We will be holding an Invasive Species Workshop at the Yuma Ag Center on July 24 beginning at noon with a yummy lunch, and followed up with speakers from the University of Florida and Georgia who will inform us on a couple of potential invasive insect pests that we should be on the lookout for. It should be very informative meeting. Invasive species are nothing new to the Yuma vegetable industry. In fact, in the past 30 years a number of exotic insect pests have become established in Yuma beginning with the american serpentine leafminer, Liriomyza trifolii . As some may recall, damaging levels of this pest were first found infesting lettuce in 1987. A section 18 was obtained two years later for Agri-Mek and the problem soon subsided. That was followed by the sweet potato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci-biotype B in 1991-1992. Of course, the Section 18 registration of Admire, and subsequent registrations of a variety of new chemistries (IGRs) resulted in area-wide suppression of whitefly populations and since have allowed the industry to effectively manage the pest. Then a few years later (1999) the lettuce aphid showed up in the Yuma Valley, a transplant from Europe, where it had first been found in Salinas the previous year. Along with it came the foxglove aphid which was not previously thought to occur in Arizona. Both aphid species are found sporadically infesting lettuce throughout the area every season. With the registration of Movento (2008) growers can now effectively manage these aphids in leafy vegetables. Finally in the past few years we’ve had two important invasive species invade the desert. The first was a whitefly-transmitted virus, cucurbit yellow stunting disorder virus (CYSDV), on melon crops in 2006, and more recently, the bagrada bug on cole crops in 2010. Both crept into the desert unexpectedly and are causing economic losses to our local vegetable industry. Hopefully, as we continue to learn more about these 2 important pests, cost-effective management programs will be developed. So, I encourage you to attend theInvasive Species Workshop on the 24th and learn about a couple of potential invaders.

This study was conducted at the JV farms at Gila Valley. Lettuce variety ‘Guapo’ was seeded, then sprinkler-irrigated to germinate seed on September 19, 2023, on double rows 12 in. apart on beds with 42 in. between bed centers.  Rest of the irrigation 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, which contained two 25 ft rows of lettuce. Plants were thinned on October 9, 2023 at the 3-4 leaf stage to a 12-inch spacing. Treatment beds were separated by single nontreated beds. Treatments were applied by incorporating in soil before seeding or with a tractor-mounted boom sprayer that delivered 50 gal/acre at 100 psi to flat-fan nozzles spaced 12 in apart.

Month	Max	Min	Avg	Rain
September	100	71	86	0.71 in
October	93	61	77	0.00 in
November	80	51	65	0.08 in
December	71	44	57	0.82 in

 
Fusarium wilt (caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lactucae ) rating was done in the field by observing the typical symptom of lettuce wilt. Confirmation was done by cutting the cross section of roots. Disease scoring/rating was done on December 6, 2023. 
 
The data in the table illustrate the degree of disease control obtained by application of the various treatments in this trial. The disease pressure was extremely high in 2023, and most treatments showed little or no control against the disease. The treatments that showed some activity were Bexfond, Cevya, Rhyme, and Serifel. Plant vigor was normal and phytotoxicity symptoms were not observed in any treatments in this trial.

The autonomous agricultural robot industry is an incredibly fast-moving space. Startups, established companies and academic researchers are continuously putting forth new ideas and products. It’s hard to keep up with. In November of 2020, Future Farming (Misset Publisher, BV, Doetinchem, Netherlands) published a Field Robots Catalogue that provides a comprehensive overview of the state of autonomous ag robots. The article provides brief summaries of 35 autonomous ag robots that are currently commercially available. Along with a brief paragraph about what each robot does, the article presents information about how many robots from a particular manufacturer are actively being used, the cost of the machine, and links to a video of the device in action. Most of the robots are for weed management in vegetable crops. Kill mechanisms range from spot spraying to mechanical weed removal to electrocution.  Several of the robots featured are applicable and relevant to Arizona vegetable production, and some are currently operating in the U.S. If you’re interested in ag robots and want to get up to date, this article is an excellent resource and quick read. The article can be found at the link provided below.

Title: Future Farming Field Robots Catalogue
https://misset.com/field-robots/field-robots/
Publisher: Misset Publisher, BV, Doetinchem, Netherlands.

Contact herbicides are those that only affect the part of the weed that they “contact” They don’t move into or affect any other part of a plant. They were the first herbicides used and surprisingly, they still are better at controlling some weeds than any other products that have been developed. They usually control only small weeds with good coverage although some of them will kill large malva , Purslane and some other difficult to kill weeds. Goal, Sharpen, Treevix and Gramoxone, which are all contacts, will kill malva and purslane while systemic herbicides like Glyphosate and 2,4-D, misses them. Maestro or Bucril (Bromoxynil), also an old contact, will kill swinecress while many systemics like the growth regulators ,miss it. Glufosinate( Liberty, Rely) is a contact that is very broad spectrum and kills more grasses and broadleaves than many systemic herbicides. These all work very fast and in this age of immediate gratification ,you don’t have to wait long.  Most have little soil residual activity (except Goal, Chateau and a couple others) Goal and Chateau are contacts but used mostly preemergence to the weeds. They “ contact” the weeds when they emerge at the surface. which is a benefit where double or triple cropping is common. Most( again except Goal) are not volatile but will cause pretty clear contact injury when the spray moves to sensitive crops. Paraquat was registered in 1959 and is still a very useful tool for desiccating plants. Many restrictions have been put on its use because of its toxicity to humans.  Most contact herbicides are non-selective and will injure most living plant tissue. They are used selectively with directed spray or timing. Adjuvants are often required to increase absorption, spreading and sticking.

Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed here.
 
Corn earworm::            
CEW moth counts continuing to increase in areas, and about average for late-September
 
Beet armyworm:         
Trap counts increased in most locations, bet well below average for mid- September.
 
Cabbage looper:          
Cabbage looper activity slowly increasing, particularly in  Dome Valley and Wellton. About average for this time of season.
 
Diamondback moth:     
DBM moths starting to become active in a few areas (Dome and Wellton); below average for this time of the year.
 
Whitefly:                      
Adult movement increased in the past week, but below average for this time of year. 
 
Thrips:                          
Thrips adults increased markedly in many locations (Tacna, Dome, Yuma Valley), and higher than previous years.
 
Aphids:                        
Aphid movement is absent and consistent with what we typically see during September. 
 
Leafminers:                   
Adult activity up in a few locations (Yuma Valley), below average for September.