Progressive Crop Consultant - July/August 2020 by JCS Marketing, Inc.

July / August 2020 Weed Control in Lettuce: A Comparison of Various Weed Management Strategies and Costs Making Sense of Biostimulants for Improving your Soil Detection of Marked Lettuce and Tomato by an Intelligent Cultivator Virus Pathogens: Challenges to the Health of Vegetable Crops

PUBLICATION

Volume 5: Issue 4

Navel Orangeworm Control!

Mating disruption product for conventional and organic California tree nuts!!

THE SECOND FLIGHT IS HERE & HULL SPLIT IS IMMINENT!

IT’S NOT TOO LATE!

™

Navel Orangeworm, Amyelois transitella

• Up to 80% or more potential reduction in damage vs. current insecticide program • Season-long control through post-harvest • Easy application with ready-to-use carrier pack • No moving parts, no batteries, no gummy deposits • Removal not required ®

INCORPORATED INSECT PHEROMONE & KAIROMONE SYSTEMS

Your Edge – And Ours – Is Knowledge.

MATING DISRUPTION PRODUCT FOR NAVEL ORANGEWORM IN ALMONDS, PISTACHIOS & WALNUTS

Contact your local supplier and order now!

Visit our website: www.trece.com or call: 1- 866-785-1313.

PUBLISHER: Jason Scott Email: jason@jcsmarketinginc.com EDITOR: Marni Katz ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Cecilia Parsons Email: article@jcsmarketinginc.com PRODUCTION: design@jcsmarketinginc.com Phone: 559.352.4456 Fax: 559.472.3113 Web: www.progressivecrop.com

IN THIS ISSUE

Weed Control in Lettuce: A Comparison of Various Weed Management Strategies and Costs

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS & INDUSTRY SUPPORT

8 12 20

Making Sense of Biostimulants for Improving Your Soil

Steven A. Fennimore

UCCE Extension Specialist, UC Davis

David C. Slaughter

Biological and Agricultural Engineering Dept., UC Davis

Steven Koike

Detection of Marked Lettuce and Tomato by an Intelligent Cultivator

Director, TriCal Diagnostics

Franz Niederholzer

UC Farm Advisor, Colusa and Sutter/Yuba Counties

Virus Pathogens: Challenges to the Health of Vegetable Crops

Cover Crops in California Agriculture: An Overview of Current Research

Lettuce Dieback: New Virus Found to be Associated with Soilborne Disease in Lettuce

Choosing Activator Spray Adjuvants for Permanent Crops

Community Education Specialist, UCCE Kern County

Richard Smith

UCCE Vegetable Crop and Weed Science Farm Advisor

William M. Wintermantel USDA-ARS, Salinas

Dr. Karl A. Wyant

CA & CCA Director of Ag Science, Heliae Agriculture

Rhonda Smith

UC Farm Advisor, Sonoma County

UC COOPERATIVE EXTENSION ADVISORY BOARD Surendra Dara

Shulamit Shroder

UCCE Entomology and Biologicals Advisor, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties

Kevin Day

Steven Koike Tri-Cal Diagnostics

Jhalendra Rijal UCCE Integrated Pest Management Advisor, Stanislaus County

UCCE Pomology Farm Advisor, Tulare and Kings Counties Kris Tollerup UCCE Integrated Pest Management Advisor, Fresno, CA Elizabeth Fichtner UCCE Farm Advisor, Mohammad Yaghmour Tulare County UCCE Area Orchard Systems Advisor, Kern County Katherine Jarvis-Sheen UCCE Orchard Systems Advisor, Sacramento, Solano and Yolo Counties

The articles, research, industry updates, company profiles, and advertisements in this publication are the professional opinions of writers and advertisers. Progressive Crop Consultant does not assume any responsibility for the opinions given in the publication.

July / August 2020

www.progressivecrop.com

Weed Control in Lettuce

A Comparison of Various Weed Management Strategies and Costs

By RICHARD SMITH | UCCE Vegetable Crop and Weed Science Farm Advisor

conomical and successful weed subsequently killed by tillage operations. control in lettuce can be accomStudies have shown that preirrigation plished by utilizing key cultural prac- followed by tillage lowers weed pressure tices, cultivation technologies and herbito the subsequent crop by about 50%. In cides. Planting configurations vary from organic production, pregermination is 40-inch wide beds with two seedlines to one of the most powerful practices for re80-inch wide beds with 5 to 6 seedlines. ducing weed pressure, and if time allows, Recent studies of weeding costs for letit can be repeated to further reduce weed tuce ranged from $454 to $623/A for 80pressure. inch wide beds with 5 seedlines of head and 6 seedlines of romaine hearts lettuces, Preemergence Herbicides respectively (see coststudies.ucdavis.edu/ There are three pre-emergence herbicides en/current/commodity/lettuce/). available for use in lettuce production: Balan, Prefar and Kerb. Balan and Prefar Weeding costs included the following: provide good control of key warm season Herbicide applied in 4-inch wide bands weeds such as lambsquarters, pigweed over the seedlines, cultivation, auto thin- and purslane, as well as grasses (Table 1, ning using a fertilizer to kill unwanted see page 5). Kerb is better at controlling lettuce plants and hand weeding/double mustard and nightshade family weeds removal. The costs for auto thinning also such as shepherd’s purse and nightinclude fertilizer costs, which can satisfy shades. Balan is mechanically incorpothe need for the first fertilizer application. rated into the soil and Prefar and Kerb are commonly applied at or post planting Significant weed control is accomplished and incorporated into the soil with gerby practices that occur before the crop mination water. is planted. For instance, weed pressure is affected by prior crop rotations and Kerb is more mobile in water than how much weed seed was produced in Prefar which can lead to issues with its them. The weeding costs given above are efficacy. Often 1.5 to 2.0 inches of water rough averages. If weed pressure is light, are applied with the first irrigation to weeding costs can be lower, but if weed germinate the crop which can cause Kerb pressure is high, weeding costs can be to move below the zone of germinating much higher. In the Salinas Valley, good weed seeds, especially on sandy soils. For management of weeds is possible with instance, Kerb is capable of controlling rotational crops such as baby vegetables purslane however, its efficacy can be low (spinach, baby lettuce and spring mix) on sandy soils due to its movement below because they mature in 25 to 35 days and the zone of germinating weed seeds with don’t allow weeds to set seed. Long-seathe first germination water. Prefar does son crops such as pepper and annual not leach as readily as Kerb and that artichokes allow multiple waves of weeds is why these two herbicides are often to germinate which are difficult to see mixed in the summer to control purslane and remove once the plants get bigger. (Figure 1). Preirrigation is standard practice to prepare the beds for planting. It stimulates germination of a percentage of weed seeds in the seedbank, and they are

Progressive Crop Consultant

In the desert, the use of delayed applications of Kerb has been used for many years. Due to the large amounts of water that are applied to keep the seeds moist

July / August 2020

Drip germination in lettuce has resulted in fewer weeds than sprinkler irrigation (photo by Marni Katz.)

and cool, Kerb is applied in the 2nd or 3rd germination water, approximately 3 to 5 days following the first water, just prior to the emergence of the lettuce seedlings. The amount of water applied in the second and third irrigation is less than the first application and therefore does not push the Kerb as deep in the soil. Although the Salinas Valley is cooler than the desert, evaluations here have also found delayed applications to improve the efficacy of Kerb (Figure 2, see page 6). These data illustrate the loss of control of purslane by Kerb when applied before the first germination water, as well as the improvement in efficacy that results when applied after the first germination water. It also illustrates the role that Prefar plays in the control of purslane when the efficacy of Kerb is reduced by being pushed too deep. Clearly, there is benefit from applying the Kerb in the 2nd or 3rd germination water because it helps to keep it in the zone where weed seeds are germinating.

Figure 1. On left: Kerb at 3.5 pints/A applied at planting; On right Kerb at 3.5 pints/A + Prefar at 1.0 gallon/A applied at planting. The main weed is common purslane which was not controlled by Kerb because it was pushed below the zone of germinating weed seeds by the germination water (photo courtesy R. Smith.)

Table 1. Weed susceptibility to registered preemergent herbicides.

The use of single use drip tape injected 3 inches deep in the soil has become popular in the Salinas Valley. The uniformity of using new tape with each crop has allowed growers to consider using drip irrigation to germinate lettuce stands. Although the same amount of water may be applied to germinate the stand with drip irrigation as with sprinklers, the water tends to move upward with drip irrigation. In drip germinated lettuce, Kerb is sprayed on the soil surface and is solubilized by the upward movement of the drip applied water which allows it to move just deep enough in the soil to control germinating weeds, but not too deep to reduce its efficacy (Table 2, see page 6). Interestingly, drip germination alone resulted in fewer weeds than sprinkler irrigation. Lettuce is typically planted with 4-5 times more seed than is needed in order to assure a good stand. At about 3 weeks after the first irrigation, lettuce is

Weed species CHICKWEED GROUNDSEL HENBIT KNOTWEED LAMBSQUARTERS LONDON ROCKET MALVA MUSTARD NETTLE, BURNING NIGHTSHADE, BLACK NIGHTSHADE, HAIRY NETTLELEAF GOOSEFOOT PIGWEED PINEAPPLE WEED PRICKLY LETTUCE PUNCTURE VINE PURSLANE SHEPERDS PURSE SOW THISTLE BARNYARDGRASS BLUEGRASS, ANNUAL LOVEGRASS NUTSEDGE, YELLOW

Balan

Prefar

Kerb

C N N C C N N N N N N C C N N P C N N C C C N

C N C C C C P C C C C C C N N N C C N C C C N

C — Control; P —Partial Control; N — No Control

Continued on Page 6

Protecting your crops from start to harvest NEW ONE PRODUCT, TRIPLE CONTROL FUNGICIDE + INSECTICIDE + MITICIDE Proven broad-spectrum control for major insect pests and diseases

MULTIPLE MODES OF ACTION:

Works on contact or by ingestion, as antifeedant, insect repellent and growth inhibitor.

GROWER FLEXIBILITY:

SUPERIOR STABILITY:

Better handling with premium suspension stability for over 48 hours.

For field trial data and more information visit tryrango.com or call your territory manager at 1.805.788.8167.

Always read and follow label directions for use and application rates. RANGO is a trademark of Terramera, Inc.

Use right up to day of harvest with 4-hour REI and 0-day PHI.

Try RANGO™ today. July / August 2020

www.progressivecrop.com

12.0 c 13. 1c 52.1 a 10.8 c Continued from Page 5 10.1 c 11.3c thinned. Traditionally lettuce has been14.1 c thinned by hand, but increasingly grow38.4 b ers are using auto thinners which spray0.0001

Automated Thinning and Weeding

About 10 to 14 days after thinning, hand weeding is carried out to remove weeds from the seedline and any double lettuce plants that were not removed in the thinning operation. An increasing number of Salinas Valley growers are using autoweeders prior to hand weeding. There are several autoweeders available: Robovator (Denmark), Steketee (Netherlands), Ferrari (Italy), Garford (England) and FarmWise(USA). These machines use a camera to capture the image of the seedline and a computer that processes the image and activates a kill mechanism (a split or spinning blade) to remove unwanted plants. The machines were originally designed for use with transplanted vegetables. We tested auto weeders and found that they remove about 50% of the weeds in the seedline and reduced the subsequent hand weeding times by 35%. In order to safeguard the crop plants, the auto weeders leave an uncultivated safe zone around the crop plants where weeds can survive. As a result, auto weeders do not remove all the weeds in the seedline, but they help to make subsequent hand weeding operations more efficient and economical. Depending on the weed pressure, some lettuce fields are hand weeded one more time a week or so prior to harvest. Given the practices just outlined, perennial weeds are not problems in the typical lettuce rotations in the Salinas Valley. The rapid turnaround of the crop (55 to 70 days during the summer) and the frequent use of cultivation does not allow enough time for weeds like field bind weed or yellow nutsedge to build up root reserves or nutlets before they are 6

Progressive Crop Consultant

Kerb application

Surface applied Surface applied Surface applied Drip injected Drip injected Untreated Untreated Untreated Treatment Prob (F)

Irrigation method

Surface drip Buried drip² Sprinkler Surface drip Buried drip² Surface drip Buried drip² Sprinkler 0.0002

Weed densities (no. / 10ft2)

Lettuce stand

Shepherd's Common grounds Purse

No./ 10ft¹

1.9 b 4.1 b 86.4 b 8.3 b 5.8 b 16.6 b 16.5 b 243.4 a 0.0001

12.0 c 13. 1c 52.1 a 10.8 c 10.1 c 11.3c 14.1 c 38.4 b 0.0001 1 2

Total Weeds 21.4 c 24.0 c 145.3 b 26.9 c 24.4 c 41.1c 46.1 bc 297.6 a 0.0029

60.3 a 60.5 a 42.6 b 56.6 a 52.1 ab 59.1 a 51.9 ab 42.3 b

Number of seedlings in 10 feet of a single plant line Drip tape buried 2-3 inches deep

Figure 2. Efficacy of Kerb applied at 3.5 pints/A at planting or in the 3rd germination water; crop was romaine. Note that applying the Kerb after the first heavy application of germination water greatly improved its effectiveness.

Shepherd’s Purse

No./30ft2

an herbicide (Shark) or concentrated liquid fertilizer (e.g. AN 20, 28-0-0-5, and others) to kill the unwanted plants and achieve the desired plant spacing. In the process of thinning by hand or by auto thinning, a significant portion of weeds in the seedline is also removed.

21.4 c 60.3 a 24.0 c 60.5 a 145.3 b 42.6 b 26.9 c 56.6ofaKerb application (at 3 pints/A) method (surface applied, drip injected or Table 2. Effect 52.1irrigation ab 24.4 c untreated) and method (surface tape, buried tape or sprinkler) on weed densities, 41.1c stand59.1 lettuce anda visual injury. 51.9 ab 46.1 bc 42.3 b 297.6 a 0.0029

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Purslane

CMY

Planting Planting 3rd Water 3rd Water Kerb Kerb + Prefar Kerb/Prefar Kerb

cultivated or disced out. In the summer, purslane is the biggest concern because it can build up high populations in the seedbank and, because of their fleshy tissue, can set seed even after being cut by the cultivator knives. As a result, if it is not effectively controlled in prior rotations, it can result in high hand weeding costs. Growers address purslane issues by making bedtop applications of the combination of Prefar and Kerb, as well as by a combination of other practices outlined above.

July / August 2020

Although there have been no new herbicides registered for use on lettuce in many years, there have been significant technological developments that have improved efficiency of weed control in lettuce. The increasing use of single use drip tape and new automated thinning and weeding technology have recently contributed greatly in this regard. Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com

BETTER PROTECTION FOR HEALTHIER STRAWBERRIES

Act Now to Protect your Strawberries from Pests and Diseases

4 Better yield and harvest quality for conventional and organic strawberries 4 Stimulates plant immunity and prevents disease such as Powdery Mildew & Botrytis 4 Increases root growth and root quality

4 Broad spectrum protection against sucking and chewing insects, e.g. Lygus, Mites, & Armyworms 4 Easy on pollinators and beneficial insects 4 Effectively controls Spotted Wing Drosophila 4 Multiple modes of action

Learn more

Making Sense of Biostimulants for Improving your Soil By DR. KARL A. WYANT | PCA, CCA — DIRECTOR OF AG SCIENCE, HELIAE® AGRICULTURE

iostimulants…bio what??? You may have heard or read this phrase several times over the past year as this products category gains traction in the agricultural marketplace. Confused about what exactly constitutes a biostimulant? You are not the only one! A biostimulant includes “diverse substances and microorganisms that enhance plant growth” or helps “amend the soil structure, function, or performance.” Got it? No? That is ok, please read on for more information.

As it stands, there are many active ingredients in this arena, and some growers have struggled to find the right fit for their farm. This confusion is regrettable given the increasing popularity of the category and the forecasted sales growth rates. For example, the global market for biostimulants was valued at $2.19 billion in 2018 and is projected to have a compound annual growth rate of 12.5% from 2019 to 2024.

Microbial food sources can be applied to promote the native soil microbiome (bacteria and fungi) and help provide a food source to inoculants. Microbial food products have tremendous variance in their quality as food source (e.g., C:N ratio) and the diversity of microbes they help feed (e.g., composition of food source).

Look for a food source that is both high quality (low C:N ratio) and contains various macromolecules (e.g., lipids, proteins, and carbohydrates) for best effects. Some product types can have offensive odors (e.g., fish preparations) or have a high viscosity (e.g., molasses) unless handled properly.

These types of product promote very specific reactions in the soil, depending on the enzyme used. For example, you get protein breakdown by protease, urea breakdown by urease, cellulose breakdown by β glucosidase, phosphorus liberation by phosphatase, etc..

You must pick the right enzyme for the job you want performed. An enzyme can also be degraded rapidly in the soil unless it is applied in a protected form.

Soil Inoculants (Bacteria and Fungi)

Inoculants consist of single or multi-species mixtures of bacteria and fungi (e.g., Bacillus, Trichoderma, Pseudomonas, etc.) that can help mineralize nutrients in the soil or promote nutrient uptake by the plant.

Since these are living products, inoculant survival rates can be sensitive to product handling and storage and the condition of the soil they are applied to. Furthermore, inoculant survivability can be negatively impacted by the water quality (e.g., pH, presence of sodium and chloride, etc.) used to apply the material and UV exposure if applied to the soil surface.

Seaweeds and Kelps

Seaweeds are generally sourced from a few species belonging to the genera Ascophyllum and the end use is strongly determined by both the seaweed species used and how it is processed. Generally, seaweeds can be used to activate plant growth and defense and have also been used to help relieve plant stress. Some seaweeds can help feed soil bacteria and fungi, which is why they are included here.

Check product claims before applying to make sure the seaweed Continued on Page 9 species and extraction process match with what you are trying to get done.

There exists a large range in the size and structural arrangement of this group of active ingredients. Generally, the acids can help with nutrient retention and chelation of ions in the soil (e.g., nitrate and potassium.) Biochar can help provide a physical structure for microbes to colonize in the soil environment.

There are concerns about the quality and sustainability of the source of these types of products. Check that product is derived from high quality sources and that the extraction processing results in a product that is easy to handle.

Microbial Foods: Microalgae, Molasses, Fish Preparations, etc.

Soil Enzymes

Market Confusion

The exact definition of what a biostimulant is, and what it is not, can be confusing and leave some folks scratching their head on what to expect regarding product performance (Figure 1, see page 9). A biostimulant tends to be an “environmentally friendly alternative to synthetic products” and can have multiple impacts on the crop or soil, although the exact definition of the category is vague and open-ended. This uncertainty has received increased attention by regulators, and we should expect to see more precise definitions soon.

Humic and Fulvic Acids & BioChar

Table 1: Biostimulants are sorted by their active ingredient (left side), a description of how they work (center) and some general handling notes (right side).

Progressive Crop Consultant

July / August 2020

Figure 1: Biostimulants can impact a crop in many ways depending on the active ingredient applied (graphic courtesy Ute Albrecht, Southwest Florida Research and Education Center.)

Matching Clear Goals

Biostimulants can be derived from a laundry list of different materials, with studies listing roughly eight major classes of active ingredients or more, each with unique properties and modes of action. However, my experience in the field suggests that many of us have unfortunately lumped the various products in this category into one large “other” bucket for simplicity, regardless of the difference in how the product works or what outcome should be expected. Below I help clarify the role of several active ingredients to allow you to better understand and also mix and match the desired characteristics you are looking for (Table 1, see page 8). This reference table will allow you to determine which features you want to put to work into your biostimulant blend based on your crop production method, application equipment, and comfort level. The biostimulant categories listed complement an agronomically sound fertilizer and irrigation program and should be included as a part of a comprehensive crop management program. Caveat: I do not have enough space to list all possible modes of action, but instead I limit the table to the materials that have an impact on the soil.

Move Water and What Moves In It! • PROVIDES Uniform Penetration and Lateral Movement of Water • ENCOURAGES Improved Rooting and Nutrient Uptake • ENHANCES Initial Wetting and Subsequent Rewetting of Soils • IMPROVES Distribution and Effectiveness of Soil Applied Chemicals • SAVES WATER - Reduces Irrigation Requirements by Up To 25%

Other Innovative Products* From Belchim Crop Protection:

Visit:www.belchimusa.com

Other Innovative Products From Belchim Crop Protection:

Visit:www.belchimusa.com

Understanding the Nuances

The biostimulant category offers many exciting opportunities to growers and can deliver new functionality to common fertilizers when used in a blend.

Belchim Crop Protection USA, LLC 2751 Centerville Road | Suite 100 Wilmington, DE 19808 Phone: 855-445-7990 Email: info.usa@belchim.com

Continued on Page 10 July / August 2020

www.progressivecrop.com

Continued from Page 9 Before jumping into this ‘other’ category, start with the following question “What features am I looking for?” This honest query will help you pick the correct ingredient needed and bring clarity to the nuances of the biostimulant category. Getting your product blend right from the get-go can help improve the soil on your farm and help jumpstart your 2020 yield and quality goals. Please consult with your local sales representatives to help pick the right active ingredient for the job and be sure to jar test any new blend ideas you have prior to tank mixing for compatibility concerns. Furthermore, running a pilot or test study can be a great way to learn which biostimulant product is right for your crop and production system. Keeping good records of your observations will help jog your memory about product

performance as the season wears on and will help you formulate the right blend for the job. A good pilot or trial plan can go a long way with helping you keep track of important information on how your biostimulant blend is impacting your crop. Hungry for more information about biostimulants and what they can do for you? Many trade publications, such as the one you are reading now, have begun to cover this category in more detail and there are several good articles out there that are worth reading. Below I provided some recommended reading to help get you started along with some online resources that are worth a look.

About the Author

Dr. Karl Wyant currently serves as the Director of Ag Science at Heliae® Agriculture where he oversees the internal

and external PhycoTerra® trials, assists with building regenerative agriculture implementation, and oversees agronomy training. Prior to Heliae® Agriculture, Dr. Wyant worked as a field agronomist for a major ag retailer serving the California and Arizona growing regions. To learn more about the future of soil health and regenerative agriculture, you can follow his webinar and blog series at PhycoTerra.com.

Further Resources •

Soil Health Partnership Blog https://www.soilhealthpartnership. org/shp-blog/

•

Soil Health Institute Blog - https:// soilhealthinstitute.org/resources/

• PhycoTerra® Blog - https://phycoterra.com/blog/

References

Albrecht, Ute. (2019). Plant biostimulants: definition and overview of categories and effects. IFAS Extension HS1330.

Specialists in Biological Control Since 1975

We have developed Timing and Release Rates for most crops Drone Services Available For Releasing

Beneficial Insects

Calvo Velez, Pamela & Nelson, Louise & Kloepper, Joseph. (2014). Agricultural uses of plant biostimulants. Plant and Soil. 383. 10.1007/s11104-014-2131-8. Drobek, Magdalena & Frąc, Magdalena & Cybulska, Justyna. (2019). Plant Biostimulants: Importance of the Quality and Yield of Horticultural Crops and the Improvement of Plant Tolerance to Abiotic Stress—A Review. Agronomy. 9. 335. 10.3390/agronomy9060335. Rouphael, Y., Colla, G., eds. (2020). Biostimulants in Agriculture. Lausanne: Frontiers Media SA. doi: 10.3389/978-288963-558-0

Large and Small Quantities Available Prices well below competitors

Robert Weaver 559-977-2563

Scott Lecrone 559-470-7328

www.bioagservicescorp.com

Progressive Crop Consultant

July / August 2020

Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com

PISTACHIO GROWERS Want Consistent Proven Yield Increases? How does an increase of 999 pounds and $1,670/ac over 3 years sound? Yield: ‘Gold Hill’ Pistachio – 3 Year Results

Bisabri Ag Research, Newman, CA, 2016-2018 – n In-Shell Open n Reported n Gross $/Acre 9000

2016

8000

2017

2018

$8184

$7865

7000 6000 5000 4000

4923

5108 4745

$3730

3000

$3184 2826

2439

2000 1000

$4173

$4092

4552

1585

2210

2345 1930

2701 2111

0 lbs/acre

Grower Soil Program (GSP) 2016

Agro-K Program + GSP 2016

Grower Soil Program (GSP) 2017

Use Agro-K’s “Science Driven Nutrition” approach to maximize nut set and nut size. Maximizing yields year in and year out starts with maximizing nut set. Achieving consistency in set and minimizing alternate bearing years is key to consistent yields and higher profits in pistachios. The secret is ensuring the tree has the right nutrients at the right time in the right forms and right mix. Using a combination of Agro-K phosphite and Dextrose/Lactose (DL) based foliar nutrients, including Vigor SeaCal, Sysstem LeafMax, Top Set DL, and Micro SeaMix, designed to help growers meet peak nutrient timings at critical points of the crop cycle. Nut set can be influenced by boron which enhances pollination. Boron synergizes calcium and enhances its affect. Molybdenum plays a direct role in nut set and retention and nitrogen utilization. Top Set DL is a unique boron-moly blend designed for synergistic application with Vigor SeaCal to address early season nutrient needs and maximize nut set – especially in cool wet springs. Sysstem LeafMax is a low pH, phosphite based fertilizer that delivers a highly systemic (phloem and xylem mobile) nutrient

Agro-K Program + GSP 2017

Grower Soil Program (GSP) 2018

Agro-K Program + GSP 2018

mix with rapid and complete uptake and fast support to early leaf and root development. Zinc is essential for maximum leaf size, vascular function and root growth. Magnesium, iron, manganese and copper are all are critical for complete chlorophyll development and part of Sysstem LeafMax and Micro SeaMix. Large leaves and chlorophyll production is key to maximizing photosynthesis that generates the carbohydrate production in the tree not only for the current year’s productivity but also as storage for the following year. Low carbohydrate production can be tied directly to increased alternate bearing issues and higher incidence of blanks. Implementing an Agro-K nutrient program will reduce blanks and improve off year yields. Yield results from three consecutive years of replicated data, on the same trees, are shown in the chart above. Fully replicated plots, conducted on the same trees over three years, demonstrate Agro-K’s “Science Driven™” nutrition programs can consistently improve yield, quality and profitability. Speak to an authorized Agro-K distributor today to learn more about increasing your yields with a science driven nutrient program.

Products Available At: ®

AGRO-K CORpORAtiOn 8030 Main Street, NE • Minneapolis, MN 55432 800-328-2418 • www.agro-k.com

Science-Driven Nutrition ™

Detection of Marked Lettuce and Tomato by an Intelligent Cultivator By STEVEN A. FENNIMORE | UCCE Extension Specialist, UC Davis and DAVID C. SLAUGHTER | Biological and Agricultural Engineering Dept., UC Davis All photos courtesy of S. Fennimore.

eeds are difficult to control in lettuce and tomato due to labor shortages, increasing costs of hand weeding and limited herbicide options. Lettuce is very sensitive to weed competition, plus there is no tolerance for contamination of bagged lettuce salad mixes with weeds; therefore, weeds must be controlled if lettuce is to be harvested.

Vegetable Weed Control Costs

Weed control costs for conventional head lettuce production in California are estimated at $216 to $319 per acre, while weed control costs in organic leaf lettuce are $489 per acre, on average, at current labor rates. In conventional processing tomatoes, weed control costs are about $225 per acre or 12% of production costs. Additionally, hand weeding costs have increased due to labor shortages, changes in California Consequently, mechanical weed control is an important part overtime regulations and increasing minimum wages as well of an integrated weed management program in conventional as decreased labor immigration from Mexico. The result is and organic vegetable crops. Traditional inter-row cultivation, greater vulnerability of growers to crop losses due to weeds. however, only removes weeds between crop rows and leaves Automation of weed removal may be a method to contain the weeds within the crop row. The removal of in-row weeds or reduce weed control costs in vegetable crops. Intelligent requires hand weeding, a time-consuming and expensive intra-row cultivators (IC) provide an alternate weed manprocess. agement option to standard inter-row cultivation. Previous results have shown that IC can reduce the need for hand weeding compared to standard cultivators and may reduce weed control costs. Beat the Heat & Care for Your Crops with: The Robovator® cultivator evaluated by Lati et al. (2016) relied on pattern recognition of the rows and crop plants within the rows based on the expected crop spacing within the rows. ® When these spatial cues are unavailable, as can occur in an organic field with a high weed density, this approach cannot differentiate between crops and weeds, and thus it relies on a Frost & Freeze size difference between crops and weeds, as well as a low to Additional Environmental Stress Conditions that the product is useful for: moderate weed population to function accurately. • High Temperatures & Extreme Heat

Anti-Stress 550

• Drought Conditions • Transplanting • Drying Winds

What is Anti-Stress 550®?

A foliar spray that creates a semi-permeable membrane over the plant surface.

When to apply Anti-Stress 550®?

Optimal application period is one to two weeks prior to the threat of high heat.

When is Anti-Stress 550® most effective?

The coating of Anti-Stress becomes effective when the product has dried on the plant. The drying time of Anti-Stress is the same as water in the same weather conditions.

*One application of Anti-Stress 550® will remain effective 30 to 45 days, dependent on the rate of plant growth, application rate of product and weather conditions. 559.495.0234 • 800.678.7377 polymerag.com • customerservice@polymerag.com Order from your PCA or local Ag Retailer / Crop Protection Supplier

Progressive Crop Consultant

July / August 2020

Intelligent Cultivation. Intelligent intra-row cultivation requires three technologies; a machine-vision system that detects crop plants and weeds, image classification and decision algorithm that differentiates between crop plants and weeds, and an automated weed removal mechanism that controls the weed while protecting the crop. Precision guidance systems, decision algorithms, and precision in-row weed control devices are commercially available or are at an advanced level of development. Accurate crop detection and differentiation from weeds, at normal cultivation speeds, would allow for greatly improved intra-row cultivators. Weed/Crop Differentiation. The main challenge for intelligent intra-row cultivation is to differentiate between crops and weeds using digital imagery and processing at field operation speeds of at least 1 mph in high weed density fields with travel speeds above 2 mph required for economic acceptability for low to moderate weed loads.

Figure 3. (a) Topical marker on lettuce plants.

A new method of crop and weed differentiation called “crop signaling” is presented in the research “Crop Signaling for Automated Weed/Crop Differentiation and Mechanized Weed Control in Vegetable Crops” by Raja et al. 2019 out of UC Davis. It is based on the idea that the identity of the crop is known with certainty when it is planted, whether transplanted or seeded. Thus, if the crop has a marker or signal that an IC can reliably detect, then the IC would recognize the signal and protect the crop. Plants without the signal, i.e., weeds, would not be protected and would be removed by the IC. The objective of this work was to test a crop signaling system for crop detection accuracy and weed control efficacy by an IC in lettuce and tomato. Marking System Descriptions. Two methods of plant signaling were tested, physical plant markers and topical markers. Biodegradable straws coated with a fluorescent marker were used as the plant markers in this study (Figure 1). The straws were then placed next to tomato seedlings in the planting trays and then transplanted together (Figure 2). The topical marker used on plant foliage was green or orange fluorescent water-based paint (Figure 3a,b). A paint sprayer was used to apply the topical marker to lettuce foliage and tomato seedlings prior to planting, while they were in trays. Another method was to spray the marker onto tomato stems as they were transplanted (Figure 4). Intelligent Cultivator. The IC used in this research was developed at the University of California, Davis. It uses a machine vision system specifically

Figure 3. (b) Spray application of topical marker on crop plants.

designed to detect the physical labels and topical markers on the crop (Figures 5&6, see page 14). Weed control was done by mechanical knives, which the IC opens to avoid the marked crop plants and closes (Figure 6, see page 14) to uproot weeds in the intra-row space.

Field Trials

Eight field trials in tomato at Davis, Calif., and six in lettuce at Salinas, Calif., were conducted during 2016-2018. Tomato. Field trials in processing tomatoes were located on a silt loam soil on the UC Davis vegetable field crops research station near Davis. The tomatoes were seeded in trays and kept in a greenhouse for 45 to 60 days until they were about 10 inches tall. Tomatoes were transplanted into 60-inch beds at 15-inch spacing in a single center row. Two tomato trials were carried to yield. Plant labels were added to seedling trays prior to transplanting (Figure 1) or the topical marker was applied to trays of tomato seedlings as described above (Figure 4). Tomato transplants were marked with paint 4 inches above the soil line. About three weeks after planting, all plots were cultivated with a standard mechanical cultivator which only removed weeds outside the plant line. The standard cultivator left a 7-inch non-cultivated band centered on the crop row. Weed densities by species were measured before and after cultivation in four 7-inch-wide (centered on crop row) by 20-foot-long sample areas randomly placed along the length of the plots. The time required by a laborer to hand weed the 20-foot areas was recorded. Two tomato trials were maintained until

Continued on Page 14 July / August 2020

Figure 1. Plant labels in tray of tomato seedlings prior to transplanting. The labels and tomato plants were transplanted together in the field.

Figure 2. Holland transplanter with butterfly transfer fingers used for transplanting plant labels and tomatoes together.

Figure 4. Topical marker sprayed on tomato transplants by applicator mounted on the transplanter during the process of transplanting.

www.progressivecrop.com

Continued from Page 13 harvest so that marketable yield data could be collected. Lettuce. Field trials using Romaine lettuce were conducted in a sandy loam soil at the USDA research station in Salinas, Calif. Four weeks after seeding, the whole experiment was cultivated with a standard mechanical cultivator. The standard cultivator left a 6-inch non-cultivated band centered on the crop row (Figure 7). The IC operated within .75 inches of the lettuce plants on all sides. Pre-cultivation weed counts were measured the day before cultivation and post-cultivation weed counts were taken the day after cultivation. Weed densities were measured in a 6-inch band centered on the crop row in each of two 20 -foot-long samples in the field. Weeds that were uprooted were considered dead. After cultivation, hand weeding was performed and timed as described for the tomato trials. The time spent by a laborer to hand weed with a hoe was recorded. The 2017 lettuce trials were maintained until commercial maturity and number of marketable heads and weight of marketable heads were recorded. The 2018 trial was conducted at a commercial lettuce field near Salinas, Calif.

Figure 5. Image of a tomato plant with a green label taken (a) under normal light plus UV light, and (b) under UV light only. Note the reflections of the green label in the six mirrors, and the actual label in the center of the image.

Figure 6. The actuator device used in this project: (a) Weed knives closed - uprooting weeds in crop row, (b) Weed knives open avoiding tomato plant.

Statistical Analysis. RStudio Version 1.1.383 was used for statistical analysis. Differences between pre- and post-cultivation weed counts determined weed removal effectiveness. The most efficacious treatments removed the greatest proportion of weeds. The difference in weed densities between pre and post cultivation were analyzed using analysis of co-variance, to measure the effect of cultivator type on weed density. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the hand-weeding time data to measure the effect of the cultivators. Weights were determined for both lettuce and tomato yields, and in lettuce, the number of heads was also determined. Weed Control. The IC was more effective than the standard cultivator 14

Progressive Crop Consultant

Figure 7. The plant layout used in the lettuce plantings: (a) Single crop row of lettuce on 1 m beds. The control rows are with no crop signal visible, (b) physical labels in lettuce row two weeks after transplanting.

at removing weeds from the inter-row (P<0.05). In the lettuce trials, 1.7 weeds space. The data were pooled separately per square foot remained in the seed for tomato and lettuce. In tomato seed line after intelligent cultivation while lines, 1 weed per square foot remained 5 weeds per square foot remained after after IC while 10.5 weeds per square standard cultivation, which is a 66% foot remained after standard cultivation. This is a 90% reduction in the number Continued on Page 16 of weeds remaining after cultivation July / August 2020

Worms, Thrips, Leafminers

IN ONE PASS

Only Radiant® insecticide controls worms, thrips and leafminers. (“3 Bugs. 1 Jug.”) And university trials in Arizona and California show that Radiant outperforms other commonly-used vegetable insecticides on all three of these pests. As a member of the spinosyn class of chemistry (IRAC Group 5), Radiant controls pests like no other class of chemistry used in vegetables. The Re-Entry Interval is only 4 hours, and the Pre-Harvest Interval is 1 day for most crops.

Table 1 Cultivator type

Crop

Weeds remaining Time to after cultivation hand weed No./ft2

Tomatob Tomato

Intelligent Standard

1.0 a 10.5 b

Hrs./A 7.8 a 14.9 b

Lettucec Lettuce

Intelligent Standard

1.7 a 5.0 b

16.0 a 29.1 b

The Grower’s Advantage Since 1982

Marketable yield No. lettuce heads/ A

Lbs./A 44,045 a 50,217 a

---

40,830 a 33,887 a

15,851 a 14,945 a

Continued from Page 14 ©

reduction in weeds remaining after cultivation (see Table 1). Handweeding in the tomato trials required 7.8 hours/A following the IC while the standard cultivator required 14.9 hours/A which is a 48% reduction (P<0.05). Hand weeding of lettuce required 16 hours/A following cultivation the IC while 29 hours/A was required for the standard cultivator, a 45% reduction in time (P<0.05).

Effective Plant Nutrients and Biopesticides to Improve Crop Quality & Yield

ORGANIC

Contains Auxiliary Soil & Plant Substances

ORGANIC Plant Nutrients & Adjuvants

Ga rgo i l

Herbicide EC

Insect, Mite & Disease Control

Blossom Protect™ Bactericide

Botector

Crop Yields. There was no difference between the cultivators in their effect on tomato fruit yield in 2017 (P>0.05) (Table 1). The 2018 tomato yields had

Biofungicide

For more information, call (800) 876-2767 or visit www.westbridge.com

Progressive Crop Consultant

The time-spent hand weeding after IC cultivation was a notably smaller percentage reduction than it was for weed densities, i.e. 48% vs. 90% in tomato. This is because the IC consistently removes the readily accessible weeds that are more than an inch from the crop; while the remaining weeds after IC cultivation are typically close to the crop plants and take more time for the field crew to remove than weeds further from the crop plant. The IC did not remove all the weeds it passed over due to some algorithmic uncertainty in the precise location of the crop’s main root and a risk-averse control strategy. Thus, weed control in close proximity to crop plants may still require some hand weeding. However, significant reductions in manual labor were achieved while maintaining effective weed control.

July / August 2020

Continued on Page 18

LIFE

A NEW PODCAST About Your Life in Ag

What is My Ag Life? My Ag Life is a brand new podcast powered by JCS Marketing, Inc. The publisher of the industry-leading ag publications, West Coast Nut, Progressive Crop Consultant, and Organic Farmer. Our podcast brings you exclusive interviews with industry professionals, readings of special articles from our publications, and more!

LISTEN NOW Available On All Major Podcast Platforms And more.

SPONSORED BY

BIOPE STICIDE

Interviews

Articles

with Industry Professionals

from our publications available in audio format

Visit our website for more information and to subscribe for updates, notifications for new episodes and more!

Visit:

myaglife.com Questions? Call us today at (559) 352-4456 or visit us online at www.wcngg.com | JCS Marketing • PO Box 27772, Fresno, CA 93729

Continued from Page 16 marketable fruit yields in the IC and standard cultivator treatments of 44,045 and 50,217 lbs./A, respectively (P>0.05). Similarly, there were no differences between the cultivators in their effect on lettuce yields (P>0.05) (Table 1). Yield data were analyzed both as the number of marketable lettuce heads per acre and fresh weights. Weed/Crop Differentiation. One of the biggest challenges for automated intra-row cultivation is to enable a com-

puter and vision system to differentiate between crops and weeds at normal field travel speeds. The commercially available IC ‘Robovator®’ uses pattern recognition to recognize the crop row and can perform intra-row weeding at speeds of 1 mph (Lati et al. 2016). However, this requires a distinct crop pattern best found such as in a transplanted field where the crop is much larger than the weeds and the crop stand is consistent. Further, when high weed densities obscure the 2-dimensional crop row pattern, the intra-row weeding program does not work. Two types of crop signals were tested,

Solutions for the Earth

DON’T FORGET THE SEASOL... Increases Nutrient Uptake Eﬀiciency Increases Yield for a Bountiful Crop Decreases Saline Stress Improves Environment for Soil Microbial Activity Conventional and Organic Products Available

View the Full Study at earthsol.ag/crops

WATER 18

SEASOL

www.earthsol.ag

Progressive Crop Consultant

July / August 2020

physical plant labels and topical markers. The methods have very low false positive error rates and the classification accuracy achieved for both techniques approaches 100%. The crop signaling technique appears to be effective in creating a reliable method for automatic detection of crop plants in vegetable fields with high weed densities. Crop signaling technology could facilitate development of automated weed control robots that are as accurate in crop/weed differentiation as human workers are. A recommendation for future work is to develop a commercially viable marking method that is machine readable, yet does not contaminate harvested produce or the field soil and subsequent rotational crops. For transplanted stem crops like tomato, a biodegradable machine-readable tag attached to each stem as the transplanter sets the plants should be explored for commercial potential. Lettuce will probably require a machine-readable label attached to the first true leaves or a machine-readable label on the fiber-coated plant plug as it is set in the soil as is done with the Plant Tape® (www.planttape.com) system of vegetable transplanting. Regardless of the technology used for crop weed differentiation, development of intelligent weed removal technology has improved weed control programs for horticultural crops that continue to rely on a limited number of herbicides and hand weeding. However, there is much more to do to improve vegetable weed control. Acknowledgments. Thanks to the USDA Institute of Food and Agriculture Specialty Crop Research Initiative (USDA-NIFA-SCRI-004530), the California Tomato Research Institute and the California Leafy Greens Research Program for financial support. References Lati, R.N., M.C. Siemens, J.S. Rachuy, and S.A. Fennimore. 2016. Intra-row Weed Removal in Broccoli and Transplanted Lettuce with an Intelligent Cultivator. Weed Technology 30:655-663

Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com

Virus Pathogens: Challenges to the Health of Vegetable Crops By STEVEN KOIKE | Director, TriCal Diagnostics

armers and other field professionals producing vegetable crops face a bewildering array of challenges. Insects and mites feed on, disfigure, and eat away at produce quality. Weeds compete with the vegetables for precious resources and can require extensive labor to be removed. Fertilizer and water inputs can be costly. The economic cycle of planting, growing, harvesting, and marketing can be a “black hole” that engulfs company resources while offering few guarantees of profits. Another group of challenges is embodied by the many plant pathogens that cause diseases of vegetable crops. One particular group of pathogens of interest are the viruses that infect plants.

Virus Pathogens of Plants

Viruses that infect plants are similar, in shape and constitution, to the viruses that infect insects, animals, and yes, people. A virus consists of a piece or two of genetic material (either DNA or RNA) that is surrounded and protected by a protein coat or covering. In the grand scheme of biology, such a nucleic acid + protein structure is extremely simple and basic. This entity is also extremely tiny. Since a virus is composed of two types of chemicals, it is much smaller than a plant cell and cannot be observed with a regular microscope. Only with the use of electron microscopes can the body of the virus be observed. The outer protein coat gives the virus a distinctive shape, and plant viruses can look like long flexible threads, short rigid rods, or spherical, geometric polyhedrals (See photos 1 and 2.) 20

Progressive Crop Consultant

Different viruses have different shapes and appear as long threads, rigid rods, or geometric spheres. Photo 1: Left, tomato chlorosis virus (photo courtesy K. Schlueter, USDA) and, Photo 2: right, cucumber mosaic virus (photo courtesy M. Kim, USDA.)

Plant viruses, like all viruses, do not function or operate outside of their hosts. To become active the virus must be introduced into a living plant cell, after which the virus mechanism activates and highjacks the cell’s processes, forcing the host cell to produce more virus RNA or DNA and virus proteins. These components are assembled into new viruses which are then translocated throughout the plant by being carried in plant fluids that stream into stems, leaves, flowers, and fruits.

Diseases Caused by Viruses

As with viruses that infect people and animals, plant pathogenic viruses at first show no evidence of their initial incursion into the host. There is a latent period or lag-time during which the virus is steadily orchestrating the manufacture of additional virus nucleic acids and proteins. At a certain critical point, the virus population causes enough physiological and metabolic disruption so as to cause visible symptoms, which collectively we call the disease. July / August 2020

Disease symptoms caused by viruses can vary greatly and are influenced by the vegetable variety, age of plant when first infected, the strain of the virus, and environmental conditions under which the crop is grown. In general, vegetable crops infected with viruses will show one or more types of foliar symptoms. Leaf color changes with the development of yellow or brown spots, light and dark green patterns (mosaic, mottling), concentric ring patterns (ringspot), and yellow or white blotches and streaks. In some cases, the entire foliage of the plant turns yellow, orange, or red. Some viruses cause a curious reaction where only the veins of the leaf become yellow or brown. Leaves can be misshapen in various ways, from simple curling, to unusual elongation (strap leaf), to severe twisting and deformation. Internodes along the stem become abnormally shortened, resulting in tight bunching of leaves. Flowers also change appearance with streaks of color in the petals (color break). For fruiting vegetables, the fruit may show only subtle color breaks and patterns,

or alternatively become grossly deformed. Overall plant growth can be stunted and crop development can be delayed. All vegetable crops suffer from at least one virus pathogen, while some crops are subject to a dozen different ones. Table 1(see page 22) lists selected vegetable crops and some of the viruses affecting these crops in the U.S. Like fungal and bacterial pathogens, virus pathogen occurrence and importance vary with geographic region. A virus that is important on California lettuce may be incidental or lacking on lettuce in Florida. Likewise, the set of viruses that North American tomato growers must deal with will be different than tomato viruses occurring in South America or Asia. The economic impact of a particular crop-virus interaction depends on the inherent aggressiveness of the virus, in-

cidence of the disease, and the susceptibility of the crop. Regarding the crop, a critically important factor is the type of harvested commodity. For example, leafy commodities such as lettuce and spinach will be especially vulnerable to viruses that cause leaf symptoms. The viruses of pepper that cause fruit malformations are more important than the pepper viruses that only cause mild mosaics in the foliage. For celery grown in California, cucumber mosaic virus (CMV) causes some leaf mosaic and mottling but rarely causes any symptoms on the celery petioles and, therefore, is of little concern. However, a different virus, Apium Virus Y, can cause celery petioles to turn brown, making the celery unmarketable.

Detecting and Diagnosing Viruses

Confirmation of a virus requires testing. We acknowledge that experienced growers and field personnel, who have looked at virus diseases of a particular

Spinach leaves are greatly deformed and discolored by Tobacco rattle virus (photo by S. Koike, TriCal Diagnostics.)

crop for many years, can develop a good diagnostic sense for such problems. However, to be scientifically sound and accurate, diagnosing virus diseases cannot be achieved without clinical testing. Virus disease symptoms pose particular challenges to diagnosticians because the wide range of virus-like symptoms can also be caused by other factors. Symptoms caused by viruses can also

Continued on Page 22

FUNDAMENTALLY BETTER ACADIAN ® DELIVERS FUNDAMENTAL VALUE TO YOUR PROGRAM WITH: • Improved plant vigor

• Enhanced root growth

• Resistance to environmental stress • Higher yields

When you’re looking to build your nutritional program – ask for Acadian®. CONTACT US TODAY! Chris Coolidge (Central CA) . . . . 559-779-3579

Duncan Smith (NorCal) . . . . . . . 209-471-2412 Annalisa Williams (CA) . . . . . . 805-801-5238 Jeff Downs (SoCal/AZ) . . . . . . . 559-285-8448

Acadian Plant Health™ is a division of Acadian Seaplants Limited. Acadian® is a registered trademark of Acadian Seaplants Limited.

DO NOT PRINT

acadian-usa.com

July / August 2020

www.progressivecrop.com

McDaniels Marketing • Client: Acadian• “2020 Acadian Fundamentally

Continued from Page 21 be caused by genetic disorders, nutritional imbalances, environmental extremes, phytotoxicity from pesticides and fertilizers, and other factors (see Table 2 on page 24.) Fortunately, diagnostic labs have the tools that can identify most of the commonly occurring viruses in vegetables. Such tests rely on either serology (using antibodies that detect the antigens of virus proteins) or molecular biology (using probes that recognize nucleic acid sequences of the virus.)

CROP

VIRUS

Crucifers

Cauliflower mosaic virus Cucumber mosaic virus Turnip mosaic virus

aphid aphid aphid

Carrot

Carrot mottle virus Carrot redleaf virus Carrot thin leaf virus

aphid aphid aphid

Celery

Apium virus Y Celery mosaic virus Cucumber mosaic virus

aphid aphid aphid

Cucurbits

Beet curly top virus Cucumber mosaic virus Cucurbit yellow stunting disorder virus Papaya ringspot virus Squash mosaic virus Watermelon mosaic virus Zucchini yellow mosaic virus

leafhopper aphid whitefly aphid cucumber beetle, seed aphid aphid

Lettuce

Alfalfa mosaic virus Beet western yellows virus Cucumber mosaic virus Impatiens necrotic spot virus Lettuce mosaic virus Mirafiori lettuce virus Tomato spotted wilt virus Turnip mosaic virus

aphid aphid aphid thrips aphid, seed soilborne fungus thrips aphid

Onion

Iris yellow spot virus Onion yellow dwarf virus

thrips aphid

Pepper

Alfalfa mosaic virus Beet curly top virus Cucumber mosaic virus Impatiens necrotic spot virus Pepper mottle virus Potato virus Y Tobacco etch virus Tomato spotted wilt virus

aphid leafhopper aphid thrips aphid aphid aphid thrips

Spinach

Cucumber mosaic virus Impatiens necrotic spot virus Tobacco rattle virus Tomato spotted wilt virus

aphid thrips soilborne nematode thrips

Tomato

Alfalfa mosaic virus Beet curly top virus Cucumber mosaic virus Potato virus Y Tobacco etch virus Tobacco mosaic virus Tobacco streak virus Tomato infectious chlorosis virus Tomato spotted wilt virus Tomato yellow leaf curl virus

aphid leafhopper aphid aphid aphid seed, mechanical transmission thrips, tomato pollen whitefly thrips whitefly

Epidemiology of Virus Diseases

Development of virus diseases of plants involves several factors. In contrast to some human viruses, plant viruses are not moved around in the air or deposited on surfaces waiting to come into contact with a plant. Rather, plant pathogenic viruses typically originate from a living source or “reservoir.” The reservoir is often an infected weed that is near the site where the vegetable crop will be planted, or the reservoir can be an infected volunteer crop plant in the field (Factor 1.) Vectors (Factor 2) are the insects, mites, and nematodes that have fed on a virus-infected plant, ingested virus particles, and now are capable of injecting the viruses into the next plant that is fed upon. For the great majority of viruses that infect vegetables, the viruses are moved by vectors from reservoir hosts to healthy crops (Factor 3). Aphids are the most common vectors (See Table 1.) Other insects (thrips, leafhoppers, beetles) also carry viruses, as do a few soilborne nematodes and one soilborne fungus. The epidemiology, or progress of disease spread,

Continued on Page 24

In lettuce, Impatiens necrotic spot virus results in distorted plants and brown leaf lesions (photo by S. Koike.)

Progressive Crop Consultant

PRIMARY MEANS OF DISPERSAL

Table 1. Selected vegetable crops, virus pathogens, and means of virus dispersal.

July / August 2020

The best way to manage pathogens before they become an issue.

TriClor is chloropicrin based and can be used as a standalone or as a complement to Telone® depending on your orchard redevelopment needs. When targeting soil borne disease and nematodes, TriClor and Telone® can be applied in a single pass. This reduces application costs, promotes

TRICAL, INC.

early root development, and improves soil health. For more information

669-327-5076

about TriClor or to schedule an application contact TriCal, Inc.

www.TriCal.com

*TriClor and Telone are federally Restricted Use Pesticides.

Symptoms caused Symptoms caused by viruses by viruses leaf spots leaf mosaic leaf mottling leaf ringspot leaf chlorotic streaking leaf curling leaf elongation/strap leaf leaf vein yellowing young leaf distortion foliage bunching foliage yellowing foliage reddening flower color break fruit distortions plant stunting yield reduction

Similar symptons caused by non-virus factors Similar symptoms caused by non-virus factors fungal or bacterial pathogens, pesticide damage plant nutrition, genetic disorders plant nutrition, genetic disorders physiological factors, sensitivity to leaf wetness genetic disorders environmental extremes, pesticide damage pesticide damage plant nutrition, pesticide damage pesticide damage, insect toxins, environmental extremes pesticide damage, insect toxins, environmental extremes plant nutrition, genetic disorders, pesticide damage, irrigation issues plant nutrition, genetic disorders, environmental extremes genetic disorders genetic disorders soilborne pathogens, compacted soils, irrigation issues other pathogens, pests, field conditions, environmental extremes

Table 2. Symptoms caused by viruses and other factors that can create similar symptoms

Continued from Page 22 depends on the complex interaction of the three factors mentioned above. Factor 1 Reservoir: What is the nature of the virus reservoir? Which weed species are present? Are there high numbers of virus-infected weeds or volunteer plants in the area? A virus with a broad host range, such as Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV), may be present in dozens of weeds and numerous volunteer plants on a particular ranch. Factor 2 Vector: Which vectors are in the vicinity? What are their populations and dispersal patterns? How do wind patterns and geographic features influence dispersal? What is the extent of vector increase within the crop, which can result in plant-to-plant spread within that planting? Factor 3 Vegetable Crop: What is the crop diversity in the area being considered and which viruses affect these crops? For example, could CMV, which has a broad host range, spread between 24

Progressive Crop Consultant

different vegetables? If the region is widely planted to one crop, such as lettuce, will a particular virus affect many lettuce plantings? Too much of the same crop, densely cropped in one region, could result in rapid virus spread and disease epidemics. In contrast, if a region has only one onion field among many non-allium crops, a narrow hostrange pathogen such as Iris yellow spot virus will infect only the onions. The answers to these and other questions have significant bearing on the management of virus diseases.

Managing Virus Diseases

Diagnosis: The first step in disease management is accurately identifying the precise pathogen involved. Molecular and serological assays are available for most of the major virus pathogens affecting vegetables. Knowing which virus is involved enables one to know the reservoir plants harboring the virus, the vectors involved, and the potential target crops. Exclusion: Prevent the virus from entering the production system. For lettuce, July / August 2020

Carrot fields severely infected with viruses become noticeably yellow to orange in color (photo by S. Koike.)

cucurbits and tomato, some viruses are carried in the seed; therefore, use seed that has been tested or certified to not harbor the pathogen. For crops started as transplants, employ IPM practices to prevent infection at the transplant stage. Note that for the few vegetable crops propagated by cuttings or plant divisions (example: artichoke), viruses will be readily spread if infected propagative material is used to plant new fields. Reservoir host eradication: Remove the initial sources of the virus, which are infected weeds and volunteer crop

plants. Plant viruses are present mostly in living plants and generally not in soil, water, equipment surfaces, or the air. Controlling weeds and other reservoir plants is therefore a critical part of virus control.

Apium virus Y causes disfiguring brown lesions on celery petioles (photo by S. Koike.)

A number of virus pathogens cause damage to the fruits of some vegetable crops (photo by S. Koike.)

Manage the vectors: Use IPM practices to control the virus vectors. The great majority of vegetable-infecting viruses only reach a crop via an insect vector. Complete control of an insect pest is rarely possible, so strategies should attempt to manage the insects as best as possible. Keep in mind that the vectors are also present on the reservoir weeds and plants outside of the field. Once a virus is introduced into the crop, intra-field, plant-to-plant spread will be achieved only through movement of the vector. Destruction of the old crop: Once a crop has been harvested, the passed-over plants and shoots growing from remaining crop roots can serve as virus reservoirs if they are infected. Old vegetable

July / August 2020

fields should, therefore, be disked and plowed under in a timely manner. Resistant cultivars: If available, growers should select cultivars that are bred to be resistant to the virus pathogens. Note, however, that the usefulness of such genetic plant resistance may not last. Researchers found that the use of tomato and pepper cultivars resistant to TSWV has allowed for the development of “resistance breaking” (RB) strains of the virus. Through mutation and selection, these new strains of TSWV can cause disease in the previously resistant cultivars. Chemicals or pesticides: Currently there are no chemical treatments that can be applied to plants that would prevent infection from viruses or prevent development of virus disease. Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com

www.progressivecrop.com

By planting time, the cover crop residue has already decomposed. This method reduces runoff and erosion but does not reduce nitrate leaching, so this is best for fields with runoff problems but without high nitrate levels. However, this method makes controlling weeds during a wet winter difficult and costs more than simply leaving the field bare (Brennan, 2017.)

COVER CROPS IN CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE:

AN OVERVIEW OF CURRENT RESEARCH

By SHULAMIT SHRODER | Community Education Specialist, UCCE Kern County Almond Orchard Cover Crop study in Kern County, March 2019 (photo by S. Shroder.)

rowers throughout the country and around the world plant a wide range of cover crops for a variety of reasons. Cover crops can reduce soil compaction, improve water infiltration, improve soil structure, and feed soil microbes: they encourage a healthier and more diverse soil ecosystem.

Researchers in California are analyzing the best ways to incorporate cover cropping into the state’s diverse agricultural systems, from high-value vegetable production on the central coast to the cotton, tomato, and almond fields of the central valley.

Cover Crops on the Central Coast

Researchers working with central coast vegetable growers have devised innovative ways to use cover crops to reduce nitrate leaching and agricultural runoff, thereby improving both local ecosystems and soil health. Eric Brennan and his team at the USDA Agricultural Research Service started the Salinas Organic Cropping Systems trial

in the Salinas Valley in 2003 to understand the long-term impacts of various cropping systems and soil amendments. This trial focuses on organic lettuce and broccoli, two of the high-value crops grown in the area known as the nation’s salad bowl. To maintain soil organic matter and provide nutrients to their crops, organic vegetable growers in this area prefer applying compost instead of planting cover crops. The amount of time that cover crops require for incorporation and decomposition can shorten the growing season for these high-value crops (Brennan & Boyd, 2012.) To make this practice more feasible for growers in the area, this group of researchers has developed three strategies for integrating cover crops into the vegetable cropping systems of the Central Coast. Option 1: Plant the cover crops only in furrow bottoms, not the entire field. After 50 to 60 days of growth, the grower can spray the cover crops and then do the usual tillage necessary to prepare the ground for planting the cash crops.

Option 2: Plant non-legume cover crops on the vegetable beds and mow the cover crops repeatedly throughout the growing season. This maximizes nitrate scavenging while minimizing the amount of residue that needs to decompose right before planting. The ideal cover crop for this practice would be a grass, like cereal rye. Repeated mowing would reduce the amount of water lost to evapotranspiration from the cover crop but still enable the rye to scavenge nutrients that could otherwise be lost to leaching (Brennan, 2017.) Option 3: Turn the cover crop residues into a highly nutritious juice and compost. To do this practice, a grower would plant a non-leguminous cover crop in October and allow it to grow until mid-December, at which point it will have scavenged most of the nitrogen that it will use. The grower then harvests the cover crop, leaving as little residue behind as possible. They can then feed the residue into a screw press, which will separate the liquids and solids. The liquid component has a relatively low nitrogen concentration and can be applied to the vegetable crop to fulfill some of the crop’s nutrient needs. The solid residues can be composted and applied at a convenient time, to provide organic matter to the soil (Brennan, 2017.) Researchers are still working on refining these strategies, but they could allow central coast vegetable growers to reap the rewards associated with cover crops while maintaining a profitable enterprise.

Annual Systems in the Central Valley

For the past 20 years, Jeff Mitchell and his team at UC Cooperative Extension have studied the effects of reduced tillage and cover crops on a tomato-cotton rotation at the UC’s West Side Research and Extension Center. This study mea-

Continued on Page 28 26

Progressive Crop Consultant

July / August 2020

Potassium A Vital Nutrient for tree Nuts

KTS® (0-0-25-17S) delivers immediately available potassium to rapidly developing orchards. KTS blends well with many other products and can be conveniently applied through irrigation systems directly to the root zone. Provide the essential nutrients to your crop exactly when and where they are needed.

Learn more about KTS at www.cropvitality.com

Continued from Page 26 sures the efficacy of these practices in reducing air pollution and increasing soil organic matter. Reduced tillage and cover cropping have resulted in less dust emissions compared to conventionally managed fields (Mitchell et al., 2017.) They found that cover cropping increased soil organic matter more than conservation tillage alone did (Veenstra et al., 2006.) Overall, these practices have improved soil health by increasing aggregate stability, water infiltration, and soil organic matter while maintaining similar yields to the conventional system (Mitchell et al., 2017.) This study has allowed researchers to see the long-term effects of conservation tillage and cover cropping on tomato and cotton systems in the San Joaquin Valley.

Field day at the West Side REC in 2010, discussing cover cropping and conservation tillage (photo courtesy Jeff Mitchell, UCCE.)

Another UC research team in the Central Valley, led by Kate Scow at the Russell Ranch near UC Davis, examined the longterm effects of cover cropping on organic tomatoes and corn. These researchers found that cover cropping encouraged the proliferation of diverse types of beneficial fungi known as arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (Bender & Bowles, 2018). Under optimal environmental conditions, cover cropping was correlated with higher tomato yields. In contrast, corn did not enjoy the same benefits from organic management that the tomatoes did and had lower yields compared to fields without cover crops (Bender & Bowles, 2018). These studies have found important benefits to including cover crops in annual systems, but growers will need to further refine the practice to fit their needs.

Advertorial If you could climb inside your plant, and take a look at the cell walls, you would see they are made of calcium and a pectin. The pectin acts like a glue forming Calcium Pectase, to help keep the cell walls strong and tight. When calcium is available to the cells the walls become as strong as concrete. When calcium is limited the walls are as weak as paper. When the cell walls are strong the plant is strong, this includes the roots. Calcium is a major player in the construction of some hormone and enzyme systems that can help protect the plant from insect and disease attack. Check with your soil advisor and make sure you have enough calcium in your soil to protect your plant and your crop.

Lack of Calcium leaves plant cell walls open to invaders.

Calcium makes cell walls resistant to invaders.

Ask for it by name Blue Mountain Minerals Naturally the Best!

For more information 209-533-0127x12

Progressive Crop Consultant

July / August 2020

Mustard cover crops in a table grape vineyard, March 2020 (photo by S. Shroder.)

Perennial Systems in the Central Valley

Amélie Gaudin and her team from UC Davis and UC Cooperative Extension are quantifying and communicating the benefits and tradeoffs of planting winter cover crops in almond orchards. They established trials throughout the Central Valley. Planting cover crops in almonds increases bee forage, improves soil health, and encourages resiliency. The researchers have found that cover crops resulted in increased water infiltration. Despite the common concern that cover crops would increase frost risk, they found that cover cropping did not affect ambient air temperatures 3 and 5 feet above the ground. Moreover, the ground cover worked as a buffer, keeping temperatures more stable than bare ground did (Gaudin, 2020.) Other benefits included a decrease in sodicity, improved trafficability in the wintertime, and an increase in aggregation. The soil microbial ecosystem showed increased biomass. Bees enjoyed a more diverse, varied diet, contributing to better bee health. Finally, cover crops reduced weed diversity and growth. They did not reduce germination since both the cover crops and the weeds emerged at the same time. All these benefits start to outweigh the costs of implementation after about 10 years (Gaudin, 2020). Many of these soil and ecosystem benefits are not unique to almond orchards, and could also benefit other

perennial cropping systems in the Central Valley.

Funding Options

UC and USDA researchers have found benefits to cover cropping in diverse agricultural systems throughout California, from almond orchards to lettuce and tomato fields. These include reducing erosion, compaction, and nutrient leaching, along with improving soil aggregation and providing habitat for beneficial insects. Cover crops may improve the soils upon which your crops depend and increase your operation’s resiliency in the face of a changing climate. The California Department of Food and Agriculture’s Healthy Soils Program and the USDA NRCS EQIP provide incentives for planting cover crops. Check out cdfa.ca.gov/oefi/healthysoils/IncentivesProgram to learn more about the CDFA’s program. There are 10 technical assistance providers working throughout the state who can help you select your cover crop species, apply for the program, and implement your practices. Go to

ciwr.ucanr.edu/Programs/ClimateSmartAg to find your closest climate smart specialist.

Works Cited

(2010). [Field day at West Side Research and Extension Center] [Photograph]. California Agriculture. http://calag.ucanr.edu/Archive/?article=ca.v070n02p53 Bender, S.F & Bowles, T.M. (2018). Effects of AMF diversity and community composition on nutrient cycling as shaped by long-term agricultural management. Russell Ranch 2018 Annual Report. https://asi.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk5751/ files/inline-files/RRSAF%20Progress%20Report_2018.pdf Brennan, E. B. (2017). Can we grow organic or conventional vegetables sustainably without cover crops? HortTechnology, 27(2), 151-161. Brennan, E. B., & Boyd, N. S. (2012). Winter cover crop seeding rate and variety affects during eight years of organic vegetables: I. Cover crop biomass production. Agronomy Journal, 104(3), 684-698. Gaudin, A. (2020, February 4). What do cover crops have to offer? [PowerPoint slides]. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. https://ucanr.edu/sites/calasa/ files/319850.pdf Mitchell, J. P., Shrestha, A., Mathesius, K., Scow, K. M., Southard, R. J., Haney, R. L., ... & Horwath, W. R. (2017). Cover cropping and no-tillage improve soil health in an arid irrigated cropping system

Community Education Specialist Alli Fish and a daikon radish cover crop in December 2019 (photo by Rose Hayden-Smith.)

in California’s San Joaquin Valley, USA. Soil and Tillage Research, 165, 325-335. Veenstra, J., Horwath, W., Mitchell, J., & Munk, D. (2006). Conservation tillage and cover cropping influence soil properties in San Joaquin Valley cotton-tomato crop. California Agriculture, 60(3), 146-153.

Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com

Helping Farmers Grow NATURALLY Since 1974

FEATURING:

Office: 559-686-3833 Fax: 559-686-1453 2904 E. Oakdale Ave. | Tulare, CA 93274 newerafarmservice.com July / August 2020

www.progressivecrop.com

Lettuce Dieback: New Virus Found to be Associated with Soilborne Disease in Lettuce By WILLIAM M. WINTERMANTEL | USDA-ARS, Salinas

ettuce dieback is a soilborne virus disease known to cause significant losses for lettuce production throughout all western growing regions. The disease was originally described in the Salinas Valley in the late 1990s following severe flooding along the Salinas River but has now been found throughout coastal and inland lettuce production regions of California, the winter production region in southwestern Arizona and Imperial Valley, California.

The disease is most prevalent on romaine lettuce but is known to occur on all non-crisphead (iceberg) lettuce types. Most modern crisphead lettuces are resistant, and an increasing number of romaine cultivars now carry resistance as well. Symptoms of lettuce dieback include yellowing and necrosis of outer leaves, stunted growth and death of affected plants (Figure 1). Plants infected young may fail to develop beyond the 8 to 10 leaf stage, but symptoms can develop at any point in the growing season, and fields often exhibit a range of plant sizes with some plants appearing healthy and maturing normally, while others became stunted and never fully develop (Figure 2, see page 31). Initial symptoms begin with yellowing and necrosis (death) of small veins in outer leaves, with the necrosis expanding into larger areas within and between veins. Inner leaves of the head usually retain their color, but some romaine varieties may also exhibit bright chlorotic flecks within veins of leaves at the center of the head that resembles tiny stars. These are most visible when affected leaves are held up to a light source (Figure 3, see page 31). This vein-flecking symptom is not always present on infected romaine, but when observed it is an excellent diagnostic 30

Progressive Crop Consultant

indicator. The vein flecking symptom is less common on other types of lettuce and is more difficult to observe on red lettuce. Losses resulting from lettuce dieback can range from a few plants to complete loss of crop. In most severely affected fields lettuce heads are not harvested because the plants will not meet quality standards. Symptoms of the disease are frequently found in low lying areas with poor drainage, in areas near rivers, on recently flooded land, and in areas where soil has been dredged from a river or ditch and spread onto adjacent fields. Symptoms of lettuce dieback can be mistaken for those of other diseases, particularly lettuce drop, a disease caused by a fungus, and symptoms of two viruses transmitted by thrips. It is fairly easy to differentiate lettuce drop from lettuce dieback because lettuce drop, caused by fungi in the genus Sclerotinia, results in a soft rot, outer leaves often flatten against the ground, and heads easily separate from the root, whereas with lettuce dieback the root remains firmly attached to the head. The two thrips-transmitted viruses, impatiens necrotic spot virus (INSV) and tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV), also cause necrotic (dead) patches on leaves of infected lettuce plants that resemble symptoms of lettuce dieback, and therefore it can be difficult to differentiate the two diseases. Diagnostic tests can be used to differentiate lettuce plants infected with these viruses from those with lettuce dieback disease. Serological detection methods including commercially available immunostrips that can be used in the field to determine infection with INSV or TSWV, but immunostrips are not available for the viruses associated with lettuce dieback disease. Therefore, confirmation of lettuce dieback requires laboratory testing, which can include both molecular biolJuly / August 2020

Figure 1. Romaine lettuce plant near maturity showing classic symptoms of outer leaf yellowing and necrosis. Symptoms may develop at any growth stage (all photos courtesy W.M. Wintermantel.)

ogy and serological methods. In some cases, lettuce plants may be infected by multiple pathogens simultaneously and this may complicate diagnosis. Lettuce dieback is probably a very old disease of crisphead (iceberg) lettuce that disappeared for many years before reemerging with a new name as a disease of other lettuce types. In the 1930s a disease known as brown blight devastated lettuce production in California with symptoms that closely resembled those of lettuce dieback based on descriptions and illustrations at the time. Iceberg lettuce was the main type of lettuce grown in the 1930s, and it suffered severe losses from brown blight for many years until a source of resistance was identified by a USDA scientist, Ivan Jagger. This source of resistance was eventually bred into all subsequent iceberg lettuce types, beginning with the variety Imperial, and this eliminated the threat from brown blight. In the early 2000s, after the appearance of lettuce dieback, USDA scientists identified a source of resistance to lettuce dieback from the crisphead lettuce variety Salinas, and through genetic studies found that the source of resistance to lettuce dieback is also present in the brown blight-resistant lettuces developed by Jagger over 70 years earlier, but was not in earlier susceptible lettuce varieties. In other words, only crisphead lettuce varieties that predate the variety Imperial could develop symptoms of lettuce dieback. This suggests the two diseases may actually be the same. The resistance to lettuce dieback has been incorporated into several romaine lettuce varieties, as well as some leaf and butter lettuce varieties, but there remain many lettuces that are susceptible to lettuce dieback disease.

Figure 2. Romaine lettuce plants in a field showing variation in severity typical of lettuce dieback including stunted growth, as well as yellowing and necrosis of outer leaves.

Since the late 1990s, lettuce dieback has been believed to be caused by infection of lettuce plants with either of two viruses from the genus Tombusvirus; tomato bushy stunt virus (TBSV) and Moroccan pepper virus (MPV). These viruses are absent from healthy lettuce but have been found regularly in association with lettuce dieback disease. However, there have been numerous situations in which neither virus was found in association with obvious disease symptoms. Furthermore, it has not been possible to consistently and easily reproduce disease symptoms when lettuce is inoculated with either virus in a laboratory setting, raising the possibility that an additional virus may contribute to causing lettuce dieback disease.

Figure 3. Romaine lettuce leaf from the inner portion of a head showing star-shaped chlorotic flecking in veins characteristic of lettuce dieback disease on romaine.

methods were developed to allow rapid detection of the virus from lettuce leaf extracts using RT-PCR, a routine laboratory diagnostic method. LDaV has now been found not only in lettuce showing dieback symptoms collected recently, but it has also been found in older archived samples of lettuce nucleic acid collected from plants showing dieback symptoms over the past 20 years, including many that also contained MPV or TBSV. To date, LDaV has not been found in healthy lettuce plants. Interestingly, genetic comparison showed that LDaV isolates collected from coastal California pro-

duction regions are closely related to one another, and desert isolates from Arizona and Imperial Valley, California also are closely related to one another. However, coastal and desert isolates differ genetically from one another, suggesting perhaps some regional adaptation of the virus to plants grown under the different climatic conditions. Further research will clarify the role of LDaV in lettuce dieback disease and how it relates to the two tombusviruses, MPV and TBSV, that have long been linked to the disease. Studies to date, however, strongly suggest a role for LDaV in lettuce dieback disease development, and research is in progress to clarify the ability of LDaV to produce lettuce dieback symptoms when inoculated to lettuce plants, as well as whether or not the new virus can infect lettuce plants carrying a gene for resistance to lettuce dieback. Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com

In an attempt to identify a possible additional virus contributing to lettuce dieback disease, high throughput sequencing (HTS) was used on several lettuce plants exhibiting dieback symptoms, which led to the identification of a new virus consistently associated with diseased plants but not with healthy lettuce plants. This novel virus was most closely related to a recently identified and poorly characterized virus from watermelon in China, watermelon crinkle leaf associated virus, which was found using the same HTS approach. The newly identified lettuce virus, tentatively named lettuce dieback associated virus (LDaV) shares an extremely low genetic relationship with the watermelon virus, which suggests that although the two viruses are related, they are very distantly related to one another. Using a combination of HTS and traditional DNA sequencing the genome of the new virus, LDaV, was assembled and July / August 2020

www.progressivecrop.com

Choosing Activator Spray Adjuvants for Permanent Crops By FRANZ NIEDERHOLZER | UC Farm Advisor, Colusa and Sutter/Yuba Counties and RHONDA SMITH | UC Farm Advisor, Sonoma County

gricultural spray adjuvants are canopy development? Optimum sprayer materials added to the spray tank set up—gallons of spray per acre, ground when loading the sprayer. They speed, fan output, and nozzle selection/ include products classified as activator ad- arrangement—changes from dormant to juvants and marketed as wetters/spreaders, bloom to early growing season to preharstickers, humectants, and/or penetrators. vest sprays. Adjusting your sprayer to best Activator adjuvants are marketed to immatch orchard and vineyard conditions prove the performance of pesticides and at each general stage in canopy develfoliar fertilizers. opment is the foundation of an effective, efficient spray program. An activator Activator adjuvants can have a place in adjuvant will not make up for excessive tree (and vine) crop sprays, but matching tractor speed, poor nozzle arrangement the material to the job can be tricky. A and/or worn nozzles. Your money is best bad match can lead to minor or major spent first dialing in your sprayer(s) for losses to the grower. Minor losses can rethe whole season, before considering an sult from excess spreading and pesticide extra material in the tank (that is not runoff from the target plant. Phytotoxici- required on the label). ty can cause major damage. If you have your sprayer(s) dialed in for This article describes ingredients and each orchard and stage of growth, now functions of activator adjuvants comis the time to say “OK, I want to think monly sprayed on tree and vine crops. about a little extra boost to my spray job.” Suggestions regarding activator adjuvant selection are offered. Growers must Which Activator Adjuvant to Choose? make their own activator adjuvant use First, know the properties of the pestidecisions based on experience, particular cide you will use. Does it work on the needs, and risk tolerance. plant surface or inside the plant? This is a key point in selecting adjuvants. Here Should You Use an Adjuvant? is a quick review of the main classifiRead and follow the specific instructions cations and characteristics of activator on the label. If the pesticide or foliar feradjuvants as they currently appear in the tilizer label indicates the product should field. Note: Certain products can provide be used with certain types or brand of ad- more than one adjuvant property that can juvant(s), that’s what you need to use. For be beneficial in the field. For example, example, the Bravo Weather Stik® label non-ionic surfactants can work as surfaccautions against using certain specific ad- tants and penetrators, depending on use juvants and puts the responsibility in the rate. PCA or grower court regarding adjuvant use. If the label includes phrases such as Wetters/spreaders: These materials con"use of an adjuvant may improve results" tain surfactants that decrease the contact or “complete coverage is needed for best angle and increase the spreading of the results” then you may want to look into spray droplet on the target. High rates selecting and using an appropriate activa- of wetters/spreaders may also increase tor adjuvant. penetration of pesticide into the target tissue (leaves or fruit), potentially causing Before proceeding with use of an activaphytotoxicity. Excessive spreading of tor adjuvant, first look at your existing pesticide spray solution and runoff from spray program. Are you already doing the target may result when using a new or the best spray job you can? Good spray higher rate of spreader—especially when coverage begins with proper sprayer using silicon “super-spreaders”. Test new calibration and set up. Is your sprayer combinations of spreader material(s) and calibration dialed in for different stages of spray volume before regular use. Spray 32

Progressive Crop Consultant

July / August 2020

volume per acre or adjuvant use rate will probably have to be reduced if a labeled rate of adjuvant provides excessive spreading. To check for excessive spreading, place a length of black plastic sheeting under several trees or vines in a row. Secure the plastic with spikes, wire staples, and/ or weights. Spray the new adjuvant and pesticide combination using your current sprayer set up. Reenter the field right after spraying, wearing appropriate PPE, and evaluate coverage. If material is pooling at the lower portion of leaves and/or fruit, excessive spreading is occurring. Check to see if pooling is occurring only in a certain area(s) of the canopy or throughout the canopy. If more spray solution is landing on the black plastic tarp under the trees/vines than between them, then runoff is occurring. [Some ground deposit should be expected from standard airblast sprayer use.] Compare the results of your adjuvant test with a similar application of your current pesticide/adjuvant combination on another portion of the row. If there is no pooling or runoff with the new adjuvant in the tank, you can use the adjuvant with confidence. A lack of pooling or run off with the new adjuvant also might mean that your old sprayer setup and tank mix didn’t deliver adequate coverage. If the test with the new adjuvant showed pooling on leaves and/or runoff on the ground, you have several choices: 1) You can reduce spray volume per acre by replacing some or all nozzles with smaller nozzle sizes on the sprayer in an effort to reduce overspreading. If you saw overspreading on some portions of the canopy, but not others, reduce nozzle size only on the part of the spray boom that targets the over-sprayed part of the canopy. Recheck spray coverage if nozzling changes were made. 2) Reduce the adjuvant rate and recheck coverage/spreading. 3) You can just go back to your established program without the new adjuvant.

Continued on Page 34

Innovative by Nature

INCREASE PLANT GROWTH AND VIGOR IN ALL NUT TREES

Features:

•

Bioavailable nutrients to enhance and support photosynthesis Increased Inc photosynthesis stimulates energy production for improved plant and root dev development Can be tank mixed and applied with Grower Standard foliar program

Improves plant • growth and vigor

•

Benefits of

Trial Results for 2019

Supports abiotic stress tolerance

B Sure®

•

Boo Boosts plant metabolism, increases photosynthesis and stimulates plant growth and plant vigor

•

Enhances crop Enhan quality and yield under both favorable and stressful growth conditions.

•

B Sure Su supports nut development thru greater potassium uptake

•

Increased Yield Inc Means More Revenue.

• Nutrient Rich

Available Through Your Local Retailer B Sure® is a liquid nutrient solution derived by microbial fermentation that increases the activity of multiple critical metabolic pathways in the crop.

Premier Product for Conventional and Organic

Growers

Contact: Ron Restum | Phone: (316) 744-5260 | Email: ron.restum@agrinos.com

Agrinos.com

Continued from Page 32 What’s the “best” course of action? That depends on your farming operation. Reducing spray volume per acre means more ground covered per full spray tank – a potential time and cost savings. If spraying is done during the heat of the day in hot, dry climate, spray water evaporation is a major issue and it may be best to keep the higher spray volume and reduce the spreader rate or eliminate it entirely. Checking coverage and overspreading allows you to make the best decision possible, avoid damage and, hopefully, save money. All farming operations are different. Make the choice

that best fits your farm. Stickers: These adjuvants can increase the retention time of the pesticide on the leaf and reduce rain wash off. They may limit movement of systemic pesticides into the plant, and are probably most beneficial when used with protectant materials (cover sprays). Do you overhead irrigate? Is there rain on the horizon? If you answer yes to either one of these questions, you may benefit from using a sticker. Humectants: Under low humidity

conditions humectants can help reduce spray droplet evaporation before and after deposition on the plant. This is especially valuable when small droplets and/or materials that must be absorbed into the plant (systemic pesticides, PGRs, nutrients, etc.) are used in the summer under high temperature and low relative humidity conditions. Penetrators: Frequently used with herbicides, these products include oils (petroleum, vegetable, or modified vegetable oils) and non-ionic surfactants used at higher rates. In crop sprays, penetrators can be used to increase absorption of systemic pesticides (for example, oil with Agri-Mek) as well as translaminar materials. Penetrator adjuvants should be used with caution or avoided entirely with surface active pesticides such as cover sprays or else phyto may result. Finally, some penetrators can increase the rain-fastness of some pesticides.

What Adjuvant Material to Choose?

Use a product intended for crop spraying. Many activator adjuvants were developed and intended for use with herbicides. Products that are advertised for use with plant growth regulators should have a higher chance of crop safety compared with those that don't. This is still no guarantee of a phyto-free application. Ask for help from the adjuvant manufacturer’s sales rep if needed. How much do they know about the particular activator adjuvant in the spray mix you are planning?

Will the Adjuvant Work?

If you choose to use an adjuvant that is not specifically listed on the pesticide or foliar fertilizer label, jar test the planned spray solution first. Use the same spray water source. Include all leaf feeds, other adjuvants, and pesticide(s) that you plan to put in the spray tank. Do this before tank mixing these materials. A lot of time and money rides on effective pesticide application. Do your homework before the spray tank is filled and you will be well on your way to solid results. Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com

Progressive Crop Consultant

July / August 2020

PHEROCON NOW PPO-HR L + NOW L LURES 2™

2™

+ MODIFIED PHEROCON TRAPS ®

NEW! Peelable Technology

NOW L2 High Pheromone Lure

NEW! Patent Pending, High-Release Microporous Gel Multi-Gender NOW Attractant System:

NOW L2 Low Pheromone Lure

PHEROCON® NOW L2 Lures PHEROCON® 1CD QUICK-CHANGE™ Trap

PHEROCON® NOW NAVEL ORANGEWORM

COMPARATIVETRAP TRAP&&LURE LURE TRIAL, CACA, 2019 COMPARATIVE TRIAL,Almonds, Almonds, 2019

NOW/Trap/Week

NOW PPO-HR L2™+ NOW L2 - L = Multi-gender, greater attraction in mating disrupted almonds

7 6 5 4 3 2

1 0

Pheromone

PPO + Pheromone

Wing Trap, Modified

PPO

PPO + Pheromone

PHEROCON® VI DELTA Trap

Source: Dr. Dr. Chuck Burks, Research Entomologist, USDA-ARS, Parlier, Parlier, CA, N=8CA SOURCE: Chuck Burks, Research Entomologist, USDA-ARS,

PHEROCON® 1CD QUICK-CHANGE ™ Trap

PHEROCON® VI DELTA Trap

PPO

PPO + Pheromone

PHEROCON® VI DELTA Modified

Mating Disrupted Almonds, N=8

NOTE: Do not use in organic orchards, or orchards that are being prepared for organic approval. Key Features: PHEROCON® NOW PPO-HR L2™ • Multi-Gender NOW Attractant • Duplicates Standard USDA vial release rate • 12 weeks field longevity • Easy to use; ready-to-use barrier pack • Best Practice: Combine NOW PPO-HR L2™+ NOW L2 -L = Multi-gender, greater attraction in mating disrupted almonds, pistachios, and walnuts • Change NOW PPO-HR L2™ lure at 12 weeks and change NOW L2 -L lure at 4-6 weeks Trap Options: • PHEROCON® 1CD QUICK-CHANGE,™ with expanded SNUG-FIT ®spacer • PHEROCON® VI DELTA Modified, with cut outs • PHEROCON® VI DELTA Trap

PHEROCON® VI DELTA Modified Trap

INCORPORATED INSECT PHEROMONE & KAIROMONE SYSTEMS

Your Edge – And Ours – Is Knowledge.

Contact your local supplier and order now! Visit our website: www.trece.com or call: 1- 866-785-1313.

NOW PPO-HR L2 MULTI-GENDER MONITORING SYSTEM FOR NAVEL ORANGEWORM IN ALMONDS, PISTACHIOS AND WALNUTS

NOW L MONITORING SYSTEM FOR NAVEL ORANGEWORM IN ALMONDS, PISTACHIOS & WALNUTS

Improve nitrogen metabolism during hull-split.

diKaP (0-31-50) focuses on abiotic stress defense by improving nitrogen metabolism that can lead to reduced incidence of hull rot. Call to learn more:

(208) 678-2610 Find us online: http://redoxchem.com

@redoxgrows