Following more than two decades of drought in the western U.S., many watersheds are experiencing critical water shortages.  In the Colorado River basin, the two largest reservoirs, Lakes Powell and Mead, are now at less than 20% capacity.  In contrast, these reservoirs were nearly full in 2000.  With agriculture responsible for 70-80% of the Colorado River water diversions, a great deal of scrutiny is being applied to crop production systems in this region.
 
Crop production systems in the desert Southwest are experiencing increasing pressure to document and improve irrigation efficiency.  There are several ways to define irrigation efficiency.  The primary definitions for irrigation efficiency include orientations with water conveyance and delivery systems (engineering efficiency), and also agronomic, economic, and environmental efficiencies.
 
It comes as no surprise that as an agronomist and soil scientist I tend to focus on the agronomic efficiency of irrigation for the benefit of the crop being grown.  The crop plants are the centerpiece of the production process and the soil-plant system itself represents the primary objective of irrigation management.
 
Agronomic Irrigation Efficiency
 
Agronomic (crop and soil) considerations are centered on our ability to provide irrigation water for the sustainable production of a crop in the field.  The three primary demands for crop water management include: 1) providing water for seed germination and stand establishment, 2) providing irrigation water to match crop-consumptive water use and avoid crop water stress, and 3) provide sufficient irrigation water to leach soluble salts from the root zone so that the soils can support crop production in a sustainable manner (Figure 1).  
 
Agronomic efficiency at the field level focuses on the crop water demand (CWD) through crop consumptive use (crop evapotranspiration, ETc, which is the combination of evaporation and transpiration from the crop) and leaching requirements (LR) which are dependent upon the crop and salinity of the irrigation water.  
 
Agronomic efficiency can be estimated by considering the difference between ETc + LR = CWD and the volume of irrigation water applied (IWA).
 

 
The leaching requirement (LR) can be estimated by use of the following calculation:
 

 
Where: 
 
EC_w = salinity of the irrigation water, electrical conductivity (dS/m)
EC_e = critical plant salinity tolerance, electrical conductivity (dS/m)
 
This is a good method of LR calculation that has been utilized extensively and successfully in Arizona and the desert Southwest for many years.  We can easily determine the salinity of our irrigation waters (EC_w) and we can find the critical plant salinity tolerance level from readily available tabulations of salinity tolerance for many crops (Ayers and Westcot, 1989).  Additional direct references are from Dr. E.V. Maas’ lab at the University of California (Maas, 1984: Maas, 1986; Maas and Grattan, 1999; Maas and Grieve, 1994; and Maas and Hoffman, 1997).  
 
 
 
 
 
To deal with crop water management at the field level agronomically, the crop and soil factors, there are some fundamentals that we can refer to for assistance.  
 
Dr. Jeremy Weiss, program manager for the University of Arizona AZMET system, has recently developed two valuable tools that provide actual crop evapotranspiration (ETc) estimates from several AZMET sites in the lower Colorado River Valley and for several key vegetable crops, including lettuce (iceberg and romaine), broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, and spinach.  
 
The first tool provides accumulations of ETc values over the previous week and a range of dates and the planting date selected by the user.  In both models, the Kc values presented in FAO-56 are used for appropriate stages with each crop.  The reference evapotranspiration (ETo) measurements are taken directly from each AZMET site listed.  Thus, by this method ETc estimates are made by use of equation 3.
 
 

 
 
To access this first crop-water estimate tool please refer to the following link:
 
https://viz.datascience.arizona.edu/azmet/azmet-crop-water-use-estimates/
 
The second tool provides accumulations of ETc values over the crop production cycle from planting (or the wet date) and the date of harvest.  
 
This second tool gives us the opportunity to estimate agronomic efficiency of irrigation management.  With this tool we can review total crop water use estimates (ETc) and include the leaching requirements (LR) to compare with the irrigation water applied (IWA) as described in Equation 1.
 
https://viz.datascience.arizona.edu/azmet/azmet-crop-water-use-estimates-post-harvest/
 
For example, using lettuce (either iceberg or romaine) with a 10 October 2022 planting date through 9 January 2023, we can see from this model the reference evaporation, listed as “water use” (ETo) and the cumulative crop evapotranspiration (ETc, or total crop-water use) of lettuce since the selected planting date. 
 
Since planting on 10 October 2022 through 9 January 2023, a total crop water use (evapotranspiration), or the ETc, has been 11.27 ~ 11.3 inches in the Yuma Valley.  We can also determine crop water use (ETc) last week (3-9 January), has been 0.52 inches in the Yuma Valley.
 
Similar estimates are provided by this model for several AZMET weather stations in the Yuma production area: Roll, Yuma North Gila, Yuma South, and the Yuma Valley.  The Yuma Valley station is at the University of Arizona Yuma Agricultural Center and the Yuma South site is near Somerton, Arizona.  A map of AZMET sites can be found in the following link:
 
https://ag.arizona.edu/azmet/mapsites.htm
 
When we include the leaching requirement for the crop, an overall estimate of field level irrigation efficiency can be made.  We can estimate the leaching requirement as follows assuming an electrical conductivity for Colorado River water of 1.1 dS/m and the lettuce crop salinity tolerance of 1.3 dS/m.
 
 Leaching Requirement (LR) = ECw/((5 X ECe)-ECw)
 
LR = 1.1 dS/m / (5 X 1.3) – 1.1 = 1.1/5.4 = 0.20 = 20% leaching requirement
 
LR = 11.3 X 0.2 = 2.26 ~ 2.3 inches
 
Thus, total crop water demand in this case = 11.3 + 2.3 = 13.6 or ~ 14 inches total
 
Contrasting this estimate of total crop-water use with the amount of irrigation water that was applied to the field can provide an estimate of the agronomic efficiency for a given field of lettuce.  We can do the same thing using this tool for other primary leafy green vegetable crops.
 
We are working in times of decreasing water availability and increasing scrutiny in agriculture.  It serves us well to measure and understand the relationship between crop demand (consumptive use plus leaching requirements) versus the irrigation water that is applied to a given field.  
 

 
References
 
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., & Smith, M. (1998). Crop evapotranspiration-Guidelines for computing crop water requirements-FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. FAO, Rome, 300(9), D05109.
 
Ayers, R.S. and D.W. Westcot. 1989 (reprinted 1994). Water quality for agriculture.  FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 29 Rev. 1. ISBN 92-5-102263-1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome, 1985 © FAO.
https://www.fao.org/3/t0234e/t0234e00.htm
 
Erie, L.J., O.A French, D.A. Bucks, and K. Harris. 1981. Consumptive Use of Water by Major Crops in the Southwestern United States.  United States Department of Agriculture, Conservation Research Report No. 29.
 
Khokhar, T. 2017.  World Bank. 
https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/chart-globally-70-freshwater-used-agriculture
 
Maas, E.V. 1984. Crop tolerance to salinity.  California Agriculture, October 1984. https://calag.ucanr.edu/archive/?type=pdf&article=ca.v038n10p20
 
Maas, E.V. 1986. Salt tolerance of plants. Appl. Agric. Res., 1, 12-36.
 
Maas, E.V. and S.R. Grattan.  1999. Crop yields as affected by salinity, Agricultural Drainage, Agronomy Monograph No. 38.
 
Maas, E. V., and Grattan, S. R. (1999).  Crop yields as affected by salinity, agricultural
drainage, Agronomy Monograph No. 38, R. W. 
 
Maas, E. V., and Grieve, C. M. 1994. “Salt tolerance of plants at different growth stages,” in Proc., Int. Conf. Current Developments in Salinity and Drought Tolerance of Plants. January 7–11, 1990, Tando Jam, Pakistan, 181–197.
 
Maas, E. V., and Hoffman, G. J. (1977).  “Crop salt tolerance: Current assessment.”

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.

At last week’s 3^rd AgTech Field Demo: Automated and Robotic Technologies in Yuma, AZ, 15 of the latest automated and robotic technologies were demonstrated in the field. Most were designed to control weeds in vegetable crops. Several of the technologies demonstrated are brand new to the Yuma, AZ area, still under development and/or have never been shown to a general audience. Some of the new technologies demoed included an autonomous robotic weed puller, a precision spot sprayer, and a laser weeder (Fig. 1). These technologies are intriguing and offer a different approach to automated weeding systems currently on the market. It will be interesting to see how these machines fit into our current cropping systems and evolve in the future. Obviously, to be commercially viable, the machines must be cost effective. If interested, I would be more than happy to work with you to help conduct and design experiments for assessing weeding machine performance – % weed control, hand weeding labor savings, machine work rate (acres/hour), crop yield, operating cost, etc. Please feel free to contact me anytime at siemens@cals.arizona.edu.

Fig. 1. Automated and robotic weeding technologies demonstrated at the
University of Arizona’s 3^rd AgTech Field Demo included a) Nexus
Robotics’¹ autonomous weeding pulling robot, b) Mantis Ag Technology’s spot
spray weeder and c) Carbon Robotics’ laser weeder.

What is the “seed bank”? It’s the reserve of viable seeds present in your soil surface or mixed with your soil at different depths. There are also other vegetative propagules that can contribute to increase your weed infestations such as tubers, solons etc.

How can we reduce our seedbank? When we fallow the fields during the summer preemergence herbicides can be applied with good results because weeds geminate after irrigations or rain.

The chart here shows that summer weeds germinate starting February-March and peak germination is in June and in some cases, they continue germinating until October.

Preemergence herbicides are often used for fallow weed control only when at least 30 -45 days or longer are available¹. We must take into consideration most preemergence herbicides last about 3 months depending on soil conditions. Others like Eptam may last only like 3-4 weeks because of volatility².
Also contact herbicides like Paraquat (Gramoxone, Firestorm), Carfentrazone (Aim, Shark), Pyraflufen (ET), Pelargonic Acid (Scythe) and others are used. These products act quick and leave little or no residual but must be applied when weeds are not too large. The systemic used most frequently is still Glyphosate. It has no residual and is broad spectrum herbicide. Another product registered for fallow use is Oxifluorfen (Goal, Galigan).

Another method used for lowering the seed bank in the summer is “Solarization”. Transparent polyethylene is effective for heating the soil. It is sufficient 4-6 weeks for satisfactory control of most weeds. Some weeds are very sensitive to solar heating of the soil. Sweet clover because of hard seeds and Nutsedge because of the tubers are hard to kill with solarization. Also, Bermuda because of the rhizomes is not easy to control.
Another method is water to germinate and kill weeds mechanically or with herbicides. Some weeds like Common purslane have succulent stems and can survive after cultivation. They could re-root from the nodes and produce seeds. Therefore, carefully monitor plants to uproot them small. Tillage has a negative effect on perennials such as nutsedge and Bermuda. By repeat irrigating and disking we really are spreading them instead of killing them.

References:

1. https://cals.arizona.edu/crop/vegetables/advisories/more/weed236.html
2. https://cals.arizona.edu/crop/vegetables/advisories/more/weed225.html

WEED DYNAMICS AS INFLUENCED BY SOIL SOLARIZATION - A REVIEW R.H. Patel, Jagruti Shroff, Soumyadeep Dutta and T.G. Meisheri, Anand Agricultural University, S A College of Agriculture, Anand - 388 110, India

Area wide Insect Trapping Network   VegIPM Update, Vol. 14, No. 24, Nov 1, 2023            
 
Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed here.
 
Corn earworm:            
CEW moth captures have steadily decreased over the past 2 weeks, and areawide about average for late-October.
 
Beet armyworm:         
Trap counts reached their highest levels so far this season, particularly in Tacna, Wellton and Yuma Valley, and about average for late October.
 
Cabbage looper:           
Cabbage looper numbers decreased areawide, and are still below average for this time of the year.
 
Diamondback moth:   
Sporadic DBM activity in low numbers throughout the area, trending well below average for late October.
 
Whitefly:                     
Adult movement increased in the past 2 weeks and above average for late October.
 
Thrips:                           
Thrips adult activity peaked in the last two weeks, and trending below average in October.
 
Aphids:                        
Winged adults continue to be captured for the season, consistent with heavy winds from W-NW. Aphid captures thus far have been well below average. 
 
Leafminers:                  
Adult activity decreased in most areas, and trending about average for late October.