Tag: California Tomato Research Institute

  • Tomato Industry Taking Steps to Stop Spread of Parasitic Weed

    California’s processing tomato industry for the first time this past harvest season agreed to voluntary equipment cleaning and notification guidelines to prevent the spread of branched broomrape, a parasitic weed that attaches to roots and sucks out key nutrients.

    The weed’s tiny seeds can be smaller than finely ground spices, survive dormant in soils for decades and be carried by wind, footwear and other methods. Its resurgence in 2017 in Yolo County threatens the productivity of an industry that brought in $1.6 billion in 2024.

    The University of California, Davis — in conjunction with industry — federal authorities and state regulators, is playing a key research role in the battle against broomrape by testing and developing in-field sanitation guidelines for tomato harvesters and other field equipment. Researchers across campus are also evaluating herbicide treatments, weeding methods, ways to detect the weed and disrupt its ability to affect crops.

    Harvesting with Conditions

    Under former state quarantine rules, any broomrape detection would require a field be destroyed before harvest. With the new guidelines, growers may harvest if they adhere to certain management practices, including equipment cleaning standards developed by the California Broomrape Board, formed in 2024 to advise the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

    “There’s 1,000 acres that are actually reported but we know from observation that it’s probably much greater than that,” said Cassandra Swett, a UC Davis plant pathologist who is leading efforts to sanitize field equipment. “There are two main goals: reduce the economic impacts of broomrape on growers in the affected region by allowing them to harvest, and on the other side, keep broomrape out of the regions that do not currently have it.”

    In 2025, nearly all growers and processors in the state signed on to compliance agreements regarding cleaning and notification, and this year the California Department of Food and Agriculture is expected to require them, said Zach Bagley, managing director of the California Tomato Research Institute, which has been working on broomrape control issues since 2018.

    “It’s overall seen as a positive in the industry,” Bagley said. “The driver for sanitation is not just the biology of this weed and the reality in the field, but it also has regulatory components.”

    Also, this year, all processing tomato canneries in the state have agreed to build on-site wash stations or set up cleaning protocols for the 2026 season to help stop the spread from harvest trailers.

    “We can never have a 100% guarantee that we’re not moving seed, but we can do our best to take it off in the fields where we know we have a problem, and that’s where the research comes in,” said Bagley, whose organization helps fund related UC Davis research.

    Effectiveness and Timing Key 

    Swett, fabricators with the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, a Cooperative Extension farm advisor and others in the industry are working on prototypes of sanitizing equipment, evaluating spray nozzle size, water pressure, aim and other factors.

    Cleaning is no simple task, and it consists of removing debris with physical cleaning and sanitizing. The right combination of debris removal followed by a sanitizer can substantially reduce dispersal risk, Swett said.

    The goal is to reach under and around tractors and remove mud, soil, plant material or anything that can collect and carry broomrape seeds. Some versions of these prototype cleaning systems are in the field and others roll under the equipment.

    “These machines are running 24 hours a day,” Swett said. “Taking that downtime to clean the machine is really messing up harvest schedules.”

    At present, cleaning a tomato harvester can take hours, but industry is hoping it can get to less than an hour to meet labor, costs and logistics needs. “One of the drivers of this work has been, ‘How can we make it faster but still be acceptable at the end of the day?” Bagley said. Agricultural engineer Dan Frank and crop advisor Patricia Lazicki have developed and are testing prototypes of automated systems that can improve cleaning time and coverage, Swett said.

    A Better Picture

    Before the broomrape compliance agreements, it was difficult to determine how many of the 185,000 to 250,000 tomato production acres might be infected because reporting would mean losing a crop and the money invested on planting, irrigation and other efforts with no hope of insurance covering the loss.

    The agreements have changed that, said Brad Hanson, a professor of Cooperative Extension in plant sciences who is an ad hoc member of the Broomrape Control Board.

    “With the risk of crop quarantine off the table for growers under the compliance agreements, we can talk about the problem out in the open,” Hanson said. “The daylighting part of this has been really helpful because for the last five years, we’ve been really in the dark.”

    Now it’s about working toward a common solution, said Neil McRoberts, a UC Davis plant pathologist who researches ways to support plant health and regulations. He is also a non-voting member of the board and familiar with pests that have caused widespread damage to other crops. With broomrape, the attention is focused before the weed has spread widely across fields in California and potentially to other crops like carrots, potato and sunflower.

    “I’m hopeful because the issues are being faced very early on,” he said.  — By Emily C. Dooley, UC Davis

  • Processing Tomato Variety Evaluation for Tolerance/Susceptibility to New Soilborne Pathogen

    In recent years, there has been an increase in crown rot/vine decline problems in processing tomatoes. Many tolerant, as well as several susceptible tomato cultivars, have been identified from previous efforts funded by CTRI. The number of fields in the Sacramento Valley with confirmed Fusarium falciforme vine decline has been increasing each year. In 2022, eight new tomato fields were diagnosed in Sutter and Colusa counties, for a total of 20 fields since 2019. In 2021 and 2022, we worked with AgSeeds and evaluated processing tomato varieties in field trials for their tolerance or susceptibility to Fusarium falciforme by rating disease severity and sending diagnostic samples to the Swett lab at UC Davis for confirmations. Unfortunately, in 2021, we were unable to confirm F. falciforme in the particular fields we evaluated, however, in 2022, all three fields in Sutter County where we evaluated trials were positive for F. falciforme, along with Fusarium crown and root rot in 2/3 fields. We evaluated fields for advanced decline and whole plant collapse. Yield data was provided by AgSeeds. Below is a table with the average number of declined plants at our three field sites in Sutter County. The table also includes percent decline and yield for two of the fields. Also worth noting, field #2 was evaluated the day before harvest, whereas field #1 was evaluated a couple weeks before harvest and field # 3 was not harvested due to September rain events in 2022.

    The varieties with the highest decline are similar to results we have seen at other sites over the years and a more comprehensive table (developed by UCCE Vegetable Crops Advisor, Brenna Aegerter, in San Joaquin County) which can be found in my December 2022 newsletter. If you are interested in more results and information from other regions of the state, you can see Brenna’s article on pages 4-5 in the UCCE San Joaquin County Field Notes newsletter from February 2023. — By Brenna Aegerter, UCCE San Joaquin; Co-PIs: Tom Turini, UCCE Fresno; Amber Vinchesi-Vahl, UCCE Colusa/Sutter/Yuba; Cassandra Swett, UC Davis Extension Pathology Specialist; Collaborators: AgSeeds (Funded by California Tomato Research Institute)

  • Darkling Beetle Overwintering Locations and Movement into California Tomato Fields

    Darkling beetles girdle seedlings at or below soil line by chewing which can cause significant damage and plant death when beetles are in high numbers. Darkling beetles are not usually a problem once plants are big enough to withstand the chewing damage. They move in from field edges, including weedy areas or adjacent crops like grains or alfalfa. Conventional control includes insecticide baits, but organic growers have more limited options.

    The UC Cooperative Extension conducted a study funded by the California Tomato Research Institute to better understand darkling beetle movement into tomato fields and develop a monitoring strategy to assist with control before beetles migrate into crop fields. Probable habitats for darkling beetles were scouted March-May 2022. These sites included weedy vegetation, hedgerows, field borders, and other locations in close proximity to crop fields (examples of trap sites pictured below). To determine darkling beetle presence, pitfall traps and visual observations were used. Pitfall traps consist of plastic cups buried in the soil, so that the opening is even with the soil line and filled with a preserving liquid. Insects walking across the ground fall into the cup as they travel and are unable to escape.

    Four organic field sites were monitored, with a total of 30 pitfall traps. The data is still being analyzed and beetles are currently being identified but the figure below shows a generalized overview of what was captured in the pitfall traps in Spring 2022. Because pitfall traps are better at measuring insect activity rather than density, they were not very effective at capturing darkling beetles. Darkling beetles do not move around as frequently as other insects like predatory ground beetles, which were caught in high numbers. However, darkling beetle damage was also not readily observed in these tomato fields. One field did however have significant damage from vegetable weevils which feed on foliage and stems, defoliating the plant, rather than girdle young plants at the base.

    Ground beetles were the most abundant insects captured, followed by miscellaneous beetles (not including darkling beetles) which included carrion beetles, click beetles, lady beetles, rove beetles and others in smaller numbers. Earwigs were also commonly captured along with isopods, spiders and ants (data not included). — By the UC Cooperative Extension with Funding from the California Tomato Research Institute