We recently compiled the surveys from our annual Lettuce Insect Losses Workshop and results continue to show interesting trends in insecticide usage on desert lettuce. In general, the most used insecticides in fall and spring lettuce correspond directly to the key pests that typically occur during these growing periods.  Overall, the pyrethroids applied both as foliar sprays and through chemigation at stand establishment were the most used insecticide class in conventional lettuce production.  No surprise there. Over the past 20 years, pyrethroid usage has remained steady and the reason is quite clear; pyrethroids are the most inexpensive and safe broad-spectrum insecticides available for effective control of beetles, crickets, plant bugs, and some Lepidopterous larvae and adults (cabbage looper and corn earworm).  The overall use of OPs and carbamates decreased this season. Methomyl (Lannate) and acephate usage declined by more than 20% compared to 2023 and was lower this year than the previous 5 years. In the past few years, OPs/carbamates have been increasingly replaced by several reduced-risk chemistries, of which the spinosyns are the most used class of selective insecticides. Radiant usage against both lepidopterous larvae and thrips has remained steady over the past 20 years, averaging about 2.5 sprays per treated acre, and remained high in 2023-24.  The Diamides (Coragen, Besiege, Minecto Pro, Exirel, Verimark, and Harvanta) were another commonly used selective chemistry in lettuce this season. Since they were first registered in 2008, PCAs have steadily incorporated this new chemical class into their management programs and were used on > 80% of the fall lettuce over the past 4 seasons. Among the diamides, Besiege, Harvanta, and Minecto Pro were the most used products. Another important class of chemistry used in fall and spring lettuce are the neonicotinoids (the 3^rd most used chemistry in lettuce in 2022-23) driven primarily by soil-applied imidacloprid for whiteflies and aphids. The usage of imidacloprid on both fall and spring lettuce decreased in 2023*24, treated on ~70% of the acreage. Foliar neonicotinoid usage decreased last season on both fall and spring acres. However, Movento was applied on almost 90% of spring acres in 2024 and was the most used product for sucking insect control due to heavy aphid pressure that occurred this season. Sequoia, Sivanto, Beleaf and Versys accounted for significant usage this spring, again due to aphids.  Torac usage was down last spring for thrips management and was used on less than 2% of the acreage. In organic lettuce, Entrust was the most commonly applied biopesticide. Like Radiant, it was applied more than two times on >95% of the fall and spring acres. Bts, Pyganic and azadirachtin/neem oil products were the next most used biopesticides on organic crops. Finally, among all insecticide chemistries, the broad spectrum, consumer–friendly pyrethroids have been the predominant chemistry applied to lettuce. However, for the past 12 seasons PCAs treated a greater percentage of their lettuce acreage with selective, reduced-risk products than with the broad-spectrum chemistries. To view the report of the estimated insecticide usage by chemical class, as well as the most used insecticides on fall and spring lettuce this past growing season, go to this link:   Insecticide Usage on Conventional and Organic Lettuce in the Desert, 2023-2024

Being able to accurately track crop development and then to describe and predict important stages of crop growth and development (crop phenology) and harvest dates is important for improving melon (Cucumis melo ‘reticulatus’ L.) crop management (e.g. fertilization, irrigation, harvest scheduling, pest management activities, labor, and machinery management, etc.). It is best to monitor and predict plant development based on the actual thermal conditions in the plant’s environment. Thermal conditions are a more reliable measure and predictive tool for plant development as opposed to a calendar, simply because plant growth is a direct response to temperature and environmental conditions.

Various forms of temperature measurements and units commonly referred to as heat units (HU), growing degree units (GDU), or growing degree days (GDD) have been utilized in numerous studies to predict phenological events for many crop plants (Baskerville and Emin, 1969; Brown, 1989; Baker and Reddy, 2001; and Soto, 2012). A graphical depiction of HU computation using the single sine curve procedure is presented in Figure 1 (Brown, 1989).

Twenty-five years ago we began working on the development and annual testing of a phenology model for desert cantaloupe production for Arizona conditions. The basic cantaloupe phenology model is shown in Figure 2 (Silvertooth, 2003; Soto et al., 2006; and Soto, 2012). Since cantaloupes are a warm season crop, we use the 86/55 ºF thresholds for phenological tracking.

This melon crop phenology model was developed under fully irrigated and well-managed conditions. That is important since non-irrigated fields are more likely to experience water stress, which significantly disrupts crop development patterns.

Key stages of growth or “guideposts” indicated in Figure 2 represent general average or “target” values that are subject to a slight degree of natural variation, which is normal.

Referencing the data from the Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET) and several locations in the Yuma area, the HU accumulations (86/55 ºF thresholds) from 1 January 2025 to a set off our possible 2025 planting dates are listed in Table 1. The HU accumulations from 1 January 2025 to 30 March 2025 are listed in Table 2.

The HU accumulations after planting (HUAP) for these four possible planting dates for three Yuma area locations to 30 March 2025 are shown in Table 3. The HUAP values in Table 3 are simply the difference between the values in Tables 1 and 2. An example for the Yuma Valley, 15 January 2025 planting date is: 718.7 HU - 73.1 HU = 645.6 ~ 646 HUAP.

It is rather easy to test and evaluate this crop phenology model in the field under various planting dates, varieties, and conditions. The information in Table 3 can help serve as a reference to check for melon crop development in the field against this phenological model in Figure 2.

For melon crops in the lower Colorado River Valley, we would currently expect to find fields planted and watered up in mid-January to have small melons approaching golf-ball size and fields planted in early March should be starting to show fresh blooms soon.

Table 1. Heat unit accumulations (86/55 ºF thresholds) after 1 January 2025 on four possible 2025 planting dates utilizing Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET) data for each representative site.

Yuma Valley: https://azmet.arizona.edu/application-areas/heat-units/station-level-summaries/az02

Yuma North Gila: https://azmet.arizona.edu/application-areas/heat-units/station-level-summaries/az14

Roll: https://azmet.arizona.edu/application-areas/heat-units/station-level-summaries/az24

Table 2. Heat unit accumulations (86/55 ºF thresholds) after 1 January 2025 to 30 March 2025 utilizing Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET) data for each representative site.

Table 3. Heat unit accumulations (86/55 ºF thresholds) after planting (HUAP) from four possible 2025 planting dates and three sites in the Yuma area utilizing Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET) data for each representative site. Each value is rounded to the next whole number. Note: the values in Table 3 are determined by taking the difference between the HUs for each representative site and four planting dates in Tables 1 and 2.

Figure 1. Graphical depiction of heat unit computation using the single sine curve procedure. A sine curve is fit through the daily maximum and minimum temperatures to recreate the daily temperature cycle. The upper and lower temperature thresholds for growth and development are then super imposed on the figure. Mathematical integration is then used to measure the area bounded by the sine cure and the two temperature thresholds (grey area). (Brown, 1989)

Figure 2. Heat Units Accumulated After Planting (HUAP, 86/55 °F)

Fusarium wilt of watermelon, caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. niveum,  is one of the oldest described Fusarium wilt diseases and the most economically important disease of watermelon worldwide. It occurs on every continent except Antarctica and new races of the pathogen continue to impact production in many areas around the world. Long-term survival of the pathogen in the soil and the evolution of new races make management of Fusarium wilt difficult. 
 
Symptoms of Fusarium can sometimes be confused with water deficiency, even though there is plenty of water in the field. In Yuma valley we have seen fusarium problem in some overwatered fields. 
Initial symptoms often include a dull, gray green appearance of leaves that precedes a loss of turgor pressure and wilting.  Wilting is followed by a yellowing of the leaves and finally necrosis.  The wilting generally starts with the older leaves and progresses to the younger foliage. Under conditions of high inoculum density or a very susceptible host, the entire plant may wilt and die within a short time.  Affected plants that do not die are often stunted and have considerably reduced yields.  Under high inoculum pressure, seedlings may damp off as they emerge from the soil. 
 
 Initial infection of seedlings usually occurs from chlamydospores (resting structure)  that have overwintered in the soil.  Chlamydospores germinate and produce infection hyphae that penetrate the root cortex, often where the lateral roots emerge.  Infection may be enhanced by wounds or damage to the roots.  The fungus colonizes the root cortex and soon invades the xylem tissue, where it produces more mycelia and microconidia.  Consequently, the fungus becomes systemic and often can be isolated from tissue well away from the roots. The vascular damage we see in the roots is the defense mechanism of the plant to impede the movement of pathogen. 
 
Disease management include planting clean seeds/transplants, use of resistant cultivars, crop rotation, soil fumigation, soil solarization, grafting, biological control. An integrated approach utilizing two or more methods is required for successful disease management. 

Founded in 2016, FarmWise has been at the forefront of AI based weeding technologies for nearly a decade. Over this time, the company has raised over $65 million in capital. In 2023, the company launched their flagship machine, Vulcan - a 21’ wide automated in-row smart cultivator for vegetable crops, priced at $645,000 (Fig. 1). In a surprising announcement just two weeks ago, FarmWise stated that the company was going through a business restructuring and will cease operations in the coming weeks. The bottom line for the decision was that despite having a field-tested automated weeding machine that reduces hand weeding labor costs, the company has not been able to reach profitability with the resources on hand. Moving forward, the company says that they are actively pursuing strategic opportunities including acquisition, partnerships and technology transfer to ensure the Vulcan technology lives on. During the transition, their number one priority is supporting current customers.

For insightful details on the need for restructuring and FarmWise’s plans going forward, you can refer to articles from The Packer and AgFunderNews.

Fig. 1. FarmWise’s automated in-row smart cultivator, the Vulcan, operating in Salinas,
CA. (Photo credit: FarmWise, Santa Clara, CA)

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

Thank You

In 2010 we started publishing the Arizona Vegetable IPM Updates to a small number of friends. It was embraced by the community because of contributions from Mike Matheron, John Palumbo and Barry Tickes in the Plant Pathology, Entomology and Weed Science areas. Mike, John and Barry are the original IPM dudes. 

I was honored to be part of the team editing and sending the Newsletter for almost
16 years. 


This is my last update, and I would like to thank the UA team and the agricultural community for the opportunity to work with you. 

Biological control is an important IPM tool globally. This pest suppression technique is especially important for managing pests in organic crop production. There are various biological control techniques, including conservation biological control, classical biological control, and augmentative biological control. Conservation biological control is the practice of providing habitat to support abundant populations of naturally occurring arthropods that attack crop pests. However, classical biological control and augmentative biological control involve the release of arthropod predators and parasitoids, usually non-native, into the field or greenhouses. This article focuses on conservation biological control.

The contribution of native beneficial insects to pest control has been estimated to be approximately $4.5 billion annually in the United States alone. However, the benefits of beneficial insects areoften overlooked. Research conducted across the country has shown evidence that conserving natural habitats leads to an increase in beneficial arthropod populations and a reduction in pest problems on farms. Beneficial arthropod predators and parasitoids often rely on natural or semi-natural areas adjacent to the field for their persistence. Between growing seasons, these natural and semi-natural areas provide alternative food sources, overwintering, and nesting habitats for natural enemies, thereby promoting their populations. To complete their life cycle, natural enemies require more than just prey or hosts; they also need refuge sites and alternative food sources.

Neighboring natural and semi-natural habitats serve as sources of natural enemies during the growing seasons to suppress crop pests. The establishment of wildflower margins around crop fields increases the abundance of beneficial insects that search for pollen and nectar. For example, many adult parasitoids sustain themselves with pollen and nectar from nearby flowering plants while searching for hosts. Most natural enemies do not disperse far from their overwintering sites; access to permanent habitat near or within the field gives them a jump-start on early pest populations.

Farms with diverse and dense populations of natural enemies are likely to exhibit the following characteristics:

- Have small fields surrounded by natural vegetation.
- Composed of diversified cropping systems and plant populations in or around fields include perennials and flowering plants.
- Crops are managed organically or with minimal agrichemicals.
- Soils are high in organic matter and biological activity and, during the off-season, covered with mulch or vegetation.

Figure 1. Syrphid fly feeding from sweet alyssum flowers.


Figure 2. Mix flowers planted on strips between rows of celery to provide food and
shelter for natural enemies.

Estimation of evapotranspiration for specific crops (ETc) is important for irrigation scheduling and agricultural water management. ETc for crops such can be estimated using the following equation:

ETc = ETo x Kc

Where ETo is the evapotranspiration (ET) of a reference crop (usually grass or alfalfa), which is commonly called reference ET Reference ET (ETo) is defined as the ET from a 3-6" tall cool season grass that completely covers the ground and is supplied with adequate water. ETo is commonly used mostly in the eastern, southern, southeastern, and western U.S.

Reference ET (ETr) assumes a reference surface of tall grass (or alfalfa-20" tall) that completely covers the ground and is supplied with adequate water. ETr is more commonly used in the Midwest.

Both ETc and ETo can be expressed in units of water depth per unit of time, such as inches per day, inches per week, or inches per month. ETo is usually estimated using equations that use weather variables as inputs. These variables include solar radiation, air temperature, wind speed, and relative humidity. Reference ET or ETo can be obtained from AZMET Weather Data (https://cales.arizona.edu/AZMET/az-data.htm) 

Figure 1: The Arizona Meteorological Network

The Kc is an adjustment factor called the “crop coefficient,” which mainly depends on the type of crop and its growth stage. Usually determined experimentally. Each agronomic crop has specific crop coefficients to predict water use rates at different growth stages and could be obtained from university extension or agricultural research center.

Example 1:
A lettuce crop is at the KcD growth stage, with a crop coefficient (Kc) of 0.80 (as indicated in the Kc table). The reference evapotranspiration (ETo) from October 20 to 24 is 1.20 inches over a 7-day period since the last irrigation, based on AZMET data. Determine the actual crop evapotranspiration (ETc), which also represents the total irrigation requirement, assuming the irrigation system operates at 100% efficiency.

Solution:

ETc=ETo *Kc
Kc @ KcD is 0.80
ETo = 1.20 inches
ETc: 1.20 inches * 0.80
= 0.96 inches is actual crop water use which is total irrigation requirement that needs to apply.

Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed here.

Corn earworm: CEW moth counts remain at low levels in all areas, well below average for this time of year.

Beet armyworm: Trap increased areawide; above average compared to previous years.

Cabbage looper:  Cabbage looper counts decreased in all areas; below average for this time of season.

Diamondback moth: DBM moth counts decreased in most areas. About average for this time of the year.

Whitefly: Adult movement beginning at low levels, average for early spring.

Thrips: Thrips adult counts reached their peak for the season. Above average compared with previous years.

Aphids:  Aphid movement decreased in all areas; below average for late-March.

Leafminers: Adults remain low in most locations, below average for March.