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

Frost and freeze damage affect countless fruit and vegetable growers leading to yield losses and occasionally the loss of the entire crop. Frost damage occurs when the temperature briefly dips below freezing (32°F).With a frost, the water within plant tissue may or may not actually freeze, depending on other conditions. A frost becomes a freeze event when ice forms within and between the cell walls of plant tissue. When this occurs, water expands and can burst cell walls. Symptoms of frost damage on vegetables include brown or blackening of plant tissues, dropping of leaves and flowers, translucent limp leaves, and cracking of the fruit. Symptoms are usually vegetable specific and vary depending on the hardiness of the crop and lowest temperature reached. A lot of times frost injury is followed by secondary infection by bacteria or opportunist fungi confusing with plant disease.

Most susceptible to frost and freezing injury: Asparagus, snap beans, Cucumbers, eggplant, lemons, lettuce, limes, okra, peppers, sweet potato

Moderately susceptible to frost and freezing injury: Broccoli, Carrots, Cauliflower, Celery, Grapefruit, Grapes, Oranges, Parsley, Radish, Spinach, Squash

Least susceptible to frost and freezing injury: Brussels sprouts, Cabbage, Dates, Kale, Kohlrabi, Parsnips, Turnips, Beets

More information:

https://www.extension.iastate.edu

https://www.farmprogress.com

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.

 

 

In the absence of Dacthal (DCPA) growers are looking for different herbicide options for Broccoli and Onions.
The following is data from a broccoli trial done in 2010 by Tickes/Pena, which compares Prowl, Goal Tender, Prefar, Treflan, Devrinol and Dacthal at different application timings. Plots were visually evaluated for weed control of  Goosefoot (Chenopodium murale), Malva (Malva parviflora), and Yellow Sweet Clover (Melilotus oficinalis). The label recommendations for Devrinol are “Use the lower rate on light soil (coarse textured-sandy), and the higher rate on heavy soil (fine textured-clay)”. The rate goes from 1-2 lbs on the DF-XT 50% formulation.
We hope this information is useful in our decision making for broccoli herbicide programs. 

 

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.