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.

Interested in the latest ag technologies? There are a couple of events coming up next month that are worth reminding everyone about. The first is FIRA USA which is a 3-day event being held October 18-20^th in Fresno, CA. The focus is on autonomous farming and agricultural robotics solutions. The event includes top-level keynote speakers, breakout sessions, a trade show and in-field demos of automated/robotic harvesting, weeding and planting equipment. The emphasis is on specialty crops, many related to vegetable crop production so it looks to be an informative program. For more information, click here or on the image below.

If you are unable to attend FIRA USA, another option is the University of Arizona’s 3^rd AgTech Field Day. The event will be held Tuesday, October 25th at the University of Arizona’s Yuma Agricultural Center. The program will feature many of the technologies presented at FIRA being demoed in the field.

As mentioned in the previous issue, we’d like to showcase as many innovative ag technologies as possible at our UA Field Day. There is still room on the program, so please contact me if you are interested in demoing your equipment or know someone that is. It’s an open invitation - private companies, and university and government researchers are all welcome!

Fig. 1. FIRA-USA conference held October 17-20^th in Fresno, CA.
(Photo credits: FIRA-USA).


Fig. 2. The University of Arizona’s 3^rd AgTech Field Day will be held Oct. 25^th,
2022, at the Yuma Agricultural Center, Yuma, AZ. (Photo from UA’s 2^nd AgTech
Field Day held in 2021).

Overreliance in glyphosate could increase the risk of reduced efficacy of this herbicide. Some the weeds difficult to control with glyphosate in our area are: Hairy fleabane (Coniza bonariensis), Horseweed (Coniza canadiensis), White sweet clover (Melilotus albus). Pig weed (Amaranthus palmeri), and Cheeseweed (Malva parviflora). We are conducting experiments in the Yuma area to identify effective herbicide control options for Hairy fleabane. Some research done in Australia has shown that Fleabane cannot be controlled with a single herbicide treatment even with knockdown herbicides such as paraquat + diquat, and researchers suggest the need of combinations of different modes of action to achieve control effectively¹. In one fleabane evaluation started May 6, 2022, we included the following treatments: 1. Embed Extra 2pt/A+5%NIS 2. Rely 82 floz+5%NIS 3. Chateau+ Treevix+MSO (12oz+1oz/A+1%)

We noticed treatments including Glufosinate (Rely) showed best burndown activity, but regrowth was observed in two weeks (13-14 plants per ft²). So, a second application was performed on three weeks after first on the Rely plots.
The grower and PCA informs us that Sulfenacil (Sharpen) has worked effectively for them with sequential applications. Additionally, we are evaluating Suppress and Clopyralid in the same location.

You are always welcomed to send your comments, suggestions to the IPM Team. Let us know what you are doing and your findings. We know there is a researcher in every grower and PCA and your input is greatly appreciated.

1. Hanwen Wu, Steve Walker and Geoff Robinson (2008). Chemical control of flaxleaf fleaeabane (Conyza bonariensis (L.) Cronquist) in winter fallows. Plant Protection Quarterly Vol.23(4) 2008
2. Travlos, I., & Chachalis, D. (2010). Glyphosate-Resistant Hairy Fleabane (Conyza bonariensis) Is Reported in Greece. Weed Technology, 24(4), 569-573. doi:10.1614/WT-D-09-00080.1

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.