Feb 9, 2022Don’t Forget Corn Earworm in Spring Head Lettuce
To contact John Palumbo go to: jpalumbo@ag.Arizona.edu
The benefits of working with and using a model like this include being able to describe and predict important stages of crop growth and development (crop phenology) and harvest dates. This can also be a good tool for improving crop management (e.g., fertilization, irrigation, harvest scheduling, pest management activities, labor and machinery management, etc.).
Included in our work with the development of this phenological model, we have also conducted nutrient uptake studies and water use studies to develop a better understanding of nutrient and water demand for desert cantaloupe production (Silvertooth, 2003; Soto et al., 2006; and Soto, 2012).
Figure 2 presents the nitrogen (N) uptake and portioning patterns for desert cantaloupes (melons), Silvertooth, 2003 and Soto et al. 2006. This data describes total N uptake for cantaloupes at ~ 140 lbs. N/acre. From this data, maximum N flux (N uptake/day) period extends from early fruit development to the netting stage.
Water use by desert cantaloupe production was also measured in these studies and patterns of water use followed the crop coefficient (Kc) patterns provided by the Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET) and conformed to the Kc values from FAO 56 (Allen et al., 1998) and Grattan et al. (1998).
Considering N uptake and water demand patterns in relation to cantaloupe crop phenology, we can insert the overlaps as shown in Figure 1, with the red and blue lines for N and water management, respectively. Maximum N demand occurs from approximately 500 to 1,000 HUAP, which coincides with primary fruit development. Accordingly, the N application window for optimum N uptake is from approximately 300 to 800 HUAP, which is from early flowering to the netting stage of the crown fruit. The N application window is recommended in advance of the optimum N uptake period to provide for N mineralization and the plant-available forms of N for plant uptake and utilization.
Considering the N application window described in Figure 1 and a maximum seasonal uptake and demand of ~ 140 lbs. N/acre, early and split applications during this period of cantaloupe crop development can help achieve optimum utilization of fertilizer N inputs.
The period of maximum water demand extends from early fruiting stages of development through the maturation of the crown fruit, 300 to 1300 HUAP.
Considering the conditions we are experiencing these days in desert crop production with water shortages and extremely high prices of fertilizers, we have an abundance of motivation to manage our crop production systems with the highest efficiency possible. Understanding crop water and nutrient demand for each crop we are working with and using that knowledge to manage our crops most effectively, is to our benefit agronomically, economically, and environmentally.
Nitrogen is the plant nutrient required in largest amounts by most non-leguminous crops and it is important for us to manage that nutrient for a crop in a careful and deliberate manner. Water and N interactions are a critical aspect of crop growth, development, and management in any system, but particularly in an irrigated crop production system. Thus, the focus offered in this article on water and N management for desert cantaloupe production.
I encourage those who are working with spring cantaloupe production this season to test and evaluate this crop phenology model, particularly in relation to nutrient and water management under field conditions with various planting dates, varieties, and soil types. We appreciate your feedback.
Figure 1. Heat Units Accumulated After Planting (HUAP, 86/55 oF)
Figure 2. Cantaloupe (melon) N uptake and partitioning patterns. (Soto, Silvertooth, and Galadima 2006). Note: kg/ha * 0.89 = lbs/acre
Grattan, S.R., W. Bowers, A. Dong, R.L. Snyder, J.J. Carroll, and W. George. 1998. New crop coefficients estimate water use of vegetables, row crops. California Agriculture 52(1):16-21.https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.v052n01p16
Allen, R.G., L.S. Pereira, D. Raes, and M. Smith. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration - Guidelines for computing crop water requirements - FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome (FAO). https://www.fao.org/3/x0490e/x0490e0b.htm
Silvertooth, J.C. 2003. Nutrient uptake in irrigated cantaloupes. Annual meeting, ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Denver, CO.
Soto, R. O. 2012. Crop phenology and dry matter accumulation and portioning for irrigated spring cantaloupes in the desert Southwest. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Soil, Water and Environmental Science, University of Arizona.
Soto-Ortiz, R., J.C. Silvertooth, and A. Galadima. 2006. Nutrient uptake patterns in irrigated melons (Cucumis melo L.). Annual Meetings, ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Indianpolis, IN.
This season we have already found few lettuce infected with bacterial soft rot. Though it rarely takes down the whole field, the symptom are not so pleasant. Bacterial soft rot in lettuce can occur in the field as well as post harvest.
It is caused by several types of bacteria, but primarily subspecies and pathovars of Erwinia caro-tovora and E. chrysanthemi. Other bacterial species that cause soft rot include Pseudomonas cichorii, P. marginalis, and P. viridiflava. They have a wide host range host range and includes genera from nearly all plant families
In lettuce fields, the symptoms are observed close to the harvest time. The tissue, mostly around inside the head of head lettuce softens and becomes mushy or watery. Slimy masses of bacteria and cellular debris frequently ooze out from cracks in the tissues. Decaying tissue, which may be opaque, white, cream-colored, gray, brown, or black frequently gives off a characteristically putrid odor. The odor is caused by secondary invading bacteria
that are growing in the decomposing tissues.
The bacteria overwinter in infected fleshy tissues in storage, in the field, garden or greenhouse, in the soil (especially in the rhizosphere around the roots of many plants), and on contaminated tools, equipment, containers, and in certain insects. The bacteria enter primarily through wounds made during planting, cultivating, harvesting, grading, and packing and through freezing injuries, insect and hail wounds, growth cracks, and sunscald. They may
also follow other disease-producing organisms. Uninjured tissues may become infected when the humidity approaches 100 percent or when free moisture is present. Rains, poorly drained or waterlogged soils, and warm temperatures favor infection in the field, as does high humidity in storage or transit.
The bacteria multiply rapidly by dividing in half every 20 to 60 minutes under ideal conditions at
temperatures between 65° and 95° (18° and 35°C). Minimum temperatures for development is between 35° and 46°F (2° and 6°C); and maximum between 95° and 105°F (35° and 41°C.
The bacteria are spread by direct contact, hands, tools and farm machinery, insects, running or splashing water, contaminated, water in washing vats, clothing, and decayed bits of tissue.
Promptly and carefully destroy infected plants. Maintain well aerated field, avoid close planting and overhead irrigation.
To minimize post harvest losses, avoid mechanical injusry after harvest, packing and shipping. Do not pack produce when wet. Store and ship produce at temperatures near 4°C (39°F).
In the trials, use of finger weeders was compared to standard tillage, and an XtendFlex system where multiple herbicides were applied throughout the growing season (trifluralin – preplant incorporated; prometryn – preemergence; dicamba, S-metolachlor, glyphosate – early postemergence; dicamba, dimethenamid, and glyphosate second post emergence application). Six cultivations and two spray applications were made each year as dictated by weed pressure. Weed counts were recorded following cultivation and/or herbicide application on the dates indicated in Table 1. Hand weeding operations were performed twice during the season to control weed escapes.
The results were very promising. Control of Palmer amaranth with finger weeders was as good as chemical control using the XtendFlex system and significantly better than standard tillage. The authors also reported 95% in-row weed control when Palmer amaranth was ≤ 3 inches, and about 50% when plants were 3-4 inches tall. Crop injury due to cultivation was minimal, even in seedling cotton (1-3 leaf).
Some observations that are key to making the setup successful are that: 1) sweep blades are oriented such that the end of the sweep is pointed towards the crop row rather than away from it. This facilitates fracturing of soil toward the crop row making it easier for the finger weeders to loosen in-row soil and at a deeper depth, and 2) small diameter (9”) finger weeders made from relatively firm, yet flexible rubber are used and oriented at a steep angle. This configuration promotes soil penetration and loosening in firm soil.
A video of the device canhere or by clicking on the image below.
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.
hanks are extended to Peter Dotray, Wayne Keeling and Kyle Russell, Texas A&M University for sharing their project findings. Credit and thanks are also extended to Kyle R. Russell, Texas A&M University, for recording and sharing images and video.
Project funding provided by Cotton Inc. Their support is greatly appreciated.
Fig. 1. Cultivator configuration used in Texas A&M studies investigating the use of finger weeders and wide sweeps to control in-row and between-row weeds in cotton. Cultivator design and setup credit: Carl Pepper, Lubbock, TX.
Please see all details of the NOITS by clicking the following link:
Dacthal was first registered in 1958 and we are constantly adjusting it to our changing cultural practices. Recently some evaluations were done of Dacthal’s safety to iceberg lettuce applied Pre and Post-Transplanting. The product showed promising results. It is a mitotic inhibitor and kills germinating weeds by stopping cell division. This mode of action is similar to preemergence herbicides such as Prowl, Kerb, Balan, Trifluralin and others but its chemistry and how it moves in the soil differs. Dacthal is absorbed by both shoots and roots of germinating seedlings although most of the activity is from shoot absorption. When absorbed by the shoots, it will move upward into the plant. It is not absorbed by foliage and can be safely applied over the crop. Dacthal adheres strongly to soil particles. The best time to apply Dacthal is when the soil is moist but not saturated.
We are also including in this update the statement from registrant AMVAC Corporation for more information regarding notice of intent to suspend DCPA: https://www.amvac.com/news/amvac-regulatory-issues-statement-regarding-dachtal-dcpa.