Complying with SB88 - Water Measurement and Reporting Shortcourse
Senate Bill 88 requires that all water right holders who divert more than 10 acre-feet a year measure and report the water they divert. For diversions greater than 100 acre-feet, SB 88 requires installation and certification of measurement methods be approved by an engineer, contractor, or other professional. AB 589 provides a self-certification option (AB 589 (Bigelow) - Water diversion: monitoring and reporting training). AB 589 allows a water diverter who has completed a course on measurement devices and methods administered by the University of California Cooperative Extension and passed a proficiency test to be considered a “Qualified Individual”. While this course was specifically developed for water diverters who divert more than 100 acre-feet of water each year, the course has proved helpful for anyone who is required to report their water diversions under SB-88.
At the workshop you will:
·Clarify reporting requirements for ranches and farms.
·Understand what meters are appropriate for different situations.
·Learn how to determine measurement equipment accuracy.
·Develop an understanding of measurement weirs.
·Learn how to calculate and report volume from flow data.
These trainings will move fast and will include a proficiency test. Bring a clipboard and a hand calculator. We encourage family/staff members' attendance.
Additional workshop locations are being offered throughout California. You can register online at http://ucanr.edu/sites/AB589/.
2:15 – 2:30 PM Registration - Refreshments
2:30 – 3:00 PM Open Ditch Flow - Larry Forero
3:00 – 3:30 PM Measurement with Weirs - Larry Forero
3:30 – 4:00 PM Measuring Water in Pipes - Allan Fulton
4:00 – 4:30 PM Break - Refreshments
4:30 – 5:00 PM Calibration and Accuracy of Measuring Devices - Khaled Bali/Daniele Zaccaria
5:00 – 5:30 PM Determining Reservoir Diversion Quantity - Khaled Bali/Daniele Zaccaria
5:30 – 6:00 PM Reporting - Larry Forero
Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) is a perennial plant in the Convolvulaceae family (which is also the family of dodder (Cuscuta spp.), morningglories (Ipomoea spp.), and alkaliweed (Cressa truxillensis)). In addition to an extensive root network (v
Native to the Mediterranean region and Western Asia, field bindweed is presumed to have been brought to the United States (in 1739) as a seed contaminant. The species moved westward and was officially documented in the state of California (San Diego County) in 1850.
Bindweed reproduces both by seed and vegetatively. Plants produce white to pinkish/purple trumpet-shaped flowers (1 inch in diameter to 1 inch in length) beginning in April and continuing through September in California (depending on latitude). Flowers open during the day and close tightly at night into a twisted tube. Seeds are approximately 1/8th of an inch long, black in coloration, shaped like an orange wedge, and produced in a papery capsule. Although estimates vary dramatically, it has been reported that bindweed infestations can produce between 20,000 and 20,000,000 seeds per acre.
2018 Alfalfa and Forage Field Day
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
Kearney Agricultural Research and Extension Center
9240 S. Riverbend Ave., Parlier, CA 93648
7:30 AM Registration
8:00 AM TRAM LEAVES FOR FIELD TOUR
Alfalfa Varieties for Pest and Disease Management – Shannon Mueller, Agronomy Advisor and County Director, UCCE Fresno
Low-Lignin Alfalfa Testing – Daniel Putnam, CE Agronomy & Forage Specialist, UC Davis
Sorghum Drought Stress – Jeffery Dahlberg, KAREC Director and Bob Hutmacher, WSREC Director & CE Extension Specialist
Weed ID Mobile App: Hands-On – Lynn Sosnoskie, Agronomy & Weed Science Advisor, UCCE Merced & Madera
9:50 AM TRAM RETURNS
10:00 AM Weed ID: Tools and Tricks of the Trade – Lynn Sosnoskie
10:15 AM Insect Pest Management in Alfalfa: State of IPM Address – Tim Hays, PCA, Buttonwillow Warehouse, Lancaster, CA
10:30 AM Discussion
10:45 AM Break
11:00 AM Introduction of Soil Quality Advisors – NRCS and Nutrient Mgmt./Soil Quality Advisors Anthony Fulford, UCCE Stanislaus, Merced, & San Joaquin, and Daniela Carrijo, UCCE Fresno, Madera, Kings, & Tulare
11:15 AM Salinity Management: Soil and Cropping Systems Strategies – Michelle Leinfelder-Miles, Delta Crops & Agronomy Advisor, UCCE San Joaquin
11:30 AM Sub-Surface Drip Irrigation and Deficit Irrigation in Alfalfa – Daniel Putnam
11:45 AM Manured Corn-Wheat N, P, & K Budgeting – Nick Clark, Agronomy & Nutrient Mgmt. Advisor, UCCE Kings, Tulare, & Fresno
12:00 PM Discussion
12:15 PM Lunch
DPR & CCA CEU hours have been applied for.
- Author: Lynn M. Sosnoskie
- Author: Rachel Long
- Author: Mariano Galla
- Author: Thomas Getts
The old saying, “Everything's fine until it's not,” comes to mind when dealing with some tough to control perennial weeds in alfalfa production during the summertime. Such was the case for an alfalfa field in the Sacramento Valley, where weed control seemed good up until mid-summer, and then it wasn't. Perennial weeds that started off small and overlooked, grew through the season, persisting through multiple cuttings, including curly dock, plantain, and nutsedge. For tough to control weeds in alfalfa fields, one needs to determine: 1) What types of perennial weeds are present, and 2) How many of them are there, to make a decision on how to manage them. These sorts of weed issues can creep up quickly in older alfalfa stands.
When growing hay, poisonous weeds should be high on any grower's radar. While plantain and nutsedge are benign, curly dock has potential to cause problems. Exposure to soluble oxalates that curly dock may contain are a low risk for renal disease for livestock because typically it is not that abundant in alfalfa hay fields. However, curly dock is also known to be able to accumulate toxic nitrate concentrations if grown under certain conditions, such as high levels of nitrogen fertilization (not typically applied in alfalfa), or frost. Regardless, high enough concentrations of any weeds in hay, poisonous or not, will lower the value and quality of the product produced, and should be addressed.
Grass weed control is relatively easy, with Poast (sethoxydim) or Select Max (clethodim) available for both annual and perennial grasses (e.g. barnyardgrass, foxtail, and Johnsongrass). Post and Select Max are both systemic herbicides which move through the plant and are more effective when the weeds are actively growing. Middle of the season applications after cutting may be more effective following an irrigation, to ensure the weedy grasses are not drought stressed, so herbicide effectiveness is maximized.
Often mistaken as a grass, nutsedge can be difficult to control any time of the year. Applications of EPTC (Eptam) in irrigation water or use of a granular formulation can give suppression of nutsedge. The liquid formulation of EPTC requires uniform metering of the herbicide into water during irrigation, which may not be effective on heavy soils. Sandea (halosulfuron) can be used for post-emergence control of nutsedge in established alfalfa. However, Sandea can cause temporary stunting and yellowing of the crop when applied during the growing season in the Central Valley. The use of herbicides in rotational crops prior to alfalfa stand establishment is important in helping to reduce populations of nutsedge.
Perennial broadleaf weed control is challenging during the summer, particularly with well-established weed populations. Chateau (flumioxazin), or Shark (carfentrazone), might be of some help by providing a burndown of the aboveground foliage for perennial weed species. While this may sound desirable, most perennial weed species will regrow from the roots, just like the alfalfa, so control would be short lived and may only last for a single cutting. Both products have labels for weed control in established alfalfa between cuttings with language directing applications to be made as soon as possible after hay is removed from the field, and before there is 6 inches of regrowth on the alfalfa stand. It should be noted that both products will also burn back alfalfa in addition to the weeds.
Raptor (imazamox) can also provide control of some broadleaf and annual grass species. The label directs applications between cuttings to be made before there are 3-inches of alfalfa regrowth. Unlike Chateau and Shark, Raptor is a systemic product which will not burn back the weeds or alfalfa on contact, but can still cause a reduction in crop growth, while controlling small weeds. Unfortunately, out of the three problematic weeds in this field, only curly dock is listed on the Raptor label and only suppression, not control, can be expected from a successful application.
Butyrac 200 (2,4-DB) could be an option for control of either curly dock, or common plantain. According to the UC IPM herbicide sensitivity chart for alfalfa, Butyrac 200 is able to partially control established broadleaf plantain. Where the label indicates, applications to small curly dock plants less than 3-inches can also be expected to provide suppression. However, potential crop injury may also be a deterrent for use in established stands. Crop safety of alfalfa to Butyrac 200 is better for seedling alfalfa as compared to established plants, which are likely to display more leaf deformation and yellowing. If applications of Butyrac 200 are made, healthy, actively growing alfalfa will be more tolerant to the applications than stressed plants. As Butyrac 200 is a restricted material, it is important to follow the regulations and best management practices for use, in order to reduce the potential for off target movement.
Should a treatment be made?
At this time of year, alfalfa foliage burn back from products like Shark or Chateau is temporary, lasting about a week; visual effects from dormant season applications with these herbicides may last a month or more. There may be a 7 to 10 day loss of growth when using these herbicides mid-season (right now). If using these contact herbicides between cuttings, either let the alfalfa grow longer before harvesting (our recommendation) or expect approximately a 10% yield loss for a scheduled 28-day interval cutting. Other post-emergence selective herbicides are either not registered for use during the growing season, or they have too long of a pre-harvest interval (PHI) to be utilized in most California systems.
Certainly, if there are poisonous weeds out there like sow thistle, the decision to treat is made easy, but if they are standard run of the mill weeds, a decision needs to be made on what is tolerable to both the consumer, and the producer. Recently germinated summer annual weeds in large enough numbers can be prime examples of when mid-season applications between cuttings may be necessary and cost effective. Treating well-established populations of most perennial weeds between cuttings may be a waste of time, as perennial weeds will be suppressed, not controlled, making crop yield loss from herbicide injury much less acceptable.
Mid-season alfalfa herbicides treatments can be further confounded by the cutting cycles. Weeds are most susceptible to chemical treatments right after they have germinated when they are small and actively growing, which is why most alfalfa weed control measures take place in the late fall or early winter. Established annual and perennial weeds, which have been cut in an alfalfa field, can be less susceptible to herbicide control, as they become ‘hardened-off' from being cut and drought stressed during the harvesting process.
The dormant season is when most alfalfa weed control applications occur targeting winter annual weeds and the first flushes of summer annual weeds. The dormant season applications can also be effective at suppressing or controlling perennial weeds in the field. Applications of Gramoxone (paraquat) and Velpar (hexazinone) are standard dormant season treatments with a wide spectrum of weed control. Seedlings of most perennial species, including curly dock, will be controlled by Velpar applications. More established curly dock plants and other perennial species can be suppressed by the dormant season treatments but are typically not eliminated. Other perennial species such as yellow nutsedge which are not active at time of application can be missed by dormant season applications.
The best time to control perennial weed populations in alfalfa is before the stand is established. Crop rotation allows the ability to target difficult to control species in crops that utilize more effective weed control practices, for example, broadleaf weed control in wheat. In fields with heavy perennial weed populations, RR alfalfa may be a good choice for producers not able to address the perennial weed problem before establishment. With conventional varieties, mid-season perennial weed control may require a trade-off between weed control and crop injury concerns. Growers need to determine 1) what types of perennial weeds are present and 2) how many of them are there? These factors will determine if a bit of injury to the alfalfa would be worth trying to clean up the field with an herbicide application.
Glyphosate was commercialized in 1974. Since then, it has become one of the most widely used and studied herbicides. According to Duke (2018b), almost 20,000 scientific publications and patents have included glyphosate as a focus; only 2,4-D surpasses it with respect to citations. The articles in the 5th issue of the 74th volume of Pest Management Science are no different; they all focus on this important (and controversial) molecule.This special issue arose from a day long symposium organized by Stephen O. Duke (University of Mississippi) and Keith Solomon (University of Guelph) that was held at the 252nd annual meeting of the American Chemical Society (Duke 2018a).
Figure 1. The cover of the 5th issue of the 74th volume of Pest Management Science, which is dedicated, entirely, to articles about glyphosate. The cover photos are based on the research article: Glyphosate resistance in Ambrosia trifida: Part 1. Novel rapid cell death response to glyphosate.
Stephen Duke (2018) updates a previous publication describing glyphosate's history and use (Duke and Powles 2008) in the first article. Of interest to the California weed science community is how consistent glyphosate use appears to be in the Central Valley between 1994 and 2014 as compared to the rest of the United States (Figure 2). Glyphosate has been a relative staple for weed control in our tree and vine systems over this time whereas the development and release of glyphosate-resistant crops (GRCs) has expanded the molecule's utility in row crop agriculture.
Figure 2. An image showing changes in glyphosate use in the US between 1994 and 2014 from the review article: The history and current status of glyphosate.
Jerry Green (2018) describes the history and discusses the future of GRCs, which currently account for more than 50% of the glyphosate applied in the world. While recognizing the influence of GRCs on weed control, both Green (2018) and Heap and Duke (2018) acknowledge that the widespread use of this active ingredient over space and time has lead to the development of glyphosate-resistant weeds. Worldwide, there are 41 weed species (24 dicots, 17 monocots) with resistance to glyphosate. In the United States, 17 weed species have documented resistance to glyphosate; in California, glyphosate resistance has been confirmed in: Amaranthus palmeri, Conyza bonariensis, Conyza canadensis, Echinochloa colona, Lolium perenne, Lolium rigidum, and Poa annua. Heap and Duke (2018) note that the development of glyphosate resistance in species with resistances to other herbicides may precipitate a management crisis for growers that rely heavily on chemical tools for weed control. Considering the rise in the numbers of species with multiple resistances and the lack of a.i. introductions, the authors advocate for the adoption of integrated management efforts (e.g. physical and cultural practices), the judicious use of effective herbicides, an evaluation of herbicide a.i.s for their suitability in additional crops, and a continued focus on advancing computing and engineering to facilitate precision weed removal.
The remainder of the articles in the issue are split between reviews and research papers. The reviews focus on: the impacts of glyphosate resistant sugar beets (Morishita 2018); the effects of glyphosate on plant disease development (Hammerschmidt 2018); and the hermetic effects of glyphosate on plants (Brito et al. 2018). The original research articles describe: a novel mechanism of resistance to glyphosate in Ambrosia trifida (Van Horn et al. 2018; Moretti et al. 2018); the effects of temperature on glyphosate absorption in Kochia scoparia (Ou et al. 2018); the spread of the glyphosate resistance trait in Palmer amaranth (Molin et al. 2018), among many others.
Considering the importance of glyphosate to crop production in California, the United States, and the world, this issue of Pest Management Science is likely to be an importance reference. It can be accessed at the journal's webpage: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/15264998/74/5
Brito, et al. 2018. Hormetic effects of glyphosate on plants. Pest Manage Sci 74:1064-1070.
Duke, SO and SB Powles. 2008. Glyphosate: A once-in-a-century herbicide. Pest Manage Sci 64:319-325.
Duke, SO. 2018a. Glyphosate: The world's most successful herbicide under intense scrutiny. Pest Manage Sci 74:10-26-1026.
Duke, SO. 2018b. The history and current status of glyphosate. Pest Manage Sci 74:1027-1034.
Green, JM. 2018. The rise and future of glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant crops. Pest Manage Sci 74:1035-1039.
Hammerschmidt, R. 2018. How glyphosate affects plant disease development: it is more than enhanced susceptibility. Pest Manage Sci 74:1054-1063.
Heap, I and SO Duke. 2018. Overview of glyphosate-resistant weeds worldwide. Pest Manage Sci 74:1040-1049.
Molin, WT et al. 2018. Survey of the genomic landscape surrounding the 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) gene in glyphosate-resistant Amaranthus palmeri from geographically distinct populations in the USA. Pest Manage Sci 74:1109-1117.
Moretti, ML et al. 2018. Glyphosate resistance in Ambrosia trifida: Part 2. Rapid response physiology and non-target-site resistance. Pest Manage Sci 74:1079-1088.
Morishita, DW. 2018. Impact of glyphosate-resistant sugar beet. Pest Manage Sci 74:1050-1053.
Ou, J et al. 2018. Reduced absorption of glyphosate and decreased translocation of dicamba contribute to poor control of kochia (Kochia scoparia) at high temperature. Pest Manage Sci 74:1134-1142.
Van Horn, CR et al. 2018. Glyphosate resistance in Ambrosia trifida: Part 1. Novel rapid cell death response to glyphosate. Pest Manage Sci 74:1050-1053.