Improvements of irrigation and crop water management are always central to any discussions in the agricultural communities of the desert Southwest regarding higher crop production efficiencies.  That is particularly true in these days of water shortages.
In any crop production setting the crop (plant)-soil-water relationships are essential to producing a healthy and productive crop.  In desert agriculture, water is our first limiting agronomic (crop and soil) factor and there is no substitute for that.
Amid all the discussions about improvements in irrigation efficiency, the focus on plant-soil-water relations needs to be continually emphasized.  The objective of any irrigation system is to provide adequate irrigation water to the soil for the benefit of the crop.  Thus, it is important to understand the soil conditions and the actual crop-water needs for each irrigation event.

Every combination of a soil and a specific crop is unique, and that delicate relationship is compounded by the above ground environment the plant is growing in, the meteorological conditions.  The dynamics of crop-water demand change with each plant species and it will vary daily within a given crop in response to soil conditions, stage of growth, and meteorological conditions, i.e., temperature, humidity, wind speed, solar radiation, etc.   These meteorological factors must be appropriately considered for efficient irrigation management, irrespective of any type of irrigation system, i.e., flood, sprinkler, drip, etc.
In Arizona we are fortunate to have the Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET) in place and fully operational with high quality data being collected from agricultural areas across the state on an hourly basis.  At present, this data is summarized daily from 25 agricultural sites and seven urban sites across the state.  https://ag.arizona.edu/azmet/

Dr. Paul Brown, Extension Specialist in Biometeorology (retired) began the development of the AZMET system in 1985 and the full operation of the system began in January 1986.  Prior to his retirement a few years ago, Dr. Brown managed and directed the AZMET system along with a robust research and Extension education program to provide numerous crop production tools that this system supports.  Together, Paul Brown and Bruce Russell developed an excellent weather system that is available to us all.   Dr. Jeremy Weiss now directs the AZMET program.

The meteorological data collected by AZMET include temperature (air and soil), humidity, solar radiation, wind (speed and direction), and precipitation.  AZMET also provides a variety of computed variables, including heat units (degree-days), chill hours, dew point, and reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo).  AZMET data are summarized in a variety of formats, including several ready-to-use summaries and comma-delimited (raw) ASCII text files that can be imported into most database and spreadsheet programs (Russell, 2011).
I have participated in numerous discussions recently regarding efforts to manage water resources in a broad sense, such as within an area or district, as well as in individual crop fields where the use of satellite-based evaporation (ET) estimates are being considered for application.  In Arizona, that should not be necessary since we have AZMET stations on the ground that are well-placed in agricultural areas with high quality data available daily.  The AZMET system provides direct measurements of daily atmospheric conditions that our crops are dealing with in each of the 25 locations.

With AZMET and the information directly available and accessible, in my view we should be using this system for our weather-based needs for crop management and not a remote satellite system.  Even if someone insists on using satellite-based systems, it will need ground truthing and AZMET data would be essential for that.
We should be using the AZMET data and related crop management tools.  This system has been developed by the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension System and it is openly available for direct access and use.

References:
Russell, B. 2011.  AZMET.  The Arizona Meteorological Network : A Brief Overview.  University of Arizona Cooperative Extension.  https://ag.arizona.edu/azmet/azmet04.htm

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%). Spinach ‘Meerkat’ was seeded, then sprinkler-irrigated to germinate seed Jan 13, 2025 on beds with 84 in. between bed centers and containing 30 lines of seed per bed.  All irrigation water was supplied by sprinkler irrigation.  Treatments were replicated four times in a randomized complete block design.  Replicate plots consisted of 15 ft lengths of bed separated by 3 ft lengths of nontreated bed.  Treatments were applied with a CO₂ backpack sprayer that delivered 50 gal/acre at 40 psi to flat-fan nozzles.

Downy mildew (caused by Peronospora farinosa f. sp. spinaciae)was first observed in plots on Mar 5 and final reading was taken on March 6 and March 7, 2025. Spray date for each treatments are listed in excel file with the results.

Disease severity was recorded by determining the percentage of infected leaves present within three 1-ft²areas within each of the four replicate plots per treatment.  The number of spinach leaves in a 1-ft²area of bed was approximately 144. The percentage were then changed to 1-10scale, with 1 being 10% infection and 10 being 100% infection.

The data (found in the accompanying Excel file) illustrate the degree of disease reduction obtained by applications of the various tested fungicides. Products that provided most effective control against the disease include Orondis ultra, Zampro, Stargus, Cevya, Eject .Please see table for other treatments with significant disease suppression/control.  No phytotoxicity was observed in any of the treatments in this trial.

In the preceding issue of UA Veg IPM Updates, the article below was published with an incorrect link to the video mentioned. For those interested in the video, which contains trial results and insightful videos of the technologies in action, the article has been updated with the correct link and is being reposted.


A couple years ago, we conducted evaluations of various “new” technologies for cultivating weeds in cotton as compared to conventional methods. The new technologies included 1) a camera-guided side-shift hitch and 2) finger weeders, an in-row weeding tool (Fig. 1). Camera-guidance of the maneuverable hitch allows cultivating tools to be positioned close to the seed row. In the study, the uncultivated band was 3.5" for the camera-guided system, and 6” for the conventional cultivator.  The aim of evaluating these technologies was to determine their efficacy in controlling herbicide resistant weeds. Trials conducted over 3 years showed that use of camera-guidance improved weed control by more than 30% and finger weeders removed about 45% of the in-row weeds. Overall weed control using the two technologies together was roughly > 90% for broadleaf weeds and about 85% for all weeds species.
Studies conducted by Texas A&M over two years showed similar results (Dotray et. al, 2021).

It is logical to think that similar type results would be realized in vegetable crops such as broccoli and cauliflower, plants that also have fairly long plant stems at the seedling stage of growth. A better than 40% reduction of in-row weeds would significantly lower hand weeding requirements. If you are interested in trying these technologies in vegetable or other crops on your farm, please contact me. We still have the equipment and I’d be happy to work with you.

A presentation given on the trial results and videos of the equipment used operating can be found by clicking here or on image below.

References
Dotray, P.A., Keeling, J.W., & Russell, K.R. 2021. Precision cultivation with finger weeder systems. Project No. 20-190 Final Report. Cary, N.C: Cotton Inc.

Acknowledgements
Project partially funded and supported by Arizona Cotton Growers Association, Cotton Inc., KULT-Kress, LLC and Keithly-Williams Fabrication. We thank them for their support.

Fig. 1. Technologies for precision cultivation and in-row weeding
used in efficacy trials included a a) a camera-guided side-shift hitch
attached to a cultivator and b) in-row weeding tools (finger weeders).

Fig. 2. Click on image above to watch presentation on precision cultivation and in-row weeding technologies.

Postemergence herbicides used for grass control in vegetables include Poast (sethoxydim), Select (clethodim) and Fusilade (fluazifop) and the generics of these active ingredients. When some grasses have escape or have survived the application of Pefar, Kerb and Balan these selective grass herbicides can come to the rescue and have shown to be a great tool for weed management. 

The above-mentioned herbicides are all Acetyl CoA carboxylase or ACCase inhibitors. These products work slowly and even slower at lower temperatures and shorter days. Treated grasses should stop growing immediately and will slowly turn yellow, red and gradually die as the crop grows. The process takes about 15-21days. Select (clethodim) works the faster than Poast (sethoxydim), and it  isrecommended to add a crop oil concentrate for better activity with the exception of Select Max which can be used either with crop oil concentrate or non-ionic surfactant.
  
References:

1. Retrieved from www on 23.09.06:  https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/herbicide-injury-accase-inhibitors#:~:text=Herbicide%20injury%20from%20lipid%20biosynthesis,as%20clethodim%2C%20sethoxydim%20and%20others.
2. https://live-azs-vegetableipmupdates.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/2023-09/230712%20MOA-Lipid_B_I.pdf

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

Corn earworm: CEW moth counts down in all traps over the last month; about average for December.

Beet armyworm: Moth trap counts decreased in all areas in the last 2 weeks but appear to remain active in some areas, and average for this time of the year.

Cabbage looper: Moths increased in the past 2 weeks, and average for this time of the season.

Diamondback moth: Adults increased in several locations last, particularly in the Yuma Valley most traps.  Below average for December.

Whitefly: Adult movement remains low in all areas, consistent with previous years 

Thrips: Thrips adult movement continues to decline, overall activity below average for December.

Aphids: Winged aphids still actively moving but declined movement in the last 2 weeks. About average for December.

Leafminers: Adult activity down in most locations, below average for this time of season.