RSS 1.0Arizona Pest Management Center (APMC)
ABOUT THE COLLECTION
The mission of the Arizona Pest Management Center (APMC) is to support College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) faculty in their efforts to develop and deliver outstanding Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs that address the needs of Arizona’s citizens. This includes IPM programs serving agriculture, urban communities and natural areas.
QUESTIONS?
For information, please contact APMC at https://acis.cals.arizona.edu/about-us/arizona-pest-management-center.
Sub-communities within this community
Collections in this community
Recent Submissions
-
Future of the Colorado River – Southwest Ag SummitThis article (Vegetable IPM Newsletter, Vol. 16, No. 5) summarizes discussion from the 2026 Southwest Ag Summit on post-2026 Colorado River management alternatives outlined in the Bureau of Reclamation Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The piece highlights potential impacts to Lower Basin agriculture and emphasizes the importance of public input in shaping future water allocation policy.
-
Venturi Chemigation of Kerb in Lettuce: Early Results from Yuma Agricultural CenterThis article (Vegetable IPM Newsletter, Vol. 17, No. 5) summarizes preliminary results from a Yuma field trial evaluating venturi chemigation of Kerb in head lettuce under heavy Sudan grass pressure. Early findings suggest chemigation is feasible, while higher Hydrovant rates did not improve efficacy.
-
Effects of the Maximum Dose of Common Insecticides and Incipio on Diamondback Moth Populations Collected from Arizona and California Brassica CropsDiamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) continues to challenge Brassica production in Arizona and California due to its ability to develop insecticide resistance. Laboratory bioassays with field populations showed that Proclaim, plinazolin, Radiant, DiPel, and XenTari remained effective, while Coragen, Exirel, and Baythroid performed poorly across sites. These results emphasis the importance of routine resistance monitoring and rotating modes of action to maintain effective DBM control.
-
Advancing U.S. Cotton IPMThis 2024 Better Cotton Large Farm GIF project evaluated six highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) used in U.S. cotton and advanced integrated pest management (IPM) strategies to reduce reliance on broadly toxic insecticides. Through key informant surveys representing over 10 million cotton acres, pesticide use analyses, and regulatory risk assessments, we assessed current use patterns, pest targets, and barriers to phase-out. Five of the six HHPs were used on less than 5% of acres on average, with no predicted yield losses if discontinued. Fenpyroximate showed minor potential impacts (<0.1%) under specific mite resistance scenarios. Chlorpyrifos presented comparatively greater ecological and occupational risks, supporting accelerated phase-out. We also recommend transitioning from aggregate annual pesticide reporting to field-level spray records to better measure progress in pest management. Commercial-scale on-farm demonstrations in Arizona showed that predator-based thresholds eliminated the need for whitefly sprays without economic loss, demonstrating that conservation biological control can reduce pesticide inputs while sustaining productivity.
-
Colorado River Summary & UpdateThis article, published in the VegIPM Newsletter (Vol. 17, No. 3), provides an update on the status of the Colorado River, including declining flows, reservoir conditions, and ongoing water management negotiations affecting the Southwest.
-
Vertento® (isocycloseram) en Algodón: Eficacia, Selectividad Parcial y Uso Dentro del MIPEl registro reciente de Vertento® (isocicloseram; Grupo 30 de IRAC) introduce un nuevo modo de acción para el manejo de Lygus en el algodón de Arizona. Estudios de campo muestran un control excelente y consistente a una dosis de 1.6 onzas por acre (≈120 mL/ha), con actividad residual de dos semanas o más. Vertento se clasifica como un insecticida parcialmente selectivo (“caja amarilla”) dentro del sistema MIP de base biológica de Arizona, con efectos intermedios sobre organismos benéficos no objetivo. Sus impactos sobre depredadores son menores que los de insecticidas organofosforados, lo que lo convierte en una opción eficaz para el manejo de Lygus que apoya el manejo de la resistencia y reduce el riesgo de brotes secundarios.
-
Soil Health: Regenerative and Conventional Crop Production SystemsThis article, published in the VegIPM Newsletter (Vol. 17, No. 2), examines regenerative and conventional crop production systems, highlighting how soil health outcomes depend on management practices, climate, and cropping context, with particular emphasis on desert agricultural systems.
-
Cotton Insecticide Use Guide Knowing and Balancing RisksThis two‐page guide offers a concise, practical overview for cotton growers and pest management professionals on how to select insecticides that balance effective pest control with environmental, human, and ecological safety. It presents a rating system that scores products for their efficacy against target pests (such as whiteflies and lygus bugs) and for their risks to beneficial organisms like predatory insects, pollinators, and other wildlife, as well as potential hazards to human bystanders and aquatic life. The guide emphasizes that no product is completely without risk and that informed decisions require weighing factors such as pest control performance, resistance management, cost, and broader environmental impact. Developed by experts from the University of Arizona and USDA-ARS, this IPM (Integrated Pest Management) short serves as a user-friendly reference to help growers choose insecticides that support sustainable cotton production while minimizing unintended consequences.
-
Vertento® (isocycloseram) for Lygus Management in Arizona CottonThe recent registration of Vertento® (isocycloseram; IRAC Group 30) introduces a novel mode of action for Lygus management in Arizona cotton. Field research under Arizona conditions demonstrates that Vertento provides excellent and consistent control of Lygus bugs at a rate of 1.6 oz per acre, with residual activity often extending two weeks or longer. Vertento is classified as a partially selective (“yellow box”) insecticide within Arizona’s biologically based IPM system, producing intermediate non-target effects on beneficial arthropods compared with fully selective and broad-spectrum alternatives. Predator community impacts are measurable but substantially less disruptive than those associated with organophosphate insecticides. When used strategically, Vertento offers an effective new option for Lygus control while supporting resistance management goals and minimizing the risk of secondary pest outbreaks. Its successful integration into Arizona cotton IPM depends on careful consideration of timing, predator abundance, and rotation with existing selective standards.
-
U.S. Pesticide Policy is Influenced by Stakeholder CommentsThis qualitative research study shows that grower-centered, evidence-based stakeholder comments significantly influenced EPA pesticide registration reviews, improving the accuracy and practicality of federal pesticide policy while protecting human health, the environment, and agricultural viability.
-
Soil Health: Decomposition of Organic Materials and Nutrient MineralizationThis article, published in the VegIPM Newsletter (Vol. 17, No. 1), explains how organic material decomposition and nutrient mineralization influence soil health and nutrient availability in desert crop systems.
-
Biological Insecticide Options for Bagrada Bug ManagementThis article in the VegIPM Newsletter (Vol. 16, No. 25) summarizes biological insecticide performance for managing Bagrada bug in organic broccoli. M-Pede and the M-Pede + Entrust tank mix provided the strongest suppression (≈60%), while Captiva Prime and Neemix reduced populations by nearly 50%. Products like Aza-Direct, Entrust, and Botanigard delivered more moderate reductions (≈30%), with none offering rapid knockdown. Results highlight the limited but promising tools available for organic growers seeking selective options for Bagrada bug control.
-
Soil Health: Organic and Inorganic Industrial Fertilizers Impact of Crop and Soil HealthThis article, published in the VegIPM Newsletter (Vol. 16, No. 25), compares organic and inorganic fertilizers and their effects on soil health. Silvertooth explains how each contributes differently to soil structure, biology, and nutrient delivery, emphasizing the value of integrating both in desert crop systems.
-
Which Biological Insecticides Work Best Against Lepidopteran Pests in Brassicas and Lettuces?This article in the VegIPM Newsletter (Vol. 16, No. 24) summarizes organic insecticide performance against major lepidopteran pests in Brassicas and lettuce. Across three seasons of trials, XenTari and Entrust provided the most consistent suppression, while other biological products showed more variable results.
-
Soil Health: Sources Utilized in Plant Nitrogen UptakeThis article in the VegIPM Newsletter (Vol. 16, No. 24) explains that crops mainly rely on inorganic nitrogen and that organic forms play only a minor role in plant uptake.
-
Proactive Resistance Management App Instructional BookletThis instructional booklet provides a concise, field-ready guide to the Proactive Resistance Management (PRM) web tool, a community-based decision-support system developed by the Arizona Pest Management Center to promote proactive insect resistance management. Through short explanatory panels and annotated screenshots, the booklet introduces key concepts such as temporal refuge and Mode of Action (MoA) color families, explaining how users can interpret and apply PRM outputs to support sustainable insecticide stewardship across crops and regions. Designed for one-on-one or small-group teaching in the field, this resource complements the online tool available at PRM.extension.arizona.edu.
-
Soil Health: Nitrogen Cycle and Management in Agricultural SoilsThis article, published in the Vegetable IPM Newsletter (Vol. 16, No. 23), explains the nitrogen cycle and the biological processes that transform nitrogen into plant-available forms. It highlights the importance of the mineralization–immobilization transformation (MIT) cycle in maintaining soil fertility, supporting crop productivity, and managing nitrogen efficiently in agricultural systems.
-
EPA’s Mitigation Menu to Protect Endangered SpeciesThe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must ensure that the use of a pesticide will not jeopardize federally listed threatened or endangered species, nor damage their critical habitats. For certain pesticides where runoff or soil erosion may pose threats to listed species, EPA may require users to ensure that protections are in place that will limit the potential for pesticide exposure. This is done through a system of “mitigation points” or “credits” that are obtained by users through adopting mitigation practices or documenting existing conditions that reduce risks of runoff and erosion. If points are needed to apply a pesticide, this requirement will be listed on the pesticide label and/or on an Endangered Species Bulletin. Arizona has many common field conditions, including a low to very low potential for runoff, that should make it easy for most growers in most situations to comply with mitigation requirements. This piece outlines situations where fields may be completely exempt from point requirements and identifies the most common conditions and practices in Arizona agriculture that can earn mitigation relief points. A link is provided to EPA’s Mitigation Menu website where definitions and additional mitigation practices are listed.
-
Endangered Species Protection Bulletins Part 2: Understanding Pesticide Use Limitation AreasThe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must ensure that the use of a pesticide will not jeopardize federally listed threatened or endangered species, nor damage their critical habitats. When required on a pesticide label, online Endangered Species Bulletins provide geographic-specific protections for listed species while allowing full labeled use of the pesticide in other areas. They are obtained through EPA’s Bulletins Live! Two, an interactive web-based app. An increasing number of pesticide products, though not all, require users to view and download Endangered Species Bulletins prior to making an application. Part 2 in this series explains the nuances of Pesticide Use Limitation Areas (PULAs) on Bulletins Live! Two using an example of a grower with fields both within and outside of a PULA. It clarifies differences in how to print a bulletin when a PULA is present or absent in the map view. it also highlights the main elements presented in an Endangered Species Bulletin.
-
Endangered Species Protection Bulletins Part 1: What are they and when do you need them?The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must ensure that the use of a pesticide will not jeopardize federally listed threatened or endangered species, nor damage their critical habitats. When required on a pesticide label, online Endangered Species Bulletins provide geographic-specific protections for listed species while allowing full labeled use of the pesticide in other areas. They are obtained through EPA’s Bulletins Live! Two, an interactive web-based app. An increasing number of pesticide products, though not all, require users to view and download Endangered Species Bulletins prior to making an application. Part 1 in this series explains how to determine when an Endangered Species Bulletin is required, where and how to obtain a bulletin, and what type of information is provided.
