic production) and natural enemies may be necessary in conjunction with an insect-resistant variety for comprehensive pest control. However, even in cases where additional control measures are required, the cultivation of a resistant variety can significantly delay and reduce the amount of insecticide applications needed. This underscores the economic, ecological, and environmental benefits of using insect-resistant crop varieties. 

Previous studies conducted at Yuma Agricultural Center demonstrated that resistant lettuce varieties can provide suitable control of aphids affecting lettuce in the region. Therefore, it is very important to consider cultivating insect-resistant lettuce varieties for suitable management of aphids in organic lettuce production since biological insecticide options are currently limited. My lab is planning to evaluate several lettuce varieties to determine lettuce varieties that carry resistance against aphids in an attempt to generate applicable information on varieties that could fit well within the production practices and environmental conditions of Arizona’s vegetable-growing regions. 

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