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.

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.

Automated in-row weeding machines have been readily available in the Yuma area for several years. These machines utilize a forward-looking camera to identify crop plants and cultivating knives which are moved in and out of the plant row to control in-row weeds. Crop plants are recognized by first identifying green colored and/or chlorophyll signaling objects in captured images. Crop plants are differentiated from weeds primarily based on object size. As such, if the weed is the same size as the crop plant, the weed will be recognized as a crop plant and not controlled. Another problem is that when leaves of weed and crop plants overlap, the system will identify the two plants as one large object. This hinders system precision/performance as weeds close to the crop plant are not controlled. In short, a limitation of automated weeding machines is that they do not perform well in weedy fields.

To overcome this limitation, researchers at UC Davis developed a novel method of recognizing crop plants (Raja et al., 2019). The technique is called crop signaling. It is a system where the crop plant has some unique feature or property (“signal”) that is readily identified by the crop sensing system. Weeds will not have the feature, so crop plants are easily distinguished from weeds. Four crop signaling techniques were developed – a) systemic markers, b) fluorescent proteins, c) plant labels and d) topical markers. All were tested successfully in indoor experiments. Field trials were conducted with plant labels and topical markers in tomato and lettuce (Kennedy et al., 2020). An example of the topical marking system from one of the field trials is shown in Fig. 1. Here, the stem of a tomato plant is sprayed with a crop signaling compound during transplanting. The crop signal is readily visible under UV light. In total, 14 field trials were conducted in Davis, CA and Salinas, CA with a real-time automated weeding machine. Crop plant detection accuracy approached 100% with no false positives, even in weedy fields. Although further development is needed for the system to be commercially viable, this technique shows great promise for the future, and for the development of automated weeding machines with improved crop recognition capability. This will enhance automated weeding machine performance and utility.

Fig. 1. Image of a tomato plant (a) being sprayed with a crop signaling marker compound during transplanting, (b) after transplanting under natural light and (c) four weeks after transplanting under excitation light where the stem is visible with an orange emission signal.

 

References
Raja, R., Slaughter, D.C., Fennimore, S.A., Nguyen, T.T., Vuong, V.L., Sinha, N., Tourte, L., Smith, R.F. & Siemens, M.C. 2019. Crop signaling: A novel crop recognition technique for robotic weed control. Biosystems Eng. 187 278-291. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1537511019308335

Kennedy, H.J., Fennimore, S.A., Slaughter, D.C., Nguyen, T.T., Vuong, V.L., Raja, R. & Smith, R.F. 2020. Crop signal markers facilitate crop detection and weed removal from lettuce and tomato by an intelligent cultivator. Weed Technology 34(3): 342-350. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/weed-technology/article/crop-signal-markers-facilitate-crop-detection-and-weed-removal-from-lettuce-and-tomato-by-an-intelligent-cultivator/8DFF48C3F98D7EF73E16703715F07367

Heavy and widespread infestations of common purslane come up during ground preparation for lettuce every year. This occurs in fields that were kept weed free the previous year and is difficult to understand.

There are probably several reasons for this.

Seed Production
Common Purslane is very prolific. It has been reported that one plant can produce up to 240,000 seeds. The stems are so succulent that plants can remain viable and make seed even after it is uprooted.

Seed Longevity
Once seed is mature it can be viable for as long as 40 years. It has very small, hard seed that can remain dormant in the soil for ss long as 40 years .So you may have to control weeds that got into the field a generation ago..

Multiple perennial germinations
Common Purslane is supposed to be a summer annual, but it germinates multiple times all year in the low desert. It takes 12 hours after receiving moisture in the summer and 7 days in the winter, but it keeps germinating. It has to be controlled when it is less than 2” in diameter. If you wait until most of it germinates the early plants will be too big. If you spray or cultivate when all the emerged plants are small you will miss many that have yet to emerge.  It is best to treat early and control the later emerging plants with a selective herbicide.

Rerooting
When common purslane is broken in pieces it can reroot at the nodes. Late cultivation often spreads this weed. Cultivation is not a good option when purslane is larger than 2”. Herbicides are a better option on big plants.

Seed dispersal
Purslane has a very small light seed. It moves in irrigation water and blows in the wind. Even completely clean fields are likely is be reinfested by seeds that are carried by water and wind into the field.

Best option
Considering the above factors, the best option for controlling common purslane may be preirrigation to germinate the weeds and early herbicide application  or cultivation . Kerb and Prefar are both good on purslane. Prefar should be used at planting to incorporate it with a lot of water and Kerb should be used later to avoid leaching but don’t wait too long and risk germination of the weeds. Purslane germinates from shallow depths and split applications of Kerb may be a good option.

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