May 5, 2021Summer Sanitation Is Important as Ever
To contact John Palumbo go to: jpalumbo@ag.Arizona.edu
Herbicide resistant weeds have received a lot of attention in recent years. It is often misunderstood. Three of the most misunderstood concepts regarding herbicide resistance are: 1- Weed tolerance and weed selection are not resistance,2- Weed resistance is not universal and does not affect every weed of a certain species from field to field or within a field and weed resistance often takes much longer than insect resistance that is more common and occurs faster.
No Herbicide controls all weeds. Those weeds that are not controlled are tolerant. They never were controlled by that particular herbicide and they are often selected for and become more prevalent over time if the same herbicide is used. Resistant weeds, on the other hand, were controlled at one time by a particular herbicide and have naturally developed a trait that stops the herbicide from working. These resistant weeds survive from generation to generation and become more prevalent over time.
Weed resistance does not occur in all weeds in a field at the same time. It can be just one plant of trillions in a field. As this plant survives the herbicide and goes to seed it becomes more widespread in the field and in other fields. We conducted a trial in Parker last year where sprangletop survived Glyphosate in one field and was killed by the same treatment down the road. If your neighbor has resistant weeds it doesn’t mean that you do too.
Lastly, insect resistance to insecticides has occurred in this region for many years and was the first exposure that many pest control advisers and growers had to pesticide resistance. The principals are the same although insects generally produce multiple generations per season and mutations that facilitate resistance occur faster than for weeds. Annual weeds often produce only one or two generations per season and resistance takes much longer.
Bindu Poudel, Martin Porchas, and Rebecca Ramirez
Yuma Agricultural Center, University of Arizona, Yuma, AZ
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%). Lettuce ‘Magosa’ was seeded, then sprinkler-irrigated to germinate seed on Nov 19, 2019 on double rows 12 in. apart on beds with 42 in. between bed centers. All other water was supplied by furrow irrigation or rainfall. Treatments were replicated four times in a randomized complete block design. Each replicate plot consisted of 25 ft of bed, which contained two 25 ft rows of lettuce. Plants were thinned Jan 6, 2020 at the 3-4 leaf stage to a 12-inch spacing. Treatment beds were separated by single nontreated beds. Treatments were applied with a tractor-mounted boom sprayer that delivered 50 gal/acre at 100 psi to flat-fan nozzles spaced 12 in apart.
Downy mildew (caused by Bremia lactucae) was first observed in plots on January 22, and disease rating was done on March 9, 2020. Foliar applications of treatments were made Jan 26, Feb 7, 19, and 27, 2020 (see table).
Disease severity was determined by rating 10 plants within each of the four replicate plots per treatment using the following rating system: 0 = no downy mildew present; 0.5 = one to a few very small downy mildew colonies on bottom leaves; 1 = downy mildew present on bottom leaves of plant; 2 = downy mildew present on bottom leaves and lower wrapper leaves; 3 = downy mildew present on bottom leaves and all wrapper leaves; 4 = downy mildew present on bottom leaves, wrapper leaves, and cap leaf; 5 = downy mildew present on entire plant. These ratings were transformed to percentage of leaves infected values before being statistically analyzed.
The data in the table illustrate the degree of disease control obtained by application of the various treatments in this trial. All treatments significantly reduced the final severity of downy mildew compared to nontreated plants. The most effective fungicides, that held the percentage of leaves that were infected to 20% or less, included experimental compound UA1, Tolfenpyrad 15 SC, Torac/Revus rotation in comparison to the percentage of infected leaves in non-treated plots 72.5%. Phytotoxicity symptoms were not noted for any treatments in this trial.
Mark C. Siemens
Vol. 12, Issue 9, Published 5/5/2021
Automated thinning machines have been commercially available since 2012. These machines identify crop plants and intermittently deliver an herbicidal spray or dose of liquid fertilizer to thin the stand to the desired plant spacing. Some growers have converted older machines to spot apply pesticides to crop plants rather than thin lettuce. Spot spraying just the crop plant makes sense – it reduces applied chemical amount by about 1/3rd as compared to band spraying and by roughly 90% as compared to broadcast. I have heard reports of improved efficacy with this technique, perhaps due to better coverage, however this potential benefit has not been validated in formal trials.
A drawback with automated thinning machines is their high cost. Retail prices for machines are approximately $25,000 per seed line, or about $200,000 for a 4-row, 2-line machine. Another option might be to use automated systems designed for spot spraying weeds. These devices have been commercially available since the mid 90’s and function similarly to automated thinning machines in that they use optical sensors to detect plants and solenoid activated spray assemblies to intermittingly spray unwanted plants (Fig. 1). The cost of these devices is quite reasonable – about $3,000 per unit, or about $24,000 for a 4-row, 2-line machine.
Automated spot sprayers are typically used in agriculture to control weeds in fallow fields (Fig. 2), but could easily be adapted to apply pesticides or even fertilizer to vegetable crops. Spot applying foliar fertilizers to vegetable crops is an interesting concept and is being investigated in California with lettuce.
Another potential use of spot sprayers is to control herbicide resistant weeds. The device can be positioned between crop rows to spot spray a non-selective herbicide to target weeds. Placing the sprayer in a hooded enclosure prevents unwanted drift onto crop plants. We are conducting trials using this technique in cotton this season (Fig. 3). We are also looking for collaborators interested in trying the device as a pesticide and/or fertilizer spot applicator in vegetable crops for this upcoming season. If you are interested collaborating or would like to see a demo of the device, please feel free to reach out to me.
Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed HERE.
Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed HERE.
Corn earworm: CEW moth activity increased a bit in the past 2 weeks but remains well below average for late spring.
Beet armyworm: Moth counts increased slightly, but remain very low consistent with seasonal temperatures, and below average for this point in the season.
Cabbage looper: Significant increase in activity in Dome Valley, Gila Valley and Tacna, but moth counts remain unusually low for this time of year, as they have all season.
Whitefly: No adult movement recorded across all locations and overall low numbers consistent with temperatures.
Thrips: Thrips adult movement beginning to pick up considerably, particularly in Yuma and Dome Valleys. Movement is below average for late March.
Aphids: Seasonal aphid counts down considerably compared with the Feb and Jan. Counts highest in Bard and Gila Valley. Below average movement for this time of year. Majority of species found on traps were green peach aphid.
Leafminers: Adult activity up slightly in some locations, but well below average for late season.