When going into the field to evaluate a crop, there are typically three fundamental points we need to take into consideration that include: 1) stage of growth, 2) general crop vigor and yield potential, and 3) anticipate the next stage of development and what we need to do in terms of field crop management. These considerations are commonly focused on aboveground crop evaluations. The root system is also an important part of the crop condition to evaluate but we commonly do not evaluate roots because of the difficulty in doing so.
Root systems and early development were described in a basic manner in a recent article on 4 September (UA Vegetable IPM Newsletter Volume 15, No. 18).
The effective root zone depth is the depth of soil used by the bulk of the plant root system to explore a soil volume and obtain plant-available moisture and plant nutrients. Effective root depth is not the same as the maximum root zone depth. As a rule of thumb, we commonly consider that about 70% of the moisture and nutrient uptake by plant roots takes place in the top 24 inches of the root zone; about 20% from the third quarter; and about 10% from the soil in the deepest quarter of the root zone (Figure 1).
The small and very fine root hairs are the most physiologically active portion of a developing root system. It is important that plants continue to develop and generate fresh young roots and an abundance of fine root hairs to maintain water and nutrient uptake.
Figure 1. General pattern for plant-water and nutrient uptake from the soil profile.
Root development patterns are dependent on the nature of the soil profile in the field. Soil profiles with compaction layers, as well as rock, clay, or caliche layers can limit and alter root development and the full exploration of the soil volume that the plants are capable of (Figure 2). So, it is good to know what the soil profile looks like in the field and understand how that will impact plant root development.
Figure 2. Generalized soil profile with major horizons.
Leafy green vegetable crops need to develop a marketable plant in a relatively short amount of time and a strong root system is essential. Transplants are commonly being used in vegetable crop production systems and the transition of transplants to field conditions is a major step in the production process. The transition is primarily experienced by the plant below ground.
Transplanted crops will have altered root systems due to the constraints within the rooting cone. Further root development beyond the original cone rooting mass is important for crop success. Thus, it is important to monitor the root system transition and the relationship to overall plant development.
Checking root systems is a plant destructive process since we need to literally excavate the roots from the soil and it does take time and effort. Accordingly, it is also important to be careful of where and how we sample plants and evaluate the root systems in a field.
Crop species can vary significantly in their patterns of root development, and it is important to know what is “normal” when evaluating crops in the field. An excellent reference for vegetable crop root system development is a 1927 publication by Dr. John E. Weaver and William E. Bruner from the University of Nebraska (Root Development of Vegetable Crops). This publication can be found at the following link:
https://soilandhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/01aglibrary/010137veg.roots/010137toc.html
A few basic examples from the Weaver and Bruner publication are provided in the following figures (Figures 3-10).
Figure 3. Cauliflower, 3 weeks after transplanting
Figure 4. Cabbage roots, 55 days after transplanting.
Figure 5. Cabbage roots, 75 days after transplanting.
Figure 6. Pepper roots, 24 days.
Figure 7. Pepper roots, 45 days (6 weeks).
Figure 8. Pepper roots, mature.
Figure 9. Lettuce roots, 3 weeks. The roots on the right were grown in compact
soil, the roots on the left were grown in loose/open soil.
Figure 10. Lettuce roots, 60 days.
Earlier this year, we completed fabrication of a prototype commercial scale steam applicator for injecting steam into the soil prior to planting. The concept behind soil steaming is similar to soil solarization - heat the soil to levels sufficient to kill soilborne pathogens and weed seeds (typically 140 °F for >20 minutes). The self-propelled machine is principally comprised of a 100 BHP steam generator mounted on tracks and a steam applicator sled (Fig. 1). Steam is applied via shank injection as the machine travels through the field. After cooling (< ½ a day), the crop is planted into the disinfested soil.
The device has been demonstrated in several on-farm, field-scale (>1-acre plots) tests in Salinas, CA this summer. Although the trials are still in progress, preliminary results indicate that the machine is performing well and similar to our previous steam applicator prototypes. In those trials, we found that soil steaming provided excellent weed control (>90%), suppressed problematic soilborne diseases (Fusarium wilt of lettuce >50%, lettuce drop >70%), reduced Pythium spp. counts in soil assays (>93%) and increased crop yields (>24%).
For this upcoming season, we are seeking collaborators to conduct similar field-scale on-farm demonstrations in Yuma, AZ. The primary objectives would be to assess the viability of soil steaming at the field-scale level and obtain grower feedback on the device’s commercial potential. The machine can be adjusted to work with most bed configurations including narrow (40”, 42”) and wide (80”, 84”) beds, and is suitable for use in conventional or organic crops (soil steaming is organically compliant). To date, the device has been successfully tested in iceberg lettuce, romaine lettuce, baby leaf spinach and carrot crops.
If you are interested in an on-farm demo of soil steaming, please let me know. We have resources to conduct 3-4 on-farm demos, so space is limited. I’d be happy to work with you.
Fig. 1. Self-propelled steam applicator principally comprising a a) 100 BHP steam
generator mounted on tracks and a b) steam applicator sled that applies steam via
c) shank injection as beds are formed.
We are currently doing a trial for Hairy Feeabane control (Conyza bonariensis) with several combinations and wanted to share some preliminary results. Application was done last March 22 when the weeds were approximately 0.5-3” diameter and burn down activity was evaluated 5 days after treated (5DAT). We are sharing the first evaluation with you since the weed is abundant at this time in the Yuma Mesa. This is the initial evaluation, so mortality and final control will be rated later.
In recent conversations with PCAs we talked about Rely (glufosinate) activity and they have seen good performance of the product especially when weeds are small and according to some researchers this product’s works better with high relative humidity1 (Tickes 2010).
This preliminary data shows that Rely and Sharpen both wit AMS (Ammonium Sulfate) and MSO (Methilated Seed Oil) appeared effective at the 5DAT evaluation. There are other PPO herbicides that we are testing like UA850 that looks promising in some combinations such as the combination with Roundup+AMS+MSO. More details will be shared at a later date when additional data is collected.
References:
Integrated pest management (IPM) involves the utilization of a combination of several tactics for the effective management of pests. This concept was developed by entomologists and is currently adopted by pest managers to target many kinds of pests, including insects, weeds, and pathogens. Most IMP tactics fit well in both conventional and organic crop production. It is not uncommon that most pest management techniques that are approved for organic crop production are not very effective as a stand-alone tactic. Therefore, it is essential to use a combination of pest management techniques that will complement each other to control the pests adequately. This is like a many little hammers approach, where each of the management tactics is a little hammer hammering on the pests. When planning your IPM programs targeting pests in organic crop production, it is important to consider planting resistant/tolerant varieties, scouting regularly, implementing economic thresholds (when possible), practicing cultural control, physical/mechanical control, and biological control, and applying biopesticides when necessary.
• Resistant varieties: Resistant varieties are crucial for effective IPM in organic crop production. When available, the use of resistant varieties should be the first line of defense against pests. Resistant varieties help save on production costs and mitigate environmental impacts associated with insecticides and their applications.
• Cultural control: Cultural control includes cropping systems (trap cropping and push-pull), planting date (early planting or late planting), crop rotation, and growing of crop varieties with early maturity traits. Implementing trap cropping and/or push-pull systems can cause the diversion of insect pests. Early or late planting, crop rotation, and variety with early maturity traits can favor the avoidance of damaging insect pest pressures.
• Scouting: Proper and timely scouting helps determine the levels of pest infestations, allowing the pest manager to trigger control action in a timely fashion. Scouting also helps to prevent unnecessary insecticide applications.
• Economic thresholds: The economic threshold determines the pest or injury level at which control action should be taken. The economic threshold works side by side with scouting. This helps to determine when a management action should be triggered, allowing a reduction of unnecessary insecticide utilization, which will consequently help in delaying or mitigating resistance.
• Physical/mechanical control: This method includes establishing physical barriers, plowing, and sanitation (elimination of volunteer crops and other potential hosts). Plowing can help to bury soil insect pests deep into the ground, directly kill them, and expose soil insects to adverse weather conditions, birds, and other predators, which will adversely impact these pest populations.
• Biological control: This method involves using insect pests’ natural enemies, including predators such as spiders, lady beetles, syrphid fly larvae, big-eyed bugs, pirate bugs, lacewing larvae, and parasitoids such as parasitic wasps and flies.
• Biopesticides: Biopesticides are based on botanical extracts, entomopathogenic fungi, entomopathogenic bacteria, or entomopathogenic viruses that have adverse effects on insect pests. Entrust, Bt, Pyganic, AZA-Neem, M-Pede, Celite, and Venerate are commonly used insecticides for insect pest control in organic crops grown in Arizona.
The implementation of IPM permits to manage pests economically while preserving the environment and reducing negative impacts on human health. In other words, IPM aims at managing pests in an economically viable, socially acceptable, and environmentally safe manner. It is important to note that all the IPM tactics are not always viable in all situations (IPM is not a one-size-fits-all). Therefore, the management techniques choice for an IPM program should be done on a case-by-case basis.
