Agriculture in California#Grape

File:Sacramento rice fields.jpg]]

The table below shows the top 21 commodities, by dollar value, produced in California in 2017. Between 2016 and 2017, there were increases by more than 2% in total value for the following crops: almonds, dairy, grapes and cattle. The largest increase was seen in almond sales, which increased by 10.9% from 2016 to 2017, due to both increases in crop volume produced and the average market price for a pound of almonds. Dairy sales increased 8.2% from 2016 to 2017 due to an increase in the average price for milk, despite a slight decrease in total milk production. Grape sales increased by 3.1% from 2016 to 2017 due to an increase in price per ton of grape (from {{convert|832|$/ST}} in 2016 to {{convert|847|$/ST}} in 2017). Cattle sales also increased by 2.7% from 2016 to 2017.{{cite report |title=California Agricultural Statistics Review, 2016-2017 |website=California Department of Food and Agriculture |url=https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/PDFs/2016-17AgReport.pdf |access-date=December 21, 2018}}{{Cite web |url=https://www.farmflavor.com/california/californias-top-10-ag-products/ |title=Top 10 California Ag Products (Infographic) |last=Bertone |first=Rachel |date=June 26, 2017 |website=Farm Flavor |language=en-US |access-date=March 23, 2019}}

File:Packard apricot orchard in winter.jpg's home and apricots]]

{{anchor|Almond}}

Orloff et al., 2009 find Glyphosate use in this crop is driving resistance here.{{RP |230}}

Blythe, California grows nearly 50,000 acres of Alfalfa. 15,000 acres of this alfalfa land are owned by a Saudi Arabia-based Almarai, and this feed is exported to Saudi Arabia.{{cite news |last1=Markham |first1=Lauren |title=Who keeps buying California's scarce water? Saudi Arabia |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-water-drought-scarce-saudi-arabia |access-date=17 April 2025 |work=The Guardian |date=25 March 2019}}

{{excerpt|Almonds in California|only=paragraphs}}

Almonds contribute a mean of 0.77 pounds N2O-N emissions per acre per year in Mediterranean agriculture systems.{{Cite journal |last1=Verhoeven |first1=E. |last2=Pereira |first2=E. |last3=Decock |first3=C. |last4=Garland |first4=G. |last5=Kennedy |first5=T. |last6=Suddick |first6=E. |last7=Horwath |first7=W. |last8=Six |first8=J. |date=September 13, 2017 |title=N2O emissions from California farmlands: A review |url=http://calag.ucanr.edu/Archive/?article=ca.2017a0026 |journal=California Agriculture |language=English |volume=71 |issue=3 |pages=148–159 |doi=10.3733/ca.2017a0026 |s2cid=58942426 |doi-access=free }}

{{anchor|Apples}}

The Fuji variety is a recent import from Fujisaki, Aomori, Japan. Introduced in the 1980s,{{cite web |access-date=October 3, 2022 |date=2019 |title=Fuji |url=https://usapple.org/apple-variety/fuji-3 |website=USApple}} it quickly became the most produced apple here.{{cite web |access-date=June 8, 2022 |date=December 4, 2017 |first2=Michael |first1=Lucy |website=Arizona Extension |id=AZ1269 |url=https://extension.arizona.edu/pubs/deciduous-fruit-nuts-low-desert |last1=Bradley |last2=Maurer |title=Deciduous Fruit and Nuts for the Low Desert}}

{{anchor|Apricots}}

For a common pest see {{section link||Cucumber Beetle}}.

{{anchor|Avocado}}

File:Avocado fruitnfoliage.jpg]]

California farms produce 90% of all U.S.-grown avocados, with the great majority being of the Hass variety.{{cite news |last1=Wick |first1=Julia |title=Newsletter: The quest for a more perfect California avocado |url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-07-26/california-avocado-cultivation-nafta |access-date=October 14, 2019 |work=Los Angeles Times |date=July 26, 2019}} In 2021{{cite web |title=USDA/NASS 2021 State Agriculture Overview for California |website=USDA |url=http://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag_Overview/stateOverview.php?state=CALIFORNIA |access-date=June 11, 2022}} the state harvest was {{convert|135,500|ST}} on {{convert|46,700|acre}} for a yield of {{convert|2.9|ST/acre}}, and at {{convert|2,430|$/ST|0}} that brought $327,369,000. Drought and heat can significantly reduce the harvest in some years.{{cite news |last1=Hill |first1=Naja |title=California avocado production struggles to keep up |url=https://www.keyt.com/news/california-avocado-production-struggles-to-keep-up/1033873799 |access-date=October 14, 2019 |publisher=NPG of California |date=February 21, 2019 |archive-date=October 14, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191014232119/https://www.keyt.com/news/california-avocado-production-struggles-to-keep-up/1033873799 |url-status=dead }} The Polyphagous Shothole Borer and the associated disease it carries have been a great concern here since their discovery on home avocado trees in LA County in 2012. Immediately eradication and quarantine efforts were instituted, and are continuing. (See {{section link||Polyphagous shot hole borer}} below.)

For two invasive pests which have significantly reduced grower earnings see {{section link||Avocado Thrips}} and {{section link||Persea Mite}}.

Barley stripe rust was first found near Tehachapi in May 1915 on Hordeum murinum by Johnson and reported by Humphrey et al., 1924.{{cite book |last1=Kang |first1=Zhensheng |last2=Chen |first2=Xianming |title=Stripe rust |publication-place=Dordrecht |date=2017 |isbn=978-94-024-1111-9 |oclc=1006649931 |pages=vii+719 |doi=10.1007/978-94-024-1111-9 |s2cid=30527470 |lccn=2017943111}} {{isbn|978-94-024-1109-6}}.{{rp|page=9}} Hungerford 1923 and Hungerford & Owens 1923 found the pathogen on cultivated barley in the central part of the state and also on H. murinum here.{{rp|page=9}} See also {{section link||Stripe Rust}}.

{{anchor|Berry}}

The {{visible anchor|California Blueberry Commission}} represents growers.{{cite web |access-date=August 19, 2022 |title=California Blueberries |website=California Blueberries |url=http://www.calblueberry.org/}} UC IPM provides integrated pest management plans{{cite web |access-date=August 19, 2022 |publisher=UC Agriculture |website=UC Integrated Pest Management |url=https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/blueberry/ |title=Blueberry}} for blueberry (Vaccinium spp.).

File:Broccoli crop.jpg, Salinas]]

File:USDA Irrigation 2011.jpg]]

Almost all of the country's broccoli is grown here. {{As of|2021|alt=In 2021}} that was {{convert|11,200|acre||adj=pre| planted}}, all of which was harvested. The yield was {{convert|130.0|scwt/acre|kg/ha lb/acre}} for a harvest of {{convert|1,512,000|scwt|MT ST}}. There was only trace wastage. Selling at a price of {{convert|51.50|$/scwt|$/lb $/kg}}, the year sold for $631,455,000.{{cite web |access-date=July 12, 2022 |date=February 16, 2022 |url=https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/02870v86p |website=USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service |title=Vegetables Annual Summary - ID: 02870v86p - USDA Economics, Statistics and Market Information System |issn=0884-6413}}

For an invasive pest of this crop see the painted bug {{section link||Bagrada hilaris}}.

The typical biomass of harvest residue in the coastal regions is {{convert|5|ST/ha||adj=pre| dry}}.

• {{cite journal |date=2010 |volume=48 |first3=Nancy |first2=John M. |pages=311–328 |first1=Inga A. |last1=Zasada |last2=Halbrendt |last3=Kokalis-Burelle |first4=James |last4=LaMondia |first5=Michael V. |last5=McKenry |first6=Joe W. |last6=Noling |journal=Annual Review of Phytopathology |title=Managing Nematodes Without Methyl Bromide |issue=1 |doi=10.1146/annurev-phyto-073009-114425 |pmid=20455696 |bibcode=2010AnRvP..48..311Z |s2cid=20955001}}
• {{cite journal |issue=1 |volume=4 |year=2003 |first2=H. |last1=Zasada |first1=I. A. |last2=Ferris |last3=Elmore |first3=C. L. |last4=Roncoroni |first4=J. A. |last5=MacDonald |first5=J. D. |last6=Bolkan |first6=L. R. |last7=Yakabe |first7=L. E. |title=Field Application of Brassicaceous Amendments for Control of Soilborne Pests and Pathogens |journal=Plant Health Progress |page=3 |doi=10.1094/php-2003-1120-01-rs|doi-access=free |bibcode=2003PlaHP...4....3Z }}

This is not necessarily a waste product, as it can be useful as fumigant.

{{anchor|Caneberries}}

File:Rubus ursinus ssp. macropetalus.jpg]]

Caneberries (Rubus spp.) grown here include raspberry (see {{section link||Raspberry}}), {{visible anchor|Blackberry|text=blackberry}}, {{visible anchor|Dewberry|text=dewberry}}, {{visible anchor|Olallieberry|text=olallieberry}}, and {{visible anchor|Boysenberry|text=boysenberry}}.

For a common disease of erect and trailing caneberry (excluding raspberry), see {{section link||Leaf Spot of Caneberry}}.

File:Emerald Triangle.png]]

{{Excerpt|Cannabis in California|Cultivation}}

{{anchor|Cherry}}

File:Cherry Trees, Cherry Valley 3-23-13 (8594875223).jpg]]

The {{visible anchor|California Cherry Board}}{{cite web |title=California Cherries |website=California Cherry Board |date=April 18, 2022 |url=http://calcherry.com |access-date=June 14, 2022}} is a state marketing order representing growers and intermediaries here.{{cite web |title=About California Cherries |website=California Cherry Board |date=April 18, 2022 |url=http://calcherry.com/about/ |access-date=June 14, 2022}} The USDA FAS's Market Access Program funds international advertising especially in Canada, South Korea, Japan, China, and Australia. The state produces the earliest crop in the year starting in mid-April.{{cite web |title=Cherry Facts |website=California Cherry Board |date=April 18, 2022 |url=http://calcherry.com/facts/ |access-date=June 14, 2022}} Lasting until early or mid-June every year, this is the second heaviest harvest after Washington.

Planting density is usually about {{convert|100|/acre||adj=pre| trees}} and the first real crop will be about six years later. Honey bees are essential to pollination for this crop. Cultivars grown here{{cite web |title=Varieties |website=California Cherry Board |date=April 18, 2022 |url=http://calcherry.com/varieties/ |access-date=June 14, 2022}} are harvested by hand with the stem (pedicel).

The center of the state produces a large percentage of the crop{{cite web |title=Our Growers |website=California Cherry Board |date=April 18, 2022 |url=http://calcherry.com/varieties/ |access-date=June 14, 2022}} and San Joaquin County, near Lodi is the highest producing county. Many of these are Bing. {{As of|2022}} newer Bing strains with better heat tolerance have recently been planted here as well as counties further south.

Birds are common pests in cherry orchards.

Citrus cultivation in California began with the Spanish missionaries, who planted oranges and lemons at Baja California around 1739 and at Alta California missions by 1769. Early fruit was thick-skinned and sour, not suited for commercial markets. The first sizable grove was established at Mission San Gabriel in 1804, with about 400 trees on six acres. This mission-based agriculture ended with secularization which closed the missions and gave away their lands in 1835. Jean-Louis Vignes likely planted the first private orange grove in Los Angeles in 1834. William Wolfskill was the first commercial citrus grower in California, planting his orchard in Los Angeles in 1841. By 1862, his orchards held two-thirds of California’s orange trees, marking him as the founder of the state's commercial citrus industry. The California gold rush (from 1849) increased demand for oranges, especially for their vitamin C, which helped prevent scurvy among miners. This spurred gradual expansion of orchards. In the early 1870s, Wolfskill’s reported profits of $1,000 per acre attracted more farmers to citrus growing. James D. Hart, A Companion to California (1987). p. 91. Ching Lee, "The history of citrus in California" California Bountiful (2022) [https://www.californiabountiful.com/magazine-features/magazine-issues/marchapril-2010/the-history-of-citrus-in-california/ online]

File:Old Mission orange crate label.jpg, which became the major industrial crop by the 1920s--but despite the illustration this particular variety was unknown in the mission era.|left]]

The 1870s saw the introduction of improved fruit varieties. In 1873, navel orange plants from Brazil were distributed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Luther C. Tibbets and Eliza Tibbets successfully cultivated these in Riverside, leading to widespread planting of the sweet, seedless navel orange, which became the backbone of the California citrus industry. The Valencia orange, introduced in 1876, matured in summer and fall, complementing the winter-ripening navel and providing oranges year-round. The Eureka lemon (from Sicily) and Lisbon lemon (from Spain) were introduced in the same period, offering improved varieties and year-round crops. Grapefruit was introduced from Florida in the 1880s. The completion of major railroads (Southern Pacific in 1877, and the Santa Fe in 1885) and the introduction of ventilated boxcars revolutionized distribution, opening national markets and triggering a planting frenzy in southern California. By 1885, the number of citrus trees in California had grown from 90,000 (in 1875) to 2 million, and to 4.5 million by 1901. Clifford M. Zierer, "The citrus fruit industry of the Los Angeles basin." Economic Geography 10.1 (1934): 53-73. [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2307/140629 online]

The 1890s brought pest control advances (spraying, fumigation) and frost protection (heaters, later wind machines). The University of California established its Citrus Experiment Station in 1907, supporting research and innovation. Cooperative marketing emerged with the formation of the California Fruit Growers Exchange in 1905, later known as Sunkist Growers Inc., which helped standardize and market California citrus worldwide.Lee, "The history of citrus in California"Ronald Tobey, and Charles Wetherell, "The Citrus Industry and the Revolution of Corporate Capitalism in Southern California, 1887-1944." California History 74.1 (1995): 6-21. {{JSTOR|25177466}}

In the early 20th century California dominated the nation's citrus supply, especially from Los Angeles and Orange counties. Since then the geography has shifted. Florida is now dominant in oranges. By the 1980s, California supplied about 75% of the nation’s lemons. It was the second largest orange producer in the U.S., ranked third in grapefruit, and was a major source of limes and tangerines. Today about 90% of the state's citrus production is located in five counties, namely Fresno, Kern, Tulare, Ventura and Riverside. Apart from home gardens, citrus is no longer a factor in Orange and Los Angeles counties.Daniel Geisseler, and William R. Horwath, "Citrus production in California." (2016), [https://apps1.cdfa.ca.gov/FertilizerResearch/docs/Citrus_Production_CA.pdf online]

The Mediterranean climate affords a lower rate of post-harvest disease than in some of the world's growing regions, similar to the Mediterranean itself, Australia, and most of South Africa.{{cite book |editor1-first=Lluís |editor1-last=Palou |editor2-first=Joseph L. |editor2-last=Smilanick |title=Postharvest Pathology of Fresh Horticultural Produce |publisher=CRC Press |publication-place=Boca Raton, FL USA |year=2020 |isbn=978-1-315-20918-0 |oclc=1104856309 |page=xviii+823 |lccn=2019023295}} {{isbn|9781351805889}}. {{isbn|9781351805896}}. {{isbn|9781138630833}}. {{LCCN|2019023296}}.{{rp|page=6}} Postharvest problems that do occur tend to be mostly blue and green Penicillium spp.{{rp|page=6}} The Asian citrus psyllid was discovered in Southern California in 2008 and eradication and quarantine are now underway.{{cite web |title=Asian Citrus Psyllid |website=Center for Invasive Species Research |publisher=University of California Riverside |date=January 23, 2020 |url=http://cisr.ucr.edu/invasive-species/asian-citrus-psyllid |access-date=May 22, 2022}}{{cite web |last=Jordan |first=Miriam |title=Citrus Disease Stirs Anxiety in California |website=Wall Street Journal |date=April 15, 2012 |url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304818404577346014009203758.html |access-date=May 22, 2022}} (See {{section link||Asian citrus psyllid}} below.)

Gossypium spp. are extensively grown in the Imperial Valley.

{{Slink||Pink Bollworm}} spread to California from its original introduction in Texas.{{cite journal |doi=10.1093/jee/toz173 |title=Global Patterns of Resistance to Bt Crops Highlighting Pink Bollworm in the United States, China, and India |year=2019 |last1=Tabashnik |first1=Bruce E. |last2=Carrière |first2=Yves |journal=Journal of Economic Entomology |volume=112 |issue=6 |pages=2513–2523 |pmid=31254345}} Despite wide establishment elsewhere in the southwest the San Joaquin Valley did not suffer permanent establishment. SJV was protected by its sterile insect technique (SIT) program although neighbouring areas were continuously infested.{{Cite book |publisher=Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg |last1=Hardee |first1=D. D. |last2=Henneberry |first2=T. J. |date=2004 |editor-first1=A. Rami |editor-first2=Isaac |editor-last1=Horowitz |editor-last2=Ishaaya |pages=119–140 [126–127] |doi=10.1007/978-3-662-07913-3_6 |title=Insect Pest Management |chapter=Area-Wide Management of Insects Infesting Cotton |isbn=978-3-642-05859-2 |s2cid=32129718}} UC IPM provides management information.{{cite web |access-date=2023-06-12 |year=2015 |title=Guidelines |publisher=University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources |website=Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California Regents of the University of California |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/cotton/cotton-bollworm/}}

California was an early adopter of Bt cotton, but at a low proportion of acreage.{{cite journal |year=2002 |issue=1 |volume=47 |first3=R. T. |first2=J.-Z. |first1=A. M. |last3=Roush |last2=Zhao |journal=Annual Review of Entomology |last1=Shelton |pages=845–881 |doi=10.1146/annurev.ento.47.091201.145309 |title=Economic, Ecological, Food Safety, and Social Consequences of the Deployment of Bt Transgenic Plants |pmid=11729093}} The SJV does not use it at all.{{Cite book |year=2008 |title=Integration of Insect-Resistant Genetically Modified Crops within IPM Programs |publisher=Springer Netherlands |publication-place=Dordrecht |doi=10.1007/978-1-4020-8373-0 |page=168 |isbn=978-1-4020-8372-3 |editor-last1=Romeis |editor-last2=Shelton |editor-last3=Kennedy |editor-first1=Jörg |editor-first2=Anthony M. |editor-first3=George G.}} However Bt resistance has been slow to develop here and in Arizona and in Texas.

• {{cite journal |year=2013 |issue=6 |volume=31 |journal=Nature Biotechnology |last1=Tabashnik |first1=Bruce E. |last2=Brévault |first2=Thierry |last3=Carrière |first3=Yves |title=Insect resistance to Bt crops: lessons from the first billion acres |pages=510–521 |doi=10.1038/nbt.2597 |s2cid=205278530 |pmid=23752438 |author1-link=Bruce Tabashnik}}
• {{cite journal |year=2008 |issue=2 |first3=David |volume=26 |first2=Aaron |journal=Nature Biotechnology |first4=Yves |first1=Bruce |last2=Gassmann |last3=Crowder |last4=Carriere |pages=199–202 |last1=Tabashnik |author1-link=Bruce Tabashnik |pmid=18259177 |s2cid=205273664 |doi=10.1038/nbt1382 |title=Insect resistance to Bt crops: evidence versus theory}}

These reviews cite this research.

• {{cite journal |last1=Tabashnik |first1=Bruce |author-link1=Bruce Tabashnik |last2=Fabrick |first2=Jeffrey |last3=Henderson |first3=Scottie |last4=Biggs |first4=Robert |last5=Yafuso |first5=Christine |last6=Nyboer |first6=Megan |last7=Manhardt |first7=Nancy |last8=Coughlin |first8=Laura |last9=Sollome |first9=James |last10=Carrière |first10=Yves |last11=Dennehy |first11=Timothy |last12=Morin |first12=Shai |title=DNA Screening Reveals Pink Bollworm Resistance to Bt Cotton Remains Rare After a Decade of Exposure |journal=Journal of Economic Entomology |volume=99 |issue=5 |date=2006-10-01 |doi=10.1093/jee/99.5.1525 |pages=1525–1530 |pmid=17066779}}

In the California/Arizona population Tabashnik et al., 2022 find Cry1Ac resistance and Cry2Ab resistance are common but the causative mutations do not cause Vip3Aa resistance.

• {{cite journal |issue=2 |date=2023 |volume=116 |last1=Tabashnik |first1=Bruce E. |last2=Fabrick |first2=Jeffrey A. |last3=Carrière |first3=Yves |title=Global Patterns of Insect Resistance to Transgenic Bt Crops: The First 25 Years |journal=Journal of Economic Entomology |doi=10.1093/jee/toac183 |pages=297–309 |pmid=36610076 |author-link1=Bruce Tabashnik|doi-access=free }}
• {{cite journal |issue=2 |date=2023 |volume=116 |pages=648 |title=Correction to: Global Patterns of Insect Resistance to Transgenic Bt Crops: The First 25 Years |journal=Journal of Economic Entomology |doi=10.1093/jee/toad013 |pmid=36661297|doi-access=free }}

These review cites this research.

• {{cite journal |issue=10 |year=2022 |volume=78 |first6=Yves |first5=Timothy |first4=Jeffrey |first3=Alexander |first2=Gopalan |first1=Bruce |last6=Carriere |last5=Dennehy |last4=Fabrick |last3=Yelich |last2=Unnithan |last1=Tabashnik |pages=3973–3979 |title=Responses to Bt toxin Vip3Aa by pink bollworm larvae resistant or susceptible to Cry toxins |journal=Pest Management Science |doi=10.1002/ps.7016 |pmid=35633103 |s2cid=249127792 |author-link1=Bruce Tabashnik}}

{{Slink||Bemisia tabaci strain B}} is common in the Imperial Valley. The use of pyrethroids in the 1980s failed to control it and in deed caused a population increase.{{Cite book |date=2020 |publication-place=Hoboken, NJ |publisher=John Wiley & Sons Ltd. |page=86 |editor-first1=Khawar |editor-first2=Bhagirath Singh |editor-last1=Jabran |editor-last2=Chauhan |title=Cotton Production |doi=10.1002/9781119385523 |isbn=9781119385493 |s2cid=133394368 |oclc=1111436063}}

The southwest water shortage is reducing yield and acreage in the 2020s.{{Cite book |date=2022 |last1=Matthews |first1=G. |last2=Miller |first2=Thomas |publisher=CABI |title=Pest Management in Cotton: A Global Perspective |publication-place=Oxfordshire, UK |isbn=978-1-80062-021-6 |oclc=1255523828 |page=270}}

Interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) surveys show this crop is a significant cause of groundwater-related subsidence.{{Cite journal |date=2021 |journal=Science |last=Rosen |first=Julia |volume=371 |issue=6532 |url=https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.371.6532.876 |pages=876–880 |title=Shifting ground |doi=10.1126/science.371.6532.876 |pmid=33632830 |bibcode=2021Sci...371..876R|s2cid=232058145 }}

{{Slink||1,3-dichloropropene}} and {{Slink||Chloropicrin}} are effective against the complex of {{Slink||Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum}} and {{Slink||Nematode}}.{{Cite book |year=2019 |publisher=Springer Singapore |publication-place=Singapore |page=391 |isbn=978-981-329-782-1 |url=https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-32-9783-8 |title=Agronomic Crops |journal= |doi=10.1007/978-981-32-9783-8 |s2cid=208225230 |editor-last1=Hasanuzzaman |editor-first1=Mirza}}

Ortiz et al., 2017 provides a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method which differentiates the California race 4 strain from all others based on the {{Visible anchor | PHO}} gene.

• {{cite journal |date=2019 |issue=1 |pages=1–47 |first2=M. |volume=43 |first4=P. W. |last1=Lombard |last2=Sandoval-Denis |first1=L. |last3=Lamprecht |last4=Crous |first3=S. C. |title=Epitypification of Fusarium oxysporum – clearing the taxonomic chaos |journal=Persoonia |doi=10.3767/persoonia.2019.43.01 |s2cid=91706858 |pmid=32214496 |pmc=7085860}}

This review cites this research.

• {{cite journal |issue=1 |year=2017 |volume=101 |last1=Ortiz |first1=Carlos |last2=Bell |first2=Alois |last3=Magill |first3=Clint |last4=Liu |first4=Jinggao |pages=34–44 |title=Specific PCR Detection of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum California Race 4 Based on a Unique Tfo1 Insertion Event in the PHO Gene |journal=Plant Disease |s2cid=59273998 |pmid=30682321 |doi=10.1094/pdis-03-16-0332-re|doi-access=free |bibcode=2017PlDis.101...34O }} University of California Integrated Pest Management (UC IPM) provides practices for its control{{Cite web |access-date=2022-05-05 |website=University of California Integrated Pest Management |title=UC IPM: UC Management Guidelines for Fusarium Wilt on Cotton |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/r114100311.html}} including Glenn County.{{Cite web |title=Fungus research helps sustain San Joaquin Valley Pima cotton industry |url=http://cetehama.ucanr.edu/?impact=725&a=0 |access-date=2023-07-06 |website=University of California Tehama County |language=en-US}}

Some Pythium spp. are seedborne diseases in cotton.{{Cite journal |year=2023 |last1=Copes |first1=Warren |last2=Ojiambo |first2=Peter |title=A Systematic Review and Quantitative Synthesis of the Efficacy of Quaternary Ammonium Compounds in Disinfesting Non-fungal Plant Pathogens |journal=Plant Disease |volume=107 |issue=10 |pages=3176–3187 |doi=10.1094/pdis-12-21-2751-re |pmid=36890133 |bibcode=2023PlDis.107.3176C |s2cid=257426099}} UC IPM provide management information.{{Cite web |access-date=2022-05-06 |website=University of California Integrated Pest Management |title=UC IPM: UC Management Guidelines |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/r114100111.html}}

Several Tetranychus spider mite species are common on cotton here  including the Pacific Spider Mite (Tetranychus pacificus), the Two-Spotted Spider Mite (T. urticae){{rp | page=18}} and T. cinnabarinus.{{cite web |access-date=2023-06-22 |year=2015 |title=Guidelines |publisher=University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources |website=Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California Regents of the University of California |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/cotton/field-crickets/}}

Eradication of the {{Slink||Pink Bollworm}} in this and neighbouring states was greatly aided by the deployment of Bt cotton.

• {{cite journal |issue=2 |year=2021 |volume=29 |last1=Hafeez |first1=Muhammad |last2=Ullah |first2=Farman |last3=Khan |first3=Musa |last4=Li |first4=Xiaowei |last5=Zhang |first5=Zhijun |last6=Shah |first6=Sakhawat |last7=Imran |first7=Muhammad |last8=Assiri |first8=Mohammed |last9=Fernandez |first9=G. |last10=Desneux |first10=Nicolas |last11=Rehman |first11=Muzammal |last12=Fahad |first12=Shah |last13=Lu |first13=Yaobin |journal=Environmental Science and Pollution Research |s2cid=240006285 |pmid=34709552 |doi=10.1007/s11356-021-16974-w |title=Metabolic-based insecticide resistance mechanism and ecofriendly approaches for controlling of beet armyworm Spodoptera exigua: a review |pages=1746–1762}}
• {{cite journal |issue=2 |date=2023 |volume=116 |last1=Tabashnik |first1=Bruce E. |last2=Fabrick |first2=Jeffrey A. |last3=Carrière |first3=Yves |title=Global Patterns of Insect Resistance to Transgenic Bt Crops: The First 25 Years |journal=Journal of Economic Entomology |doi=10.1093/jee/toac183 |pages=297–309 |pmid=36610076 |author-link1=Bruce Tabashnik|doi-access=free }}
• {{cite journal |issue=2 |date=2023 |volume=116 |pages=648 |title=Correction to: Global Patterns of Insect Resistance to Transgenic Bt Crops: The First 25 Years |journal=Journal of Economic Entomology |doi=10.1093/jee/toad013 |pmid=36661297|doi-access=free }}

These reviews cite this research.

• {{cite journal |issue=1 |year=2020 |volume=118 |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |last1=Tabashnik |first1=Bruce |author-link1=Bruce Tabashnik |last2=Liesner |first2=Leighton |last3=Ellsworth |first3=Peter |last4=Unnithan |first4=Gopalan |last5=Fabrick |first5=Jeffrey |last6=Naranjo |first6=Steven |last7=Li |first7=Xianchun |last8=Dennehy |first8=Timothy |last9=Antilla |first9=Larry |last10=Staten |first10=Robert |last11=Carriere |first11=Yves |title=Transgenic cotton and sterile insect releases synergize eradication of pink bollworm a century after it invaded the United States |doi=10.1073/pnas.2019115118 |s2cid=230713895 |pmid=33443170 |pmc=7817146 |doi-access=free}}

The eradication program began elsewhere and was extended to the California Cotton Belt in 2007.

• {{cite journal |issue=3 |year=2021 |pages=1–35 |volume=41 |last1=Deguine |first1=Philippe |last2=Aubertot |first2=Noel |last3=Flor |first3=Rica Joy |last4=Lescourret |first4=Francoise |last5=Wyckhuys |first5=Kris |last6=Ratnadass |first6=Alain |journal=Agronomy for Sustainable Development |doi=10.1007/s13593-021-00689-w |title=Integrated pest management: good intentions, hard realities. A review |s2cid=236349751|doi-access=free |bibcode=2021AgSD...41...38D }}

This review cites this research.

• {{cite journal |issue=12 |year=2010 |volume=28 |last1=Tabashnik |first1=Bruce |last2=Sisterson |first2=Mark |last3=Ellsworth |first3=Peter |last4=Dennehy |first4=Timothy |last5=Antilla |first5=Larry |last6=Liesner |first6=Leighton |last7=Whitlow |first7=Mike |last8=Staten |first8=Robert |last9=Fabrick |first9=Jeffrey |last10=Unnithan |first10=Gopalan |last11=Yelich |first11=Alex |last12=Kirk |first12=Christa |last13=Harpold |first13=Virginia |last14=Li |first14=Xianchun |last15=Carriere |first15=Yves |journal=Nature Biotechnology |title=Suppressing resistance to Bt cotton with sterile insect releases |doi=10.1038/nbt.1704 |pages=1304–1307 |pmid=21057498 |s2cid=4988462}}

Dennehy et al., 2011 find bollworm remained 100% susceptible to Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab2 through 2005 here and in Arizona.

• {{cite journal |last1=Tabashnik |first1=Bruce |last2=Morin |first2=Shai |last3=Unnithan |first3=Gopalan |last4=Yelich |first4=Alex |last5=Kirk |first5=Christa |last6=Harpold |first6=Virginia |last7=Sisterson |first7=Mark |last8=Ellsworth |first8=Peter |last9=Dennehy |first9=Timothy |last10=Antilla |first10=Larry |last11=Liesner |first11=Leighton |last12=Whitlow |first12=Mike |last13=Staten |first13=Robert |last14=Fabrick |first14=Jeffrey |last15=Li |first15=Xianchun |last16=Carriere |first16=Yves |title=Sustained susceptibility of pink bollworm to Bt cotton in the United States |journal=GM Crops & Food |volume=3 |issue=3 |year=2012 |s2cid=20288529 |pmid=22572905 |pages=194–200 |doi=10.4161/gmcr.20329 |author-link1=Bruce Tabashnik|doi-access=free }}

This review cites this research.

• {{cite journal |access-date=2023-05-21 |year=2011 |last1=Dennehy |first1=Timothy |last2=Unnithan |first2=Gopalan |last3=Harpold |first3=Virginia |last4=Carriere |first4=Yves |last5=Tabashnik |first5=Bruce |last6=Antilla |first6=Larry |last7=Whitlow |first7=Mike |url=https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/198218 |location=Tucson, AZ |journal=Arizona Cotton Report |title=Susceptibility of Southwestern Pink Bollworm to Bt toxins Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab2 in 2005 |author-link5=Bruce Tabashnik}}

Pyrethrins are commonly used in this crop.{{Cite journal |access-date=2023-05-20 |journal=UCANR eJournal of Entomology and Biologicals |url=https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=25819 |year=2017 |title=Insect resistance to biopesticides}}

Deynze et al., 2005 performs the first gene flow analysis in California cotton. Deynze finds pollinators are responsible for almost 100%.

• {{cite journal |issue=1 |year=2008 |volume=27 |last1=Chandler |first1=Stephen |last2=Dunwell |first2=Jim |pages=25–49 |title=Gene Flow, Risk Assessment and the Environmental Release of Transgenic Plants |journal=Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences |doi=10.1080/07352680802053916 |bibcode=2008CRvPS..27...25C |s2cid=84936182}}

This review cites this research.

• {{cite journal |year=2005 |issue=4 |volume=45 |last1=Deynze |first1=Allen |last2=Sundstrom |first2=Frederick |last3=Bradford |first3=Kent |pages=1565–1570 |journal=Crop Science |doi=10.2135/cropsci2004.0463 |title=Pollen-Mediated Gene Flow in California Cotton Depends on Pollinator Activity}}

• {{cite journal |issue=4 |year=2016 |volume=34 |last1=Carriere |first1=Yves |last2=Fabrick |first2=Jeffrey |last3=Tabashnik |first3=Bruce |pages=291–302 |journal=Trends in Biotechnology |doi=10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.12.011 |title=Can Pyramids and Seed Mixtures Delay Resistance to Bt Crops? |pmid=26774592 |author-link3=Bruce Tabashnik|doi-access=free }}

This review cites this review.

• {{cite journal |issue=2 |year=2011 |volume=40 |pages=484–495 |last1=Heuberger |first1=Shannon |last2=Crowder |first2=David |last3=Brevault |first3=Thierry |last4=Tabashnik |first4=Bruce |last5=Carriere |first5=Yves |doi=10.1603/en10247 |title=Modeling the Effects of Plant-to-Plant Gene Flow, Larval Behavior, and Refuge Size on Pest Resistance to Bt Cotton |journal=Environmental Entomology |s2cid=84981187 |author-link4=Bruce Tabashnik|doi-access=free }}

Lacewings{{Cite book |year=2016 |page=321 |publication-place=Cham, Switzerland |publisher=Springer International Publishing |title=Advances in Insect Control and Resistance Management |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-31800-4 |isbn=978-3-319-31798-4 |s2cid=11950049 |editor-last1=Horowitz |editor-last2=Ishaaya |editor-first1=A. Rami |editor-first2=Isaac}} and whiteflies ({{Slink||Bemisia tabaci strain B}}){{cite book |year=2013 |publisher=CRC Press |last=Devillers |first=James |page=118 |title=Juvenile Hormones and Juvenoids |isbn=978-1-4665-1322-8}} are common pests of this crop.

G. barbadense is grown in a small part of the country including the southern part of this state.{{cite journal |issue=4 |year=2014 |volume=54 |last1=Zhang |first1=Jinfa |last2=Fang |first2=Hui |last3=Zhou |first3=Huiping |last4=Sanogo |first4=Soum |last5=Ma |first5=Zhiying |pages=1289–1303 |journal=Crop Science |title=Genetics, Breeding, and Marker-Assisted Selection for Verticillium Wilt Resistance in Cotton |s2cid=84700361 |doi=10.2135/cropsci2013.08.0550}}

Delia platura is a common seed predator of this crop.{{cite web |access-date=2023-06-04 |year=2015 |title=Guidelines |publisher=University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources |website=Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California Regents of the University of California |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/cotton/seedcorn-maggot/}}

Limonius spp. are pests of germination and seedling stage.{{cite web |access-date=2023-06-05 |year=2015 |title=Guidelines |publisher=University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources |website=Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California Regents of the University of California |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/cotton/wireworms/}}

{{Slink||Frankliniella occidentalis}} is rarely a pest. F. occidentalis are mostly a bioinsecticide of mites.{{cite web |access-date=2023-06-06 |year=2015 |title=Guidelines |publisher=University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources |website=Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California Regents of the University of California |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/cotton/thrips/}}

{{Slink||Lygus hesperus}} is often confused for other species including some beneficial insects.{{cite web |access-date=2023-06-07 |year=2015 |title=Guidelines |publisher=University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources |website=Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California Regents of the University of California |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/cotton/lygus-bug-western-tarnished-plant-bug/}}

Spodoptera praefica is a late season pest and rarely an early season pest.{{cite web |access-date=2023-06-08 |year=2015 |title=Guidelines |publisher=University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources |website=Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California Regents of the University of California |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/cotton/western-yellowstriped-armyworm/}}

{{Slink||Blapstinus}} spp. affect seedlings.{{cite web |access-date=2023-06-09 |year=2015 |title=Guidelines |publisher=University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources |website=Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California Regents of the University of California |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/cotton/darkling-beetles/}}

Empoasca fabae is the most common leafhopper in the San Joaquin Valley.{{cite web |access-date=2023-06-10 |year=2015 |title=Guidelines |publisher=University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources |website=Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California Regents of the University of California |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/cotton/leafhoppers/}}

Euschistus servus damages bolls.{{cite web |access-date=2023-06-11 |year=2015 |title=Guidelines |publisher=University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources |website=Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California Regents of the University of California |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/cotton/stink-bugs/}}

{{Slink||Spodoptera exigua}} is a pest of seedlings, young plants, squares and early bolls.{{cite web |access-date=2023-06-13 |year=2015 |title=Guidelines |publisher=University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources |website=Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California Regents of the University of California |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/cotton/beet-armyworm/}}

Caliothrips fasciatus is a pest of the mature plant.{{cite web |access-date=2023-06-14 |year=2015 |title=Guidelines |publisher=University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources |website=Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California Regents of the University of California |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/cotton/thrips/}}

The larvae of {{Slink||Heliothis virescens}} are pests of bolls and squares.{{cite web |access-date=2023-06-19 |year=2015 |title=Guidelines |publisher=University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources |website=Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California Regents of the University of California |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/cotton/tobacco-budworm/}}

Gryllus spp. are pests of the early stages.

Bucculatrix thurberiella{{'}}s harm is limited to the southern deserts only.{{cite web |access-date=2023-06-24 |year=2015 |title=Guidelines |publisher=University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources |website=Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California Regents of the University of California |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/cotton/cotton-leaf-perforator/}}

Autographa californica is found mostly in May and early June here.{{cite web |access-date=2023-06-25 |year=2015 |title=Guidelines |publisher=University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources |website=Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California Regents of the University of California |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/cotton/alfalfa-and-cabbage-loopers/}}

{{Section link || Aphis gossypii}} is the most common aphid in this crop.{{cite web |access-date=2023-06-25 |year=2015 |title=Guidelines |publisher=University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources |website=Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California Regents of the University of California |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/cotton/cotton-aphid/}}

{{Section link || Agrotis ipsilon}} is a pest of the young plants.{{cite web |access-date=2023-06-26 |year=2015 |title=Guidelines |publisher=University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources |website=Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California Regents of the University of California |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/cotton/cutworms/}}

{{anchor|Cucumber}}

File:Persian cucumbers at Campbell farmer's market.jpg farmer's market]]

From 1997{{endash}}2000,{{cite book |last1=Schrader |first1=Wayne L. |last2=Aguiar |first2=Jose L. |last3=Mayberry |first3=Keith S. |title=Cucumber Production in California |publisher=University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources |year=2002 |isbn=978-1-60107-228-3 |doi=10.3733/ucanr.8050 |pages=18}} the state's acreage varied between {{convert|10,500{{endash}}11,000|acre}} bringing in $57,969,000{{endash}}$67,744,000. By 2021 however the harvest was down to {{convert|1,038,500|scwt|MT ST}} from {{convert|6,700|acre}} for a yield of {{convert|155|scwt/acre|MT/ha ST/acre}}, and at {{convert|23.2|$/scwt|$/MT $/ST}} that brought only $24,043,000.

{{Excerpt|California dairy industry}}

{{anchor|Date}}

Over 90% of US production is grown here, and most of that in the Coachella Valley.{{cite web |title=Dates |website=Agricultural Marketing Resource Center |date=May 11, 2022 |url=http://www.agmrc.org/commodities-products/fruits/dates |access-date=May 11, 2022}} The distant second is Arizona. The 2020 harvest was {{convert|49,300|ST}} from {{convert|12,500|acre}}, for a yield of {{convert|3.94|ST/acre}}. The year's crop sold for $114 million, an average of {{convert|2,320|$/ST|0}}. The harvest extends from the beginning of October to the middle of December.{{cite web |title=California Agricultural Statistics Review 2019-2020 |website=California Department of Food and Agriculture |url=http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/PDFs/2020_Ag_Stats_Review.pdf |access-date=May 11, 2022}}

The detection of the Red Palm Weevil (Rhynchophorus ferrugineus) in 2010 was very concerning to this valuable industry. See {{section link||Red Palm Weevil}}.

{{anchor|Fig}}

File:Imwalle Farms - 2021-09-25 - Sarah Stierch 01.jpg]]

Calimyrna is a common cultivar here.

Commodity figs here suffer from many insect pests here. See {{section link||Carpenter worm}}, {{section link||Darkling ground beetle}}, {{section link||Dried fruit beetle}}, {{section link||Freeman sap beetle}}, {{section link||Confused sap beetle}}, {{section link||Fig beetle}}, {{section link||Fig mite}}, {{section link||Fig scale}}, and {{section link||Navel orangeworm}}.

For common diseases see {{section link||Fig Smut}} and {{section link||Alternaria Rot of Fig}}.

Relative to traditional farming, aquaculture is a small part of California's agricultural economy, generating only $175 million in 2014.{{cite news |last1=Richard |first1=Chris |title=California Aquaculture Companies Explore Sustainable Fish Farming |url=https://www.kqed.org/science/21279/aquaculture-companies-explore-sustainable-fish-farming |access-date=October 10, 2019 |agency=KQED |date=September 8, 2014}} Oysters, abalone, mussels, channel catfish, rainbow trout, and salmon are farmed commercially.{{cite web |title=Aquaculture: Potential for Small Scale Farmers in California |url=http://sfp.ucdavis.edu/pubs/brochures/aquaculture/ |website=University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Small Farm Program |publisher=Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California |access-date=October 10, 2019}}

{{anchor|Grain}}

{{For|the wine harvest|#Wine}}

{{Excerpt|California grape cultivation|only=paragraphs}}

File:IN LETTUCE FIELDS ALONG THE COLORADO RIVER, MEXICAN FARM WORKER CARRIES BOXES TO FIELD PICKERS - NARA - 549084.jpg]]

UCCE's Vegetable Research & Information Center provides comprehensive production advice for this crop.{{cite web |access-date=January 22, 2023 |year=2021 |title=Lettuce |website=UC Vegetable Research & Information Center |url=https://vric.ucdavis.edu/veg_info_crop/lettuce.htm}}

Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) is commercially grown in the Central Valley, Central Coast, and deserts (the Imperial and Coachella valleys).{{cite web |access-date=October 16, 2022 |date=April 2017 |id=3450 |title=Introduction / Lettuce / Agriculture: Pest Management Guidelines |url=https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/lettuce/introduction/ |website=UC Integrated Pest Management |publisher=UC Agriculture}} It is one of the most labor-intensive crops in the state.{{cite book |year=2018 |edition=1 |publisher=Academic Press |first2=Diane |first1=J. |last2=Charlton |last1=Taylor |isbn=9780128164099 |id={{isbn |9780128172681}} |title=The Farm Labor Problem: A Global Perspective |page=25}}

Aphids are a major problem for lettuce on the Central Coast.

• {{cite journal |last1=Ssymank |first1=Axel |last2=Kearns |first2=C. A. |last3=Pape |first3=Thomas |last4=Thompson |first4=F. Christian |title=Pollinating Flies (Diptera): A major contribution to plant diversity and agricultural production |journal=Biodiversity |volume=9 |issue=1–2 |year=2008 |doi=10.1080/14888386.2008.9712892 |pages=86–89 |bibcode=2008Biodi...9a..86S |s2cid=39619017}}
• {{cite journal |last1=Smith |first1=Hugh A. |last2=Chaney |first2=William E. |title=A Survey of Syrphid Predators of Nasonovia ribisnigri in Organic Lettuce on the Central Coast of California |journal=Journal of Economic Entomology |volume=100 |issue=1 |date=February 1, 2007 |doi=10.1603/0022-0493(2007)100[39:asospo]2.0.co;2 |pages=39–48 |doi-broken-date=December 2, 2024 |pmid=17370807 |s2cid=20442282}}

See {{section link||Nasonovia ribisnigri}} for an important aphid, and {{section link||Toxomerus marginatus}} and {{section link||Platycheirus stegnus}} for biocontrols.

The Beet Armyworm (BAW, Spodoptera exigua) is a polyphagous insect pest in this crop. There is wide geographic variation in timing with BAW, the San Joaquin Valley being vulnerable more in fall than spring, the Central Coast late summer, and lower desert valleys September and October in established crops and November and December in young plants. Natural control is significant, from parasitoids Hyposoter exiguae, Chelonus insularis, and Lespesia archippivora, and {{visible anchor|Spodoptera exigua nuclear polyhedrosis virus}} (SeNPV).{{cite web |date=2019 |access-date=August 8, 2022 |publisher=CABI |website=Invasive Species Compendium |url=https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/51068 |title=Spodoptera exigua nuclear polyhedrosis virus (SeNPV)}} Discing as soon as possible after harvest and weed control to deny alternate hosts will help. Insecticides used include methoxyfenozide, Bacillus thuringiensis ssp. aizawai, SeNPV, chlorantraniliprole, spinosad, indoxacarb, emamectin benzoate, methomyl, ζ-cypermethrin, and permethrin. In organic, Bacillus thuringiensis and Entrust are used but note that any spinosad (including Entrust) will also harm the parasitoids.

{{anchor|Melon}}

For a common pest see {{section link||Cotton Aphid}}.

{{anchor|Nectarine}}

File:Red stone fruit IMG 3278.jpg

File:Illustrated album of Alameda County, California; its early history and progress-agriculture, viticulture and horticulture-educational, manufacturing and railroad advantages-Oakland and (14758619134).jpg with nectarine trees]]

Because nectarines are hairless peaches, for most information see {{section link||Peaches}}.

Oaks (genus Quercus) are cultivated for ornamental purposes and sometimes for acorns.{{cite book |last=Tibayrenc |first=Michel |title=Genetics and Evolution of Infectious Diseases |publisher=Elsevier Science |publication-place=Saint Louis, Mo, US |year=2017 |isbn=978-0-12-799942-5 |oclc=969639609 |pages=xvii+667}} For a devastating disease see {{section link||Sudden Oak Death}}.

Okra is not produced in any significant amount here.{{cite book |last1=Aguiar |first1=José L |last2=McGiffen |first2=Milt |last3=Natwick |first3=Eric |last4=Takele |first4=Etaferahu |title=Okra Production in California |publisher=University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-60107-002-9 |doi=10.3733/ucanr.7210 |pages=3 |id=7210}} Imperial County grows the largest number of acres in the state.

Oleander (Nerium spp.) suffers from various Xylella fastidiosa diseases here and there is some question as to whether and to what degree it shares inoculum with other crops including food crops.

• {{cite journal |year=2017 |doi-access=free |volume=8 |first2=Nicola |first1=Paolo |last2=Porta |pages=1–22 |last1=Baldi |journal=Frontiers in Plant Science |pmid=28642764 |pmc=5462928 |doi=10.3389/fpls.2017.00944 |title=Xylella fastidiosa: Host Range and Advance in Molecular Identification Techniques|bibcode=2017FrPS....8..944B }}
• {{cite journal |year=2005 |issue=8 |volume=71 |first6=Andrew |first1=Hong |first5=Marta |first2=Edwin |first4=Samuel |last6=Walker |last1=Lin |last5=Francis |last4=Barros |last3=Hu |journal=Applied and Environmental Microbiology |last2=Civerolo |first3=Rong |pages=4888–4892 |doi=10.1128/aem.71.8.4888-4892.2005 |title=Multilocus Simple Sequence Repeat Markers for Differentiating Strains and Evaluating Genetic Diversity of Xylella fastidiosa |pmid=16085890 |pmc=1183328 |bibcode=2005ApEnM..71.4888L}}

{{anchor|Olive}}

File:Olive Trees at B.R. Cohn Winery & Vineyard - Stierch.jpg, 2008

]]

Newton Pierce surveyed olive culture in the state and throughout the country for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1897.{{cite book |year=1897 |pages=371–390 |last=Pierce |first=Newton |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office (United States Department of Agriculture) |oclc=1027034631 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=biIZAQAAIAAJ |title=Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture 1896 |author-link=Newton Pierce |chapter=Olive culture in the United States}}

Olives throughout the state suffer from the introduced Olive Fruit Fly.{{cite web |url=http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r583301311.html |title=UC IPM: UC Management Guidelines for Olive Fruit Fly on Olive |website=UC Integrated Pest Management |publisher=UC Agriculture |access-date=June 7, 2022}} Neofusicoccum mediterraneum, Diplodia mutila, and D. seriata cause significant disease here.

• {{cite journal |last1=Moral |first1=Juan |last2=Morgan |first2=David |last3=Trapero |first3=Antonio |last4=Michailides |first4=Themis J. |title=Ecology and Epidemiology of Diseases of Nut Crops and Olives Caused by Botryosphaeriaceae Fungi in California and Spain |journal=Plant Disease |volume=103 |issue=8 |year=2019 |doi=10.1094/pdis-03-19-0622-fe |pages=1809–1827 |pmid=31232653 |s2cid=132900491|doi-access=free |bibcode=2019PlDis.103.1809M }}
• {{cite journal |last1=Úrbez-Torres |first1=J. R. |last2=Peduto |first2=F. |last3=Vossen |first3=P. M. |last4=Krueger |first4=W. H. |last5=Gubler |first5=W. D. |title=Olive Twig and Branch Dieback: Etiology, Incidence, and Distribution in California |journal=Plant Disease |volume=97 |issue=2 |year=2013 |doi=10.1094/pdis-04-12-0390-re |pages=231–244 |pmid=30722318|doi-access=free |bibcode=2013PlDis..97..231U }}
• {{cite journal |last1=Moral |first1=Juan |last2=Muñoz-Díez |first2=Concepción |last3=González |first3=Nazaret |last4=Trapero |first4=Antonio |last5=Michailides |first5=Themis J. |title=Characterization and Pathogenicity of Botryosphaeriaceae Species Collected from Olive and Other Hosts in Spain and California |journal=Phytopathology |volume=100 |issue=12 |year=2010 |doi=10.1094/phyto-12-09-0343 |pages=1340–1351 |pmid=20731532|doi-access=free |bibcode=2010PhPat.100.1340M }}

More specific controls than currently available are needed for N. mediterraneum in highly susceptible cultivars, namely Sevillano and Gordal, and early harvest may be needed for D. seriata. See {{section link||Olive Fruit Fly}}, {{section link||Neofusicoccum mediterraneum}}, {{section link||Diplodia mutila}}, and {{section link||Diplodia seriata}}.

The Olive Oil Commission of California was founded in 2014 as an entity of the State of California. The commission was established as a result of a bill introduced by Lois Wolk.{{cite web |title=Governor signs Wolk bill to establish state olive oil commission |url=http://sd03.senate.ca.gov/news/2013-09-24-governor-signs-wolk-bill-establish-state-olive-oil-commission |access-date=July 13, 2015 |archive-date=July 13, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150713154849/http://sd03.senate.ca.gov/news/2013-09-24-governor-signs-wolk-bill-establish-state-olive-oil-commission |url-status=dead }} The primary goal is to improve the sales of olive oil grown in California.{{cite web |title=The Olive Oil Commission of California |url=http://www.oliveoilcommission.org/ |access-date=July 10, 2015}}

Soil solarization is an alternative to soil treatment with methyl bromide.

• {{cite journal |last1=Stapleton |first1=James J |last2=Molinar |first2=Richard H |last3=Lynn-Patterson |first3=Kris |last4=McFeeters |first4=Stuart K |last5=Shrestha |first5=Anil |title=Methyl bromide alternatives … Soil solarization provides weed control for limited-resource and organic growers in warmer climates |journal=California Agriculture |volume=59 |issue=2 |year=2005 |doi=10.3733/ca.v059n02p84 |pages=84–89 |s2cid=56211614|doi-access=free }}
• {{cite book |last1=D'Addabbo |first1=Trifone |last2=Miccolis |first2=Vito |last3=Basile |first3=Martino |last4=Candido |first4=Vincenzo |series=Sustainable Agriculture Reviews |title=Sociology, Organic Farming, Climate Change and Soil Science |chapter=Soil Solarization and Sustainable Agriculture |publisher=Springer Netherlands |publication-place=Dordrecht, Ne |date=November 6, 2009 |volume=3 |isbn=978-90-481-3332-1 |issn=2210-4410 |doi=10.1007/978-90-481-3333-8_9 |pages=217–274 |s2cid=85754446}}
• {{cite journal |last=Hanson |first=B. D. |title=Weed control with methyl bromide alternatives |journal=CAB Reviews |volume=1 |issue=63 |date=April 1, 2006 |doi=10.1079/pavsnnr20061063 |pages=1–13 |s2cid=67794073}}

Stapleton et al., 2005 eliminate almost 100% of annual weeds in this crop with solarization alone. It completely fails against yellow nutsedge however.

{{anchor|Peach}}

{{main|Production of peaches in California}}

File:FuzzyPeachesDisplay.jpg in Fortuna, 2014 | alt=On sale at a grocery store in Fortuna, 2014]]

File:Peach Trees in Bloom, Fairmont Dr., Redlands, CA 3-2012 (6979590833).jpg | alt=Blooming trees, Redlands]]

File:Fortuna Farmers Market Peaches.jpg Farmers' Market, 2016]]

File:Yokut Indian women and two boys preparing peaches, Tule River Reservation near Porterville, California, ca.1900 (CHS-3796).jpg, Tule River Reservation ~1900AD | alt=Yokuts woman and two boys preparing peaches on the Tule River Reservation ~1900AD]]

File:NRCSCA97008 - California (1347)(NRCS Photo Gallery).tif]]

California is the country's largest grower of peaches, producing about 70% of the total.{{cite web |title=FE1016/FE1016: Establishment and Production Costs for Peach Orchards in Florida: Enterprise Budget and Profitability Analysis |website=Electronic Data Information Source |publisher=Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences |date=February 26, 2021 |url=http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/FE1016 |access-date=June 8, 2022}}

The {{visible anchor|California Freestone Peach Association}} (CFPA) and {{visible anchor|California Canning Peach Association|California Cling Peach Board|Cal Peach|text=California Canning Peach Association/California Cling Peach Board}} (CCPA){{cite web |title=Cal Peach |website=California Canning Peach Association |date=December 15, 2015 |url=http://www.calpeach.com/ |access-date=July 6, 2022}}{{cite web |title=California Cling Peaches |website=California Cling Peach Board |url=http://californiaclingpeaches.com/ |access-date=July 6, 2022}} represent the industry.{{cite web |url=http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/files/pdf/card/ResDir06_ContactInfo.pdf |title=California Agricultural Directory |date=2006 |author=California Department of Food and Agriculture |author-link=California Department of Food and Agriculture}} (Although the CFPA is a separate incorporation, it has always been operated by the CCPA's staff.) The overwhelming majority of the country's peaches are grown here, {{as of|2020|alt=in 2020}} {{convert|468,000|ST}} for sales of $308.3 million. Since 1980 the total value of the harvest has been slightly increasing. The acreage (hectares) planted in peach has been declining however, down to {{convert|73,000|acre}} {{as of|2020|lc=yes}}.{{cite web |title=Peaches |website=Agricultural Marketing Resource Center, USDA |date=July 11, 2022 |url=https://www.agmrc.org/commodities-products/fruits/peaches |access-date=July 11, 2022}}

{{As of|2021}} cling deliveries for processing purposes have been on a downward trend for years.{{cite web |title=Research – Cal Peach |website=Cal Peach |date=December 15, 2015 |url=http://www.calpeach.com/research/ |access-date=July 6, 2022}} From {{convert|430,000|ST}} in 2010, delivered tonnage declined to {{convert|225,000|ST}} in 2021. Cling yield shows no clear trend over the same time, bouncing between {{convert|18.1|ST/acre}} and {{convert|15.3|ST/acre}}.

Prices have been trending mostly upward, from {{convert|317|$/ST}} in 2012 to {{convert|518|$/ST}}.

CCPA expects 2022 deliveries to be between {{convert|214,200-232,400|ST}} from a yield of {{convert|15.3-16.6|ST/acre}}.

UCD hosts one of the major breeding programs in the country.{{cite journal |last1=Iezzoni |first1=Amy F. |last2=McFerson |first2=Jim |last3=Luby |first3=James |last4=Gasic |first4=Ksenija |last5=Whitaker |first5=Vance |last6=Bassil |first6=Nahla |last7=Yue |first7=Chengyan |last8=Gallardo |first8=Karina |last9=McCracken |first9=Vicki |last10=Coe |first10=Michael |last11=Hardner |first11=Craig |last12=Zurn |first12=Jason D. |last13=Hokanson |first13=Stan |last14=van de Weg |first14=Eric |last15=Jung |first15=Sook |last16=Main |first16=Dorrie |last17=da Silva Linge |first17=Cassia |last18=Vanderzande |first18=Stijn |last19=Davis |first19=Thomas M. |last20=Mahoney |first20=Lise L. |last21=Finn |first21=Chad |last22=Peace |first22=Cameron |title=RosBREED: bridging the chasm between discovery and application to enable DNA-informed breeding in rosaceous crops |journal=Horticulture Research |volume=7 |issue=1 |date=November 1, 2020 |page=177 |doi=10.1038/s41438-020-00398-7 |pmid=33328430 |pmc=7603521 |bibcode=2020HorR....7..177I |s2cid=226217178}} Most of the private breeding programs for peach in the country are found in California, with a significant amount of the public breeding also being performed here.

{{anchor|Pears}}

File:NRCSCA06117 - California (1143)(NRCS Photo Gallery).tif

Cultivation is heavily pesticide-dependent.{{cite book |date=2018 |pages=203–224/xv+576 |publication-place=Washington, DC, US |series=ACS Symposium Series |issn=0097-6156 |publisher=American Chemical Society Division of Agrochemicals (Oxford University Press) |editor-first2=Scott |editor-last1=Zhang |editor-first1=Minghua |editor-last2=Jackson |editor-first3=Mark A. |editor-last3=Robertson |editor-first4=Michael R. |editor-last4=Zeiss |title=Managing and Analyzing Pesticide Use Data for Pest Management, Environmental Monitoring, Public Health, and Public Policy |isbn=9780841232891 |id={{isbn |9780841232907}}. {{LCCN |2018034681}} |lccn=2018025937 |oclc=1045640106 |number=1283 |last1=Epstein |first1=Lynn |last2=Zhang |first2=Minghua |doi=10.1021/bk-2018-1283.ch010 |chapter=The Impact of Integrated Pest Management and Regulation on Agricultural Pesticide Use in California}} In the 1970s that put growers on the "pesticide treadmill" {{endash}} increasing control costs, resistance, and resurgence of previously controlled adversaries. In response the orchards, the UC system, and Sacramento have put together IPM plans which have increased control and decreased applications. Fire Blight is a major concern as it is throughout the continent. Fire Blight is so severe that it largely determines what areas may be commercially successful in pear and which may not, restricted to geographies inhospitable to epidemics. Even so, antibacterials are necessary. Experts believe that major efficacy loss or a regulatory ban would effectively end Bartlett cultivation here, 55% of the country's pears.

UCR provides integrated pest management best practices through UCANR.{{cite web |access-date=September 20, 2022 |publisher=University of California, Riverside |url=https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/pear/ |title=Agriculture: Pear}} Pear Psylla is one of the most serious of these pests, both due to its speed of insecticide resistance evolution and because it vectors{{cite web |access-date=September 20, 2022 |id=3455 |date=November 2012 |publisher=University of California, Riverside |url=https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/pear/pear-psylla/ |title=Agriculture: Pear: Pear Psylla}} the pear decline phytoplasma. The Asian pears P. serotina and P. ussuriensis have been widely used as rootstocks but are not being used in new plantings because their severe vulnerability to the decline phytoplasma.{{cite web |access-date=September 20, 2022 |id=3455 |date=November 2012 |publisher=University of California, Riverside |url=https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/pear/pear-psylla/ |title=Agriculture: Pear: Pear Decline}} The {{visible anchor|California Pear Sawfly|Pristiphora abbreviata}} (Pristiphora abbreviata, not to be confused with the Pear Slug Caliroa cerasi) is a minor pest here and usually easily controlled. UC IPM recommends Entrust and Success (two Spinosad formulations).{{cite web |access-date=September 20, 2022 |id=3455 |date=November 2012 |publisher=University of California, Riverside |url=https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/pear/California-pear-sawfly/ |title=Agriculture: Pear: California Pear Sawfly}}

Integrated pest management (IPM) has a long history of successful use in this crop.{{Cite journal |issue=7 |year=2017 |volume=9 |first8=Willem |first7=Jeff |first6=Joop |first5=Bruce |first4=Henk |first3=Andrew |first2=H. |first1=Matthew |last8=Takken |last7=Waage |last6=van Lenteren |last5=Tabashnik |last4=van den Berg |last3=Read |last2=Godfray |last1=Thomas |journal=PLOS Medicine |doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001262 |page=e1001262 |title=Lessons from Agriculture for the Sustainable Management of Malaria Vectors |pmid=22802742 |pmc=3393651 |author-link5=Bruce Tabashnik |doi-access=free }}

{{anchor|Pistachio}}

Total pistachio acreage increased from {{convert|106,000 | to |554,000 |acres}} between 2002 and 2022 as the hardy trees can thrive with moderately salty water and soil, which is widespread in parts of the Central Valley.{{Cite web |last1=James |first1=Ian |last2=Gauthier |first2=Robert |date=2023-07-02 |title='It's a disaster': California farmer faces ordeal as pistachio farm sits underwater |url=https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-07-02/california-pistachio-farmer-flood-ordeal |access-date=2023-07-02 |website=Los Angeles Times |language=en-US}}

Ferrisia gilli is an economically significant pest of pistachio here.{{cite journal |last1=Daane |first1=Kent M. |last2=Cooper |first2=Monica L. |last3=Triapitsyn |first3=Serguei V. |last4=Walton |first4=Vaughn M. |last5=Yokota |first5=Glenn Y. |last6=Haviland |first6=David R. |last7=Bentley |first7=Walt J. |last8=Godfrey |first8=Kris E. |last9=Wunderlich |first9=Lynn R. |title=Vineyard managers and researchers seek sustainable solutions for mealybugs, a changing pest complex |journal=California Agriculture |volume=62 |issue=4 |year=2008 |doi=10.3733/ca.v062n04p167 |pages=167–176 |s2cid=54928048|doi-access=free }} F. gilli was formerly known as a California population of F. virgata, only being studied sufficiently to recognize that it is distinguishable from F. virgata due to its severe impact on pistachio and almond in this state. Jackrabbits, cottontails, and brush rabbits mostly damage pistachio trees when other food sources run out in winter or early spring. UC IPM recommends fencing, tree guards, baiting, shooting, repellents, and trapping.

Alternaria and Botryosphaeria dothidea are significant fungal diseases of pistachios here which often receive strobilurin, iprodione, azoxystrobin, and tebuconazole treatments.{{cite journal |last1=Ma |first1=Zhonghua |last2=Michailides |first2=Themis J. |title=Advances in understanding molecular mechanisms of fungicide resistance and molecular detection of resistant genotypes in phytopathogenic fungi |journal=Crop Protection |volume=24 |issue=10 |year=2005 |doi=10.1016/j.cropro.2005.01.011 |pages=853–863 |bibcode=2005CrPro..24..853M |s2cid=84141143}} See {{section link||Alternaria}} and {{section link||Botryosphaeria dothidea}}.

{{anchor|Plum}}

File:Picking Prunes in California (NBY 899).jpg

File:06793-Kings County-1905-Picking Prunes in Kings County-Brück & Sohn Kunstverlag.jpg|alt=Picking prunes in Kings County, 1905]]

File:Campbell Prune Drier, California (NYPL b12647398-70043).tiff

96% of the country's prunes and >70% of plums are grown here.{{cite web |url=http://apps1.cdfa.ca.gov/FertilizerResearch/docs/Prune_Plum_Production_CA.pdf |title=Prune and Plum Production in California |first1=Patricia |last1=Lazicki |first2=Daniel |last2=Geisseler |first3=William R. |last3=Horwath |publisher=California Department of Agriculture & UC Davis |date=June 2016}} Of that, >80% has come from the Sacramento Valley since the 1960s. For an invasive pest in the Bay Area, see {{section link||Plum Bud Gall Mite}}.{{cite web |title=Plum Bud Gall Mite: An Emerging Pest in the Greater Bay Area |publisher=UCCE Santa Clara |date=September 2021 |first1=Lucy |last1=Diekmann |first2=Aparna |last2=Gazula |first3=Krysla |last3=Grothe |url=http://mgsantaclara.ucanr.edu/files/300211.pdf |id=300211}}

Pomes grown here include {{section link||Apple}} and {{section link||Pear}}. For a common disease see {{section link||Fire Blight}}.

{{anchor|Pomegranate}}

In pomegranate (Punica granatum), Black Heart (or "Heart Rot") is one of the most common diseases, as it is around the world.{{rp|page=192}} See {{section link||Black Heart}}.

{{Big|Prunus}}

For Prunus spp. see {{section link||Stonefruit}}.

{{anchor|Raspberries}}

Over 80% of US raspberries (Rubus spp.) are grown here. The country's consumption has increased eightfold between 2001 and 2021. This crop is 15% of the state's fresh berry sales. Acreage (number of hectares) before 2014 is unknown, but in that year {{convert|6,800|acre}} produced {{convert|1.4|e6scwt|MT ST}} selling for $434 million, then the next year {{convert|9,700|acre}} produced {{convert|2|e6scwt|MT ST}} worth $547 million, and in 2016 {{convert|9,700|acre}} produced {{convert|2.1|e6scwt|MT ST|abbr=off}} for $358 million, worth more than the peach harvest and four times the pear harvest. The state has the opportunity to capture much of the market because {{as of|2021|lc=yes}} most of the raspberry (55%), blackberry, and blueberry market in the country is imported, with Mexico supplying 98% of imported raspberry and they have probably reached their limit. California produces the most fresh market red raspberries, while Washington is highest for the processed market. Because the recent expansion has taken acres that had been pasture, pest and disease pressure is very small {{endash}} making organic an easy option. The available acreage for that kind of conversion may have reached the limit {{as of|2021|lc=yes}} however. Pre-transplant soil fumigation is necessary in conventional, making organic inviable if this kind of new(-to caneberry) acreage is not available. Driscoll's is the marketer of 90% of raspberries from California and Mexico sold into the US.{{cite book |edition=2 |access-date=July 25, 2022 |year=2021 |publisher=University of California Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics |url=https://giannini.ucop.edu/publications/cal-ag-book/ |isbn=978-0-578-71524-7 |title=California Agriculture: Dimensions and Issues |first1=Rachael E. |last1=Goodhue |first2=Philip L. |last2=Martin |chapter=11. California Berries}}

{{Further|Rice production in the United States}}

By 2006, California produced the second-largest rice crop in the United States,{{cite web |url=http://calrice.org/e7b_cas_rice_growing_region.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060210141916/http://calrice.org/e7b_cas_rice_growing_region.htm |archive-date=February 10, 2006 |title=California's Rice Growing Region |publisher=California Rice Commission |access-date=August 10, 2007}} after Arkansas, with production concentrated in six counties north of Sacramento.{{cite web |url=http://www.calrice.org/c3a_economic_impact.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060426220417/http://www.calrice.org/c3a_economic_impact.htm |archive-date=April 26, 2006 |title=The economic contributions of the California rice industry |last1=Sumner |first1=Daniel A. |last2=Brunke |first2=Henrich |date=September 2003 |access-date=August 10, 2007 |publisher=California Rice Commission}}

California's production is dominated by short- and medium-grain japonica varieties, including cultivars developed for the local climate such as Calrose, which makes up as much as 85% of the state's crop.{{cite web |url=http://www.calrice.org/b6a_medium.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060508222210/http://www.calrice.org/b6a_medium.htm |archive-date=May 8, 2006 |title=Medium Grain Varieties |publisher=California Rice Commission |access-date=August 10, 2007}}

UC ANR (University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources) has a program specifically for small grains. UCANR provides pest management information and cultivation practices and organizes farmer education events. The small grains grown here are primarily wheat, barley, oats, and triticale,{{cite web |title=Welcome to UC Small Grains Research & Information |access-date=November 21, 2022 |year=2022 |publisher=University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources |url=https://smallgrains.ucanr.edu}} see {{section link||Barley}} and {{section link||Wheat}}. UC-IPM also produces publications specifically for pest management in these crops.{{cite web |access-date=November 21, 2022 |date=2020 |publisher=University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources |url=https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/small-grains/ |title=Agriculture: Pest Management Guidelines Small Grains}}

Although small grains are not a large part of the overall agricultural productivity of the state, they are important enough in particular locations for ANR to have Extension workers especially for San Diego County, Kings County, San Joaquin County, Siskiyou County, Lassen County, Sutter- and Yuba- and Colusa- Counties,{{cite web |access-date=November 21, 2022 |year=2022 |publisher=University of California Cooperative Extension, Sutter-Yuba Counties |url=https://cesutter.ucanr.edu/SacramentoValleyFieldCrops/ |title=Sacramento Valley Field Crops - Cooperative Extension, Sutter-Yuba Counties}} Davis, Kern County, Woodland, Yolo County, Tulelake, Siskiyou, Tulare,{{cite web |access-date=November 21, 2022 |year=2022 |publisher=University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources |url=https://smallgrains.ucanr.edu/Contact_Us/ |title=Contact Us |archive-date=November 21, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221121210234/https://smallgrains.ucanr.edu/Contact_Us/ |url-status=dead }} and Sonoma.{{cite web |access-date=November 21, 2022 |year=2022 |publisher=University of California Cooperative Extension Sonoma |url=https://cesonoma.ucanr.edu/SpecialtyCrops/Growing_Specialty_Grains/ |title=Growing Specialty Grains - UCCE Sonoma County}}

{{Visible anchor | Golden State Grains}} is an industry initiative which also cooperates extensively with the University of California breeding programs. GSG connects future farmers, present farmers, seed suppliers, processors, and consumers.{{cite web |title=Building our Grain Community |access-date=November 21, 2022 |year=2022 |publisher=Golden State Grains |url=https://www.goldenstategrains.com}}

See {{Section link ||Wild beet}} for a weed of these crops.

{{anchor|Stonefruits|Prunus}}

Stonefruits are crops of the genus Prunus. Largest harvests by weight are almond, apricot, cherry, peach and plum.{{citation needed|date=February 2025}}

So much of North America's stonefruit is grown here that almost all available propagation material is adapted to California specifically. Few accessions are available which are appropriate anywhere else. Even so, these are really made for the previous situation in the state, in which lower densities prevailed and dwarfing rootstocks were not used. With increasing mechanization there is a need for such rootstocks.{{cite web |url=https://www.ars-grin.gov/npgs/cgc_reports/prunusvuln2017.pdf |title=Prunus Vulnerability Statement |date=March 2017 |author=Prunus Crop Germplasm Committee |publisher=USDA ARS Germplasm Resources Information Network}}

{{clear}}

{{anchor|Strawberry}}

{{main|Production of strawberries in California}}

{{For-multi|other uses|Strawberry, California (disambiguation)|and|Strawberry Valley, California}}

File:Xp3-dot-us DSC8991.jpg

File:Strawberry fields in Carlsbad, April 2010, closeup.jpg]]

Strawberries (Fragaria × ananassa) in the United States are almost entirely grown in California {{endash}} 86% of fresh and 98% of frozen in 2017{{cite web |title=2021 Pest Management Strategic Plan for Strawberry in California |website=Regional Integrated Pest Management Centers Database |date=May 4, 2022 |url=http://ipmdata.ipmcenters.org/source_report.cfm?view=yes&sourceid=2468 |access-date=June 29, 2022}} {{endash}} with Florida a distant second.{{cite web |title=Strawberry Production |website=Penn State Extension |date=June 20, 2005 |url=http://extension.psu.edu/strawberry-production |access-date=June 6, 2022}} The 2017 harvest was {{convert|1,461.2|e3ST|e3MT|abbr=off}} worth $3,100,215,000. Of that 30.0% was from Monterey, 28.6% from Ventura, 20.0% from Santa Barbara, 10.0% from San Luis Obispo, and 9.2% from Santa Cruz. The Watsonville/Salinas strawberry zone in Santa Cruz/Monterey, and the Oxnard zone in Ventura, contribute heavily to those concentrations.

Production has risen almost monotonically, from 2005 when {{convert|34,300|acre|ha}} were harvested, yielding {{convert|600|scwt/acre|kg/ha lb/acre}}, for a total yield of {{convert|20,580,000|scwt|MT ST}}. The average price being {{convert|54.60|$/scwt|$/kg $/lb}}, the 2005 season's harvest sold for $1,122,834,000.

The California Strawberry Commission is the Agriculture Department body which advocates for strawberry growers. The CSC provides information for both growers{{cite web |title=California Strawberry Commission |website=California Strawberry Commission |url=http://www.calstrawberry.com/ |access-date=June 3, 2022}} and consumers.{{cite web |title=Health Benefits, Recipes & Stories |website=California Strawberry Commission |date=May 23, 2022 |url=http://www.californiastrawberries.com/ |access-date=June 3, 2022}} Some towns have annual strawberry festivals, see {{section link|Strawberry festival|United States}}. The Driscoll's company began with strawberries here and still grows and sells here, and they have since expanded to other states, countries, and types of berries.

Cal Poly runs the {{visible anchor|Strawberry Center}}{{cite web |title=Strawberry Center |publisher=Cal Poly |date=July 28, 2020 |url=http://strawberry.calpoly.edu/home |access-date=June 2, 2022}} for both research, and producer education.

Labor costs have increased drastically since 2018 especially in this crop, see {{section link||Labor}}.

{{anchor|Lumber}}

Almost 40% of the state is forest, {{convert|39.7|e6acre|e6ha sqmi km2|abbr=off}}. Of that {{convert|16.7|e6acre|e6ha sqmi km2|abbr=off}} was maintained as timberland {{as of|1996|lc=yes}} of which about 77% is softwood. Most lumber grown here is used here in the construction industry and some additional lumber is imported from nearby states and provinces.{{cite book |id=8070 |pages=19 |year=2003 |first3=William |last2=Goldman |first2=George |first1=Susanna |isbn=978-1-60107-248-1 |last1=Laaksonen-Craig |last3=McKillop |title=Forestry, Forest Industry, and Forest Products Consumption in California |doi=10.3733/ucanr.8070 |publisher=University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources |s2cid=133879789}}

{{anchor|Tomato}}

The Federal Risk Management Agency provides crop insurance for fresh market tomato here, through the regional office in Davis.{{cite web |title=Fresh Market Tomatoes |website=Risk Management Agency |date=January 31, 2017 |url=https://www.rma.usda.gov/en/Fact-Sheets/Davis-Regional-Office-Fact-Sheets/Fresh-Market-Tomatoes-2017-CA |access-date=July 11, 2022}} 90% of FMT here comes from nine counties, San Joaquin County, Merced, Fresno, San Diego, Kern, Stanislaus, Kings, Tulare, and Sacramento. In 1999 {{convert|44,000|acre}} were planted, yielding on average {{convert|12.5|ST/acre}}, for a gross dollar yield of {{convert|5,500|$/acre}}.{{cite book |last1=Strange |first1=Michelle Le |last2=Schrader |first2=Wayne L. |last3=Hartz |first3=Timothy K. |title=Fresh-Market Tomato Production in California |publisher=University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources |year=2000 |isbn=978-1-60107-197-2 |doi=10.3733/ucanr.8017 |s2cid=168207532}}

Tomatoes contribute a mean of {{convert|1.77|lb/acre|kg/ha|adj=pre| N2O-N emissions}} per year in Mediterranean agriculture systems.

{{visible anchor|Varieties of tomato|Tomato varieties|text=Varieties used here}} widely incorporate Meloidogyne resistance.{{cite book |date=2008 |pages=xx+356 |publication-place=Dordrecht |publisher=Springer Verlag |volume=2 |first2=K. G. |first1=A. |last2=Mukerji |last1=Ciancio |oclc=226070353 |id={{isbn |978-1-4020-6062-5}} |isbn=978-1-4020-6063-2 |series=Integrated Management of Plant Pests and Diseases |title=Integrated Management and Biocontrol of Vegetable and Grain Crops Nematodes}}{{rp|35}}

{{anchor|Walnut}}

{{main|Walnuts in California}}

File:Kurt Steindorf showing a Chandler Walnut-8821.jpg

California walnuts account for nearly all the walnuts grown in the United States. In 2017, walnut production was the seventh most valuable agricultural commodity in California, valued at $1.59 billion in cash receipts.{{cite report |title=California Agricultural Statistics Review 2017-2018 |date=2018 |pages=4, 110 |url=https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/PDFs/2017-18AgReport.pdf |access-date=December 1, 2019 |website=California Department of Food and Agriculture}}

Walnuts contribute a mean of {{convert|1.34|lb/acre|kg/ha|adj=pre| N2O-N}} emissions per year in Mediterranean agriculture systems.

Wheat stripe rust is believed to have been present at or before the 1770s due to newspaper reports at the time, and due to the greater prevalence of stripe than leaf or stem.{{rp|page=3}} Hungerford (1923) and Hungerford & Owens (1923) found stripe on wheat here and almost all other western states.{{rp|page=9}}

As first speculated by Tollenaar & Houston 1967,{{cite journal |year=1967 |issue=3 |volume=45 |journal=Canadian Journal of Botany |last1=Tollenaar |first1=H. |last2=Houston |first2=Byron R. |title=A study on the epidemiology of stripe rust Puccinia striiformis West., in California |doi=10.1139/b67-028 |pages=291–307|bibcode=1967CaJB...45..291T }} in some years inoculum from the Sierra Nevadas initiates the state's epidemics. Wheat sown in the fall (autumn) in the valleys suffers from stripe rust carried from wild grasses in the mountains. This is not the only source however, as stripe will also overwinter in Sacramento Valley wheat cover. See {{section link||Stripe Rust}}.

{{excerpt|California wine}}

In 2022, California meat production exceeded 181 million pounds of beef, 49 million pounds of pork, and 3 million pounds of mutton.{{cite news |title=Pacific Region Livestock Slaughter |url=https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Hawaii/Publications/Livestock,_Poultry,_and_Dairy/Slaughter/2022/202206LVSKSGHT.pdf |access-date=22 February 2025 |agency=United States Department of Agriculture |date=June 2022}} Harris Ranch a ranch and feedlot operation is California's largest beef producer, producing {{convert|150|e6lb}} of beef per year in 2010.{{cite news |title = Harris Ranch markets farm-to-fork |first = Olivia |last = Munoz |work = San Jose Mercury-News |agency = Associated Press |url = http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16248323 |date = October 4, 2010 }}

In 2024, California's 8,864,000 egg-laying chickens produced 201 million eggs, 2.2% of the US total, while leading states Ohio and Iowa each produced over 1 billion eggs.{{cite news |title=Pacific Region Poultry |url=https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Livestock_Releases/Poultry/2024/202409RVPOUL.pdf |access-date=22 February 2025 |agency=United States Department of Agriculture |date=27 September 2024}}

The domestic fowl industry suffers from avian malaria.

• {{cite web |title=Plasmodium relictum |website=Invasive Species Compendium |publisher=CABI |date=December 2, 2019 |url=http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/69051 |access-date=May 27, 2022}}
• {{cite journal |last=Herman |first=Carlton M. |title=Blood Parasites from California Ducks and Geese |journal=Journal of Parasitology |volume=37 |issue=3 |year=1951 |pages=280–282 |doi=10.2307/3273200 |jstor=3273200 |pmid=14851153}}
• {{cite journal |last1=Herman |first1=C. M. |last2=McClure |first2=H. E. |last3=Hammon |first3=W. McD. |last4=French |first4=E. M. |last5=Reeves |first5=W. C. |title=Studies on Avian Malaria in Vectors and Hosts of Encephalitis in Kern County, California {{endash}} I. Infections in Avian Hosts |journal=The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene |volume=3 |issue=4 |date=July 1, 1954 |doi=10.4269/ajtmh.1954.3.676 |pages=676–695 |pmid=13180827 |bibcode=1954AJTMH...3..676H |id=USGS pub# [http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/5220587 5220587]}}
• {{cite journal |last1=Reeves |first1=W. C. |last2=Hammon |first2=W. McD. |last3=Brookman |first3=B. |last4=Herold |first4=R. C. |last5=Rosen |first5=L. |title=Studies on Avian Malaria in Vectors and Hosts of Encephalitis in Kern County, California {{endash}} II. Infections in Mosquito Vectors |journal=The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene |volume=3 |issue=4 |date=July 1, 1954 |doi=10.4269/ajtmh.1954.3.696 |pages=696–703 |s2cid=34318268 |pmid=13180828}}

• {{cite web |access-date=June 27, 2022 |date=2022 |url=https://zoologix.com/avian/Datasheets/Malaria.html |website=Zoologix |title=Malaria (Plasmodium) PCR test}}
• {{cite book |date=January 13, 2009 |publication-place=Oxford, UK |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |editor-last1=Atkinson |pages=xi+595 |editor-first1=Carter T. |editor-last2=Thomas |editor-first2=Nancy J. |editor-last3=Hunter |editor-first3=D. Bruce |title=Parasitic Diseases of Wild Birds |doi=10.1002/9780813804620 |isbn=978-0-8138-0462-0 |oclc=352832662 |s2cid=82770933 |id={{isbn |978-0-8138-2081-1}}. {{isbn |978-0-8138-0457-6}} |url=http://www.gbv.de/dms/bowker/toc/9780813820811.pdf}}{{rp|page=140}}
• {{cite web |access-date=June 27, 2022 |date=2022 |url=https://zoologix.com/avian/index.htm |website=Zoologix |title=Zoologix PCR testing for birds, poultry, pigs and livestock}}

{{visible anchor|Chickens|Gallus gallus|Gallus domesticus|text=Chickens}} (Gallus gallus/G. domesticus) and {{visible anchor|Ducks|Anas platyrhynchos domesticus|Anas platyrhynchos|text=ducks}} (Anas platyrhynchos domesticus) are commonly infected, as well as various wild birds. Testing has been done since the Herman group made the first reports of P. relictum infection, in Herman 1951, Herman et al., 1954, and Reeves et al., 1954. (See {{section link||Avian malaria}} and {{section link||Plasmodium relictum}} for the parasite and vectors, and for testing.)

{{anchor|Honeybee}}

{{further|Central Valley (California)|l1=Central Valley}}

The Central Valley of California is one of the world's most productive agricultural regions.{{cite news |first=Mark |last=Bittman |title=Everyone Eats There |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/magazine/californias-central-valley-land-of-a-billion-vegetables.html?hp |newspaper=The New York Times |date=October 10, 2012 |access-date=October 10, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121013012804/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/magazine/californias-central-valley-land-of-a-billion-vegetables.html?hp |archive-date=October 13, 2012}} More than 230 crops are grown there. On less than one percent of the total farmland in the United States, the Central Valley produces eight percent of the nation's agricultural output by value: US$43.5 billion in 2013.{{cite web |url=https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/pdfs/2013/finaldraft2012-2013.pdf |title=Agricultural Statistics Review, 2012-2013 |access-date=March 29, 2016 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160619060334/https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/PDFs/2013/FinalDraft2012-2013.pdf |archive-date=June 19, 2016}} The top four counties in agricultural sales (2007 data) in the U.S. are in California's Central Valley: Fresno ($3.731 billion), Tulare ($3.335 billion), Kern ($3.204 billion), and Merced ($2.330 billion).{{cite web |url=http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/97/09/ |title=A Statistical Tour of California's Great Central Valley |publisher=California State Library |work=California Research Bureau |access-date=July 27, 2009 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090503170012/http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/97/09/ |archive-date=May 3, 2009 |df=mdy-all}}{{cite web |first=Timothy S. |last=Parker |url=http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/state-fact-sheets/state-data.aspx?StateFIPS=00#.VBmjifldXzg |title=United States Fact Sheet: US agriculture income population food education employment unemployment federal funds farms top commodities exports counties financial indicators poverty food security farm income Rural Nonmetro Urban Metropolitan America USDA organic Census of Agriculture |publisher=Ers.usda.gov |date=October 27, 2011 |access-date=November 13, 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120626232232/http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/state-fact-sheets/state-data.aspx?StateFIPS=00#.VBmjifldXzg |archive-date=June 26, 2012}}

Its agricultural productivity relies on irrigation both from surface water diversions and from groundwater pumping (wells). About one-sixth of the irrigated land in the U.S. is in the Central Valley.{{Cite book |last=Reilly |first=Thomas E. |title=Ground-Water Availability in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1323 |page=84 |publisher=U.S. Geological Survey |location=Denver, CO |year=2008 |isbn=978-1-4113-2183-0}} Central Valley groundwater pollution is an ongoing environmental issue in the area.

There are 6,000 almond growers who produced more than 1.8 million tonnes in 2013, about 60 percent of the world's supply.{{Cite news |title=California's Central Valley. Where the Mountains Are Almonds |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE7DD1639F935A3575AC0A9669C8B63&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FC%2FCooking%20and%20Cookbooks |newspaper=The New York Times |quote=The state's 6,000 growers produce more than 600 million pounds a year, more than 70 percent of the world's supply and virtually 100 percent of domestic production. |date=September 6, 2000 |access-date=December 16, 2008 |first=Todd S. |last=Purdum}}{{cite web |url=http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/Q/QC/E |publisher=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Statistics Division, FAOSTAT |title=Production/Crops for almonds with shell |format=database |date=2013 |access-date=December 22, 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161122053717/http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/Q/QC/E |archive-date=November 22, 2016}}

Parts of the Valley are quarantine {{as of|2022|07|lc=yes}} due to an ongoing pest eradication. The Peach Fruit Fly was found in {{visible anchor|Chowchilla|Chowchilla, Madera County}} and this is a threat not only here, but could spread to the entire state, and to a lesser degree the entire country and other locations around the world. See {{section link||Peach Fruit Fly}}.

{{further|Salinas Valley}}

The Salinas Valley, located within Monterey County, is one of the most productive agricultural regions in California. Monterey County grows over 50% of the national production for leaf lettuce, head lettuce, and celery. It also produces significant percentages of the country's broccoli, spinach, cauliflower, and strawberries.{{cite web |title=Facts, Figures & FAQs |url=http://montereycfb.com/index.php?page=facts-figures-faqs |website=Monterey County Farm Bureau |access-date=October 8, 2019 |ref=mcfb-facts |archive-date=October 20, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191020205948/http://montereycfb.com/index.php?page=facts-figures-faqs |url-status=dead }} The area is also a significant producer of organic produce, with 68,868 acres in cultivation and annual sales of $412,347,000.

File:Organic-vegetable-cultivation.jpeg]]

California has more certified organic farms than any other state. In 2016, more than a million acres in the state were certified organic.{{cite news |last1=Walker |first1=Kristi |last2=Bialik |first2=Kristen |title=Organic farming is on the rise in the U.S. |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/10/organic-farming-is-on-the-rise-in-the-u-s/ |access-date=October 13, 2019 |agency=Pew Research Center |publisher=Pew Charitable Trusts |date=January 10, 2019}} CA grows 90% or more of the U.S. production of Organic almonds, artichokes, avocados, broccoli, cauliflower, celery, dates, figs, grapes, strawberries, lemons, lettuce, plums, and walnuts.{{cite web |last1=Klonsky |first1=Karen |title=A Look at California's Organic Agriculture Production |url=https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/is/pdfs/A_Look_at_California's_Organic_Agriculture_Production.pdf |publisher=University of California Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics |access-date=October 13, 2019}}

There are two primary laws that regulate organic production: at a federal level, the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 and at a state level, the California Organic Food and Farming Act of 2016. Both laws lay out standards for production, processing, handling and retailing that must be followed in order to label a product as "organic". The USDA, California Organic Products Advisory Committee, and the California County Agricultural Commissioners monitor and ensure these standards are followed by administering enforcement actions for any violations.{{Cite web |url=http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/ |title=California Department of Food and Agriculture |website=www.cdfa.ca.gov |access-date=November 3, 2019}}

Any agricultural operation selling more than $5,000 in products per year is required to acquire organic certification, if they seek to sell their products under the organic label. Multiple organizations are accredited to certify operations organic.{{Cite web |url=https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/is/docs/CertifiersList.pdf |title=United States Department of Agriculture Accredited Certifying Agents Registered with the State Organic Program |website=California Department of Food and Agriculture: State Organic Program}}

The largest overall water users in California are the environment, agriculture and urban/ municipal uses.{{Cite web |url=https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/ |title=Water Use in California |website=Public Policy Institute of California |language=en-US |access-date=October 22, 2019}} In an average year, about 40% of California's water consumption, or approximately {{convert|34.1|e6acre-foot|e6m3|abbr=off}}, is used for agricultural purposes. However, the exact proportion of total water usage for agriculture varies widely between 'wet' and 'dry' years. In wet years, agriculture is responsible for closer to 30% of total water consumption and in dry years closer to 60%. Water for agriculture is used to irrigate more than {{convert|9|e6acre|abbr=off}} of cropland annually.{{Cite web |url=http://water.ca.gov/Water-Basics/Agriculture |title=Agriculture |website=water.ca.gov |language=en |access-date=October 22, 2019}}

Water for agriculture comes from two primary sources: surface water and groundwater. Surface waters include natural bodies of water along with a network of human-built reservoirs with aqueducts and canals that carry water from the source to the agricultural users. Groundwater aquifers range in depth and accessibility across the state, and historically have been used to supplement surface water supplies in dry years.{{Cite web |url=https://www.ppic.org/publication/groundwater-in-california/ |title=Groundwater in California |website=Public Policy Institute of California |language=en-US |access-date=October 22, 2019}}

California is one of the top five states in water use for livestock. Water withdrawals for livestock use in California were {{convert|101-250|e6USgal|L}}/day in 2010.{{Cite web |url=https://water.usgs.gov/watuse/wulv.html |title=USGS: Livestock Water Use in the United States |website=water.usgs.gov |language=en |access-date=March 4, 2018}}

Saudi Arabian companies and individuals have bought land here and in Arizona to benefit from subsidized water. This has produced criticism because the hay grown is exported to Saudi Arabia.{{cite web |access-date=October 17, 2022 |year=2016 |website=CNBC |last=Daniels |first=Jeff |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/15/saudi-arabia-buying-up-farmland-in-us-southwest.html |title=Saudi Arabia buying up farmland in US Southwest}} Around 15% of overall alfalfa production goes to exports.{{Cite news |last=Markham |first=Lauren |date=2019-03-25 |title=Who keeps buying California's scarce water? Saudi Arabia |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-water-drought-scarce-saudi-arabia |access-date=2024-01-15 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}

Agricultural impacts on water quality concentrate around concerns of the following contaminants: nutrients, pesticides, salts, pollutants, sediment, pathogens, and heavy metals.{{Cite web |url=https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/ |title=Agriculture {{!}} California State Water Resources Control Board |website=www.waterboards.ca.gov |access-date=November 15, 2019}} These contaminants enter water bodies through above-ground surface runoff of rainwater or excess irrigation water, or percolating through the soil and leaching into groundwater. Water quality concerns affect most regions of the state and tend to be exacerbated during periods of drought.{{Cite web |url=https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-water-quality-challenges/ |title=California's Water Quality Challenges |last=Chappelle |first=Caitrin |date=October 2015 |website=Public Policy Institute of California |access-date=November 8, 2019}}

At present, all irrigated agricultural operations in the State are required to participate in the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program.{{Cite web |url=https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/irrigated_lands/ |title=Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program {{!}} Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board |website=www.waterboards.ca.gov |access-date=November 15, 2019}} The regulatory program began after the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 390 (SB390) in 1990, that eliminated a blanket waiver for agricultural operations to discharge wastewater without any specific environmental standards.{{Cite web |url=https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/irrigated_lands/ilrp_faq.pdf |title=Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program Frequently Asked Questions |date=November 2016 |website=www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley |access-date=November 14, 2019}}

A major source for Southern California's water supply, both agricultural and urban, is the Colorado River from which an aqueduct has been built to transport the water from the river to Riverside.{{Cite web |title=Cadiz Water Project {{!}} Where Does California's Water Come From? |date=December 2017 |url=https://www.cadizwaterproject.com/where-does-californias-water-come-from/ |access-date=May 27, 2022 |language=en-US}} Colorado River irrigation is essential for agriculture to the Salton Sea Basin, which supports key agriculturally productive areas such as the Imperial Valley.{{Cite journal |last1=Bradley |first1=T. |last2=Ajami |first2=H. |last3=Porter |first3=W. |date=April 22, 2022 |title=Ecological transitions at the Salton Sea: Past, present and future |url=http://calag.ucanr.edu/Archive/?article=ca.2022a0004 |journal=California Agriculture |language=English |volume=76 |issue=1 |pages=8–15 |doi=10.3733/ca.2022a0004 |s2cid=248363086 |doi-access=free }} Another aspect of the agricultural water supply in California is the transfer of water that takes place from northern to southern California. In northern California, the Shasta Dam contains the flow of the Sacramento River, preserving water for California's use, and pumping stations in the California Delta extract water transferring that water across the San Joaquin Valley and southward.{{Cite web |last=info@sustainablefoodtrust.org |first=Sustainable Food Trust- |title=Sustainable Food Trust |url=https://sustainablefoodtrust.org:443/articles/california-agriculture-and-water-farm-sustainably-or-go-bust/ |access-date=May 27, 2022 |website=Sustainable Food Trust |date=February 4, 2022 |language=en}} A key component to the distribution of the water supply are the irrigation districts and water agencies who are responsible for delegating water as to meet the demand of those within the area as well as clarify and legal arbitration as to water rights.{{Cite web |title=Agriculture |url=https://water.ca.gov/Water-Basics/Agriculture |access-date=May 27, 2022 |website=water.ca.gov |language=en}}

The agency tasked with overseeing the state's water supply and any projects associated with the upkeep of the supply is the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR).{{Cite web |title=State Agencies in California Involved in Water Issues |url=https://www.watereducation.org/state-agencies-california-involved-water-issues |access-date=May 27, 2022 |website=Water Education Foundation |date=June 22, 2020 |language=en}} As part of the 2019-2020 California Spending Plan, the CDWR received $2.336 billion with $833 million going towards projects overseen by the California Natural Resources Agency and $1.503 billion going towards the control board supervised by the California Environmental Protection Agency.{{Cite web |title=The 2019-20 Budget: California Spending Plan—Resources and Environmental Protection |url=https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4103#:~:text=The%20budget%20provides%20$7.8%20million%20from%20the%20General,(SWRCB)%20to%20begin%20implementing%20recent%20water%20conservation%20legislation. |access-date=May 27, 2022 |website=lao.ca.gov}} One of the CDWR's major projects is the State Water Project (SWP) which distributes 34% of the water that flows through its various channels.{{Cite web |title=State Water Project |url=https://water.ca.gov/Programs/State-Water-Project |access-date=May 27, 2022 |website=water.ca.gov |language=en}} The SWP also is one of the largest suppliers of hydroelectric power in the state.

The invasive quagga- and zebra-{{zero width space}}mussels reached the state in about 2006 and threaten the already limited supply of farm water.{{cite web |last=Schoch |first=Deborah |title=Tough mussel pain, no easy remedy |website=Los Angeles Times |date=December 31, 2007 |url=http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-mussels31dec31-story.html |access-date=May 2, 2022}} The mussels have continued to spread and present an ever-expanding threat to pipelines.{{cite web |title=New Quagga / Zebra Mussel Discoveries in California |website=California Department of Fish and Wildlife |date=December 30, 2020 |url=http://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Invasives/New-Infestations |access-date=May 2, 2022}}

In 2014, California agriculture soils contributed to 51% of statewide greenhouse gas emissions. California's Mediterranean climate supports irrigation events such as nitrification which encourage nitrous oxide production. Mean nitrous oxide emissions (the biggest contributor to ozone depletion of all the major agricultural greenhouse gases) have been reported to be "four times higher in irrigated compared to rain-fed systems". Another factor which frequently contributes to increased N2O emissions are warm soil temperatures (a common occurrence in California).

{{Main|History of agriculture in California}}

Some California hunter-gatherer tribes, including the Owens Valley Paiute, developed irrigation.{{cite book |first1=Robert |last1=Bettinger |editor1-last=Kennett |editor1-first=Douglas |editor2-last=Winterhalder |editor2-first=Bruce |title=Behavioral Ecology and the Transition to Agriculture |chapter=Agriculture, Archaeology, and Human Behavioral Ecology |date=December 3, 2005 |publisher=University of California Press |isbn=0520246470 |page=320 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wdGm0BFqtiMC&q=Owens+Valley+Paiute&pg=PR7 |access-date=October 7, 2019}} Native Californians were skilled at gathering materials from plants at all times of the year, allowing the consistent gathering of materials from any and all local plants. Depending on when various plants—including succulents, flowers, and trees—bloomed or became ripe, different aspects of the plant could be accessed or harvested by Native California peoples.{{Cite book |last=Anderson |first=Kat |title=Tending the wild: Native American knowledge and the management of California's natural resources |date=2005 |publisher=University of California Press |isbn=978-0-520-93310-1 |location=Berkeley |oclc=62175673}}

File:Basket cap, maker unknown, Yurok Hupa Karuk - Mount Shasta Sisson Museum - DSC02800.JPG.]]

Black oak acorn harvests were increased by cultural burning, which stimulated acorn growth and increased biodiversity in the area.{{Cite journal |last1=Long |first1=Jonathan W. |last2=Goode |first2=Ron W. |last3=Gutteriez |first3=Raymond J. |last4=Lackey |first4=Jessica J. |last5=Anderson |first5=M. Kat |date=September 15, 2017 |title=Managing California Black Oak for Tribal Ecocultural Restoration |journal=Journal of Forestry |volume=115 |issue=5 |pages=426–434 |doi=10.5849/jof.16-033 |doi-access=free }} Cultural burning was commonly practiced by throughout California to maintain a healthy landscape that produced quality resources, as the Karuk, Yurok, Hupa peoples all regularly burned areas of bear grass and California hazelnut and to encourage the growth of stronger stems that could be used for basketry.{{Cite journal |last1=Marks-Block |first1=Tony |last2=Lake |first2=Frank K. |last3=Bliege Bird |first3=Rebecca |last4=Curran |first4=Lisa M. |date=February 19, 2021 |title=Revitalized Karuk and Yurok cultural burning to enhance California hazelnut for basketweaving in northwestern California, USA |journal=Fire Ecology |volume=17 |issue=1 |pages=6 |doi=10.1186/s42408-021-00092-6 |bibcode=2021FiEco..17a...6M |s2cid=231971687 |doi-access=free }}{{Cite journal |last=Hunter |first=John |date=1988 |title=Prescribed burning for cultural resources |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273121240 |journal=Fire Management Notes |volume=49 |pages=8–9 |via=ResearchGate}}

In the late 1700s, Franciscan missionaries established Spanish missions in California. Like earlier Spanish missions established in Baja California, these missions were surrounded by agricultural land, growing crops from Europe and the Americas, and raising animals originating from Europe. Indigenous workers from Baja California made up a large part of the initial labor force on California missions.{{cite journal |last1=Street |first1=Richard |title=First Farmworkers, First Braceros: Baja California Field Hands and the Origins of Farm Labor Importation in California Agriculture, 1769-1790 |journal=California History |date=Winter 1996–1997 |volume=75 |issue=4 |pages=306–321 |jstor=25177614 |url=https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/steen/cogweb/Chumash/Street.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20021111032418/http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/steen/cogweb/Chumash/Street.html |archive-date=November 11, 2002 |access-date=October 1, 2019}} In the early 1800s, this flow of laborers from Baja California had largely stopped, and the missions relied on converts from local tribes. By 1806, over 20,000 Mission Indians were "attached" to the California missions. As missions were expected to become largely self-sufficient, farming was a critically important Mission industry.

George Vancouver visited Mission San Buenaventura in 1793 and noted the wide variety of crops grown: apples, pears, plums, figs, oranges, grapes, peaches, pomegranates, plantain, banana, coconut, sugar cane, indigo, various herbs, and prickly pear.{{cite book |last1=Ruther |first1=Walter |title=The Citrus Industry: History, world distribution, botany, and varieties |date=1967 |publisher=University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences |page=25}}

Livestock was raised for meat, wool, leather, and tallow, and for cultivating the land. In 1832, at the height of their prosperity, the missions collectively owned over 150,000 cattle and over 120,000 sheep. They also raised horses, goats, and pigs.{{cite book |last1=Krell |first1=Dorothy |title=The California Missions: A Pictorial History |date=December 1996 |publisher=Sunset Publishing Corporation |location=Menlo Park, California |isbn=9780376051721 |page=316}}

The Spanish (1784–1810) and Mexican (1819–1846) governments made a large number of land grants to private individuals from 1785 to 1846. These ranchos included land taken from the missions following government-imposed secularization in 1833, after which the missions' productivity declined significantly. The ranchos were focused on cattle, and hides and tallow were their main products. There was no market for large quantities of beef (before refrigeration and railroads) until the California Gold Rush.

Rapid population growth drove an increase in importation of agricultural products, and, within a few years, a massive growth in in-state agriculture. In the first years of the gold rush, the state relied on agricultural imports arriving by ship, from Australia, Chile, and Hawaii. During these years, there was rapid growth in vegetable farming for local markets. This was followed by an expansion of grain farming.{{cite journal |last1=Gerber |first1=Jim |title=The Gold Rush origins of California's wheat economy |journal=América Latina en la historia económica |date=July 2010 |volume=34 |url=https://www.academia.edu/3526628 |access-date=October 21, 2019}} A shift in the economic dominance of grain farming over cattle raising was marked by the passage of the California "No-Fence Law" of 1874. This repealed the Trespass Act of 1850, which had required farmers to protect their planted fields from free-ranging cattle. The repeal of the Trespass Act required that ranchers fence stock in, rather than farmers fencing cattle out. The ranchers were faced with either the high expense of fencing large grazing tracts or selling their cattle at ruinous prices.{{cite journal |last=Ludeke |first=John |title=The No Fence Law of 1874: Victory for San Joaquin Valley Farmers |journal=California History |volume=59 |issue=2 |year=1980 |pages=98–115 |doi=10.2307/25157972 |jstor=25157972}}{{cite journal |url=https://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/65january/cattle.htm |title=Decimation of the Herds, 1870–1912 |journal=San Diego History Journal |date=January 1965}}

Irrigation was almost nonexistent in California in 1850, but by 1899, 12 percent of the state's improved farmland was irrigated.{{cite web |last1=Olmstead |first1=Alan |last2=Rhode |first2=Paul |title=A History of California Agriculture |url=https://s.giannini.ucop.edu/uploads/giannini_public/19/41/194166a6-cfde-4013-ae55-3e8df86d44d0/a_history_of_california_agriculture.pdf |website=Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics |publisher=University of California |access-date=October 30, 2019}}

Luther Burbank moved to Santa Rosa, California in 1875, and developed numerous commercially successful varieties of plants over the next 50 years.

The 1902 Newlands Reclamation Act funded irrigation projects on arid lands in 20 states including California.

In 1905, the California legislature passed the University Farm Bill, which called for the establishment of a farm school for the University of California (at the time, Berkeley was the sole campus of the university).{{cite book |last=Dubgenans |first=Dennis |title=University of California, Davis |year=2013 |publisher=Arcadia |location=Charleston |isbn=978-0-7385-9699-0 |page=7}} The commission took a year to select a site for the campus, a tiny town then known as Davisville. UC Davis opened its doors as the "University Farm" to 40 degree students (all male) from UC Berkeley in January 1909.

In 1919, the California Department of Food and Agriculture was established. The department covers state food safety, state protection from invasive species, and promoting the state's agricultural industry.

The Dust Bowl of the 1930s drove many people from the American prairie, and a significant number of these economic migrants relocated to California. Poor migrants from Oklahoma and nearby states were sometimes referred to as Okies, generally a pejorative term.

In 1933, the state saw a number of agricultural labor strikes, with the largest actions against cotton growers. Cherry, grape, peach, pear, sugar beet, and tomato workers were also involved.

In 1942, the United States began the Bracero program. Lasting until 1964, this agreement established decent living conditions and a minimum wage for Mexican workers in the United States.

In 1965, the Williamson Act became law, providing property tax relief to owners of California farmland and open-space land in exchange for agreement that the land will not be developed.

The 1960s and 1970s saw major farm worker strikes including the 1965 Delano grape strike and the 1970 Salad Bowl strike. In 1975, the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975 was enacted,"Governor Signs Historic Farm Labor Legislation." Los Angeles Times. June 5, 1975. establishing the right to collective bargaining for farmworkers in California, a first in U.S. history.Hurt, R. Douglas. American Agriculture: A Brief History. Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue University Press, 2002. {{ISBN|1-55753-281-8}} Individuals with prominent roles in farm worker organizing in this period include Cesar Chavez, Dolores Huerta, Larry Itliong, and Philip Vera Cruz.

Through 1995 there were 50,000 Mixtecs every year in California agriculture.{{cite journal |access-date=August 28, 2022 |year=1995 |title=Mixtec Farm Workers |journal=Migration Dialogue |volume=1 |number=4 |url=https://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/more.php?id=71}} They were about 70% of the 10,000 agricultural laborers in San Diego County, and had been spreading northwards to also work in Oxnard, Santa Maria and Madera County, and even into Oregon and Washington. They were usually not the only indigenous Mexican ethnic groups {{endash}} Zapotecs and Mayans were also usually working the same jobs.

In the 2000s and 2010s, Californians voted for propositions which established new protections for farm animals. 2008 California Proposition 2 and 2018 California Proposition 12 both established minimum requirements for farming egg-laying hens, breeding pigs, and calves raised for veal.

Few veal and pig factory farm operations exist in California, so these propositions mostly affect farmers who raise California's 15 million egg-laying hens.{{cite news |last=Hall |first=Carla |title=Egg-laying hens in California win another court battle |url=http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-egg-hens-california-court-20150204-story.html |date=February 4, 2015 |newspaper=Los Angeles Times |access-date=February 8, 2015}}

California nut crimes have involved the theft of millions of dollars of nuts (almonds, pistachios, cashews and pecans) in multiple incidents since 2013.{{Cite news |agency=Associated Press |date=April 14, 2016 |title=California cracking down as crime rings steal truckloads of nuts worth millions |language=en-GB |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/14/california-nut-thefts-agriculture-shipments-almonds |access-date=July 22, 2020 |issn=0261-3077}}{{Cite web |last=Daniels |first=Jeff |date=December 1, 2015 |title=Thieves are ravaging California's nut farms |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/01/thieves-are-ravaging-californias-nut-farms.html |access-date=July 22, 2020 |website=CNBC |language=en}}

Water theft for agriculture has been an issue in times of drought, with the State assessing fines up to $1.5 million.{{cite news |title=California drought: farmers hit with record $1.5M fine for allegedly stealing water |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/california-drought-farmers-hit-with-record-1-5m-fine-for-allegedly-stealing-water-1.3161349 |access-date=July 22, 2020 |agency=Associated Press |publisher=CBC |date=July 21, 2015}}{{cite news |last1=Weiser |first1=Matt |title=California drought puts spotlight on water theft |url=https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article2593633.html |access-date=July 22, 2020 |work=Sacramento Bee |date=October 8, 2014}}

Despite its expansive geography, some pests are so severe, so polyphagous, and/or so wide-ranging as to be economically significant to the entire state.

In 2022, 181 million pounds of pesticide were applied in California, treating 92 million cumulative acres. The most used pesticides include sulfur, mineral oils, glyphosate, 1,3-dichloropropene, Lambda-cyhalothrin, Chloropicrin, and Abamectin.{{cite news |title=2022 CALIFORNIA PESTICIDE USE REPORT HIGHLIGHTS |url=https://live-cdpr-ca.pantheonsite.io/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/pur_highlights_2022.pdf |access-date=3 March 2025 |publisher=California Department of Pesticide Regulation |date=July 2024}}

File:Amyelois transitella larva head.jpg

The {{visible anchor|Navel orangeworm|Amyelois transitella|text=Navel orangeworm}} (Amyelois transitella) first entered from Arizona in 1942 and quickly began attacking walnut, date palm, and fig – despite its common name it is only a minor pest of citrus.{{cite journal |last1=Wilson |first1=Houston |last2=Burks |first2=Charles S. |last3=Reger |first3=Joshua E. |last4=Wenger |first4=Jacob A. |editor-last=Tindall |editor-first=Kelly |title=Biology and Management of Navel Orangeworm (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in California |journal=Journal of Integrated Pest Management |volume=11 |issue=1 |date=January 1, 2020 |doi=10.1093/jipm/pmaa025 |pages=1–15|doi-access=free }} In the decades since it has become a notorious pest of almond, pistachio,{{cite book |last1=Gross |first1=Aaron |last2=Coats |first2=Joel R. |last3=Duke |first3=Stephen O. |last4=Seiber |first4=James N. |publisher=Division of Agrochemicals American Chemical Society |title=Biopesticides: State of the Art and Future Opportunities |publication-place=Washington, DC USA |date=2014 |isbn=978-0-8412-2998-3 |oclc=894525618 |id={{isbn |978-0-8412-2999-0}} |pmid= |doi=10.1021/bk-2014-1172 |url=https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/bk-2014-1172}} and pomegranate and remains problematic for walnut and fig{{cite journal |last1=Burks |first1=Charles S. |last2=Brandl |first2=David G. |title=Seasonal abundance of the navel orangeworm, Amyelois transitella, in figs and the effect of peripheral aerosol dispensers on sexual communication |journal=Journal of Insect Science |volume=4 |issue=1 |year=2004 |doi=10.1093/jis/4.1.40 |pages=1–8 |pmid=15861255 |pmc=1081560}} as well. First flight of NOW begins around April 17 and ends around May 29, and third flight is about August 8 to September 12. Second flight is not as much of a concern.

File:(0998) Epiphyas postvittana (36538746973).jpg

The {{visible anchor|Light Brown Apple Moth|Light brown apple moth|Epiphyas postvittana|text=light brown apple moth}} (Epiphyas postvittana, often abbreviated to LBAM) is a leafroller moth belonging to the lepidopteran family Tortricidae. Despite its common name it is a pest of a wide range of crops, not just apples,.{{cite journal |year=2022 |first4=Nan |first3=Frank |first2=Daniel |first1=James |last4=Wishner |last3=Zalom |last2=Harder |last1=Carey |title=Failure by Design: Lessons from the recently rescinded light brown apple moth (Epiphyas postvittana) eradication program in California |journal=Pest Management Science |volume=79 |issue=3 |pages=915–921 |doi=10.1002/ps.7246 |pmid=36268596 |pmc=10100390 |s2cid=253044874}} The moth was confirmed to be present in California in 2007, and spraying programs in 2007–2008 lead to the Light brown apple moth controversy.{{cite journal |last1=Suckling |first1=D.M. |last2=Brockerhoff |first2=E.G. |title=Invasion Biology, Ecology, and Management of the Light Brown Apple Moth (Tortricidae) |journal=Annual Review of Entomology |volume=55 |issue=1 |year=2010 |doi=10.1146/annurev-ento-112408-085311 |pages=285–306 |s2cid=36541192 |pmid=19728834}}{{cite journal |last1=Walker |first1=James T.S. |last2=Suckling |first2=David Maxwell |last3=Wearing |first3=C. Howard |title=Past, Present, and Future of Integrated Control of Apple Pests: The New Zealand Experience |journal=Annual Review of Entomology |volume=62 |issue=1 |date=January 31, 2017 |doi=10.1146/annurev-ento-031616-035626 |pages=231–248 |pmid=28141966}}{{rp|page=233}} Tavener et al., 2011 finds novaluron works well but only when carried by horticultural mineral oil.{{cite book |editor-last=Dhadialla |editor-first=Tarlochan |title=Insect growth disruptors |publisher=Academic Press |publication-place=Amsterdam |year=2012 |isbn=978-0-12-391500-9 |oclc=820839000 |language=en |pages=x+531 |series=Advances in Insect Physiology |number=43}} {{ISBN|978-0-12-394412-2}}.{{rp|page=56}}{{cite journal |last1=Taverner |first1=Peter D. |last2=Sutton |first2=Clay |last3=Cunningham |first3=Nancy M. |last4=Dyson |first4=Chris |last5=Lucas |first5=Nola |last6=Myers |first6=Scott W. |title=Efficacy of Several Insecticides Alone and With Horticultural Mineral Oils on Light Brown Apple Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Eggs |journal=Journal of Economic Entomology |volume=104 |issue=1 |date=February 1, 2011 |doi=10.1603/ec10248 |pages=220–224 |pmid=21404861 |s2cid=42313979}} Hosts include strawberry.{{Cite web |access-date=2023-03-06 |title=Agriculture |website=UC Statewide IPM Program |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/leafrollers/}}

File:Citrus psyllid, u, larvae, side2, ft detrick 2014-05-01-10.23.30 ZS PMax (15234646230).jpg

{{visible anchor|Asian Citrus Psyllid|Asian citrus psyllid|Diaphorina citri|text=Asian citrus psyllids}} (Diaphorina citri) are a major invasive threat to citrus.

File:DEPUTY AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER CONRAD SCHILLING AND PILOT JOHN GILBERT PREPARE FOR FLIGHT OVER - NARA - 542576.jpg into a field, Fresno County]]

Sellers et al., 2018 finds {{visible anchor|Rodents|text=rodents}} and {{visible anchor|Lagomorph|Rabbit|Hare|Jackrabbit|text=lagomorphs}} (jackrabbits, hares, other rabbits) do not seem to be a pest of walnut orchards here.{{cite journal |last1=Montgomery |first1=Ian |last2=Caruso |first2=Tancredi |last3=Reid |first3=Neil |title=Hedgerows as Ecosystems: Service Delivery, Management, and Restoration |journal=Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics |volume=51 |issue=1 |date=November 2, 2020 |doi=10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-012120-100346 |pages=81–102 |s2cid=218843016}} On the other hand, jackrabbits, cottontails, and brush rabbits certainly are a problem for pistachios.{{cite web |url=http://www.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/pistachio/Rabbits/ |website=UC Integrated Pest Management |publisher=UC Agriculture and Natural Resources |date=July 2016 |title=Rabbits / Pistachio / Agriculture: Pest Management Guidelines / UC Statewide IPM Program}} The lagomorph biocontrol myxoma virus is indigenous here (that is, it is epidemiologically endemic) in native lagomorphs. This was first disclosed in Marshall & Regnery 1960 a&b. M & R found it in the tapeti (Sylvilagus brasiliensis) and the brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani).{{cite journal |year=2015 |issue=2 |journal=Immunogenetics |first3=Ana |first1=Ana |volume=68 |last1=Pinheiro |last2=Neves |first2=Fabiana |last3=Lemos de Matos |last4=Abrantes |first4=Joana |last5=van der Loo |first5=Wessel |last6=Mage |first6=Rose |last7=Esteves |first7=Pedro José |title=An overview of the lagomorph immune system and its genetic diversity |doi=10.1007/s00251-015-0868-8 |pages=83–107 |pmid=26399242 |s2cid=18131774|doi-access=free }}

File:Bactrocera oleae g5.jpg olive]]

File:Bactrocera oleae g2.jpg

File:Fly December 2007-11.jpg

Olives throughout the state suffer from the introduced {{visible anchor|Olive Fruit Fly|Bactrocera oleae}} (Bactrocera oleae) here. First detected outside its traditional Old World co-occurrence with the host tree in Los Angeles County in November 1998, it has since spread throughout California and into Baja and Sonora.{{cite book |year=2021 |edition=1 |publisher=CRC Press |pages=1028 |first3=Marc |first2=Rui |first1=Jorge |last3=Vreysen |last2=Pereira |last1=Hendrichs |title=Area-wide Integrated Pest Management |isbn=9781003169239 |id={{isbn |9781000393460}}}}{{rp|168}} OFF is native to the Mediterranean basin and appears in some of the earliest written documents of human history, and is now found throughout much of the world.

Particular strains of OFF are associated with particular varieties here. Burrack & Zalom 2008 find females have strong oviposition preferences for particular varieties and their offspring show better life history performance on those preferred varieties. The introduction here has spurred much parasitoid research, hoping to control them with biological controls. Daane et al., 2008, Sime et al., 2006, Sime et al., 2007, Yokohama et al., 2006, and Yokohama et al., 2008 all were undertaken to serve this state's need for parasitoids. Yokohama et al., 2008 achieves 60% control in cage trials using a Psyttalia cf. concolor. Daane et al., 2008 finds P. lounsburyi is especially specific to OFF over other possible hosts, and its selectivity makes it an attractive option. Daane et al. 2009 discloses an undescribed Pteromalus sp. nr. myopitae first found here. Overall there is much concern about offtarget impacts if these were to be released.{{cite journal |year=2010 |last2=Johnson |first1=Kent |first2=Marshall |last1=Daane |doi=10.1146/annurev.ento.54.110807.090553 |journal=Annual Review of Entomology |title=Olive Fruit Fly: Managing an Ancient Pest in Modern Times |volume=55 |pages=151–169 |pmid=19961328}}

File:Nasonovia ribisnigri.jpg]]

{{visible anchor|Aphids|text=Aphid}} are common crop pests here. {{visible anchor|Nasonovia ribisnigri|text=Nasonovia ribisnigri}} is one of the most common, especially for lettuce.

File:Corvus brachyrhynchos -Slates Hot Springs, California, USA-8.jpg]]

{{visible anchor|Birds in fruits|text=Birds are often pests in fruit cultivation}} here, especially in cherries.{{cite web |url=http://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/cherry/Birds/ |title=Birds / Cherry / Agriculture: Pest Management Guidelines |website=UC Statewide IPM Program |date=July 2017 |last=Baldwin |first=Roger A.}}{{cite web |title=Birds on Tree Fruits and Vines Management Guidelines |website=UC Statewide IPM Program |date=September 2010 |url=http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn74152.html |access-date=June 21, 2022}} In cherry orchards the most common are crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), crowned sparrows: (Zonotrichia spp.), European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus), house sparrows (Passer domesticus), scrub-jays (Aphelocoma californica), and {{visible anchor|Yellow-Billed Magpie|Pica nuttalli|text=Yellow-billed magpies}} (Pica nuttalli), but also in apple, blueberry, and grape, and the American Robin is a problem for some of these.

File:Glassy-winged Sharpshooter - Homalodisca vitripennis, Ocmulgee boat ramp, Juliette, Georgia - 7835576204.jpg

The {{visible anchor|Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter|Glassy-winged sharpshooter|GWSS|Homalodisca coagulata|Homalodisca vitripennis}} (GWSS, Homalodisca vitripennis, syn. H. coagulata) is a vector of Pierce's Disease and other Xylella fastidiosa diseases here.{{cite web |access-date=July 13, 2022 |date=May 20, 2005 |publisher=UC Agriculture |website=UC Integrated Pest Management |url=https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7492.html |title=Glassy-winged Sharpshooter Management Guidelines}}{{cite journal |title=The Biology of Xylem Fluid-Feeding Insect Vectors of Xylella fastidiosa and Their Relation to Disease Epidemiology |date=2004 |doi=10.1146/annurev.ento.49.061802.123403 |pages=243–70 |volume=49 |first1=Richard A. |last1=Redak |first2=Alexander H. |last2=Purcell |first3=João R.S. |last3=Lopes |first4=Matthew J. |last4=Blua |first5=Russell F. |last5=Mizell III |first6=Peter C. |last6=Andersen |journal=Annual Review of Entomology |pmid=14651464}}{{cite web |access-date=July 13, 2022 |title=PDCP - Glassy-winged Sharpshooter |website=California Department of Food and Agriculture |url=https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/pdcp/Glassy-winged_Sharpshooter.html}}{{cite web |access-date=July 14, 2022 |date=April 4, 2020 |publisher=University of California Riverside |website=Center for Invasive Species Research |first=Mark S. |last=Hoddle |title=Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter |url=https://cisr.ucr.edu/invasive-species/glassy-winged-sharpshooter}} Probably present since the late 1980s, the GWSS was only confirmed here in 1994. GWSS was not obviously a threat until August 1999 when it vectored PD to over {{convert|300|acre}} of vineyard in Temecula, Riverside County, forcing its destruction. GWSS was first detected in Solano in November 2021, and although {{as of|July 2022|lc=yes}} absent from adjacent Napa is considered a high risk for introduction.{{cite web |access-date=July 13, 2022 |url=https://www.countyofnapa.org/1278/Glassy-winged-Sharpshooter |website=Napa County, CA |title=Glassy-winged Sharpshooter}} The staff of the {{visible anchor|Napa County Agriculture Commissioner}} does inspections of all material entering the county to prevent that from happening. GWSS is such a problem in Fresno that there are permanent quarantine, monitoring, and eradication activities there.{{cite web |access-date=September 9, 2022 |year=2011 |website=County of Fresno |url=https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/departments/agricultural-commissioner/glassy-winged-sharpshooter-dmi |title=Glassy Winged Sharpshooter |archive-date=September 9, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220909193739/https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/departments/agricultural-commissioner/glassy-winged-sharpshooter-dmi |url-status=dead }}

File:Blue-Green Sharpshooter - Flickr - treegrow.jpg

In 1997 the {{visible anchor|Blue-Green Sharpshooter|BGSS|Graphocephala atropunctata}} (BGSS, Graphocephala atropunctata, the primary PD vector) arrived here and the two have combined badly ever since.{{cite journal |last1=Tumber |first1=Kabir P. |last2=Alston |first2=Julian M. |last3=Fuller |first3=Kate B. |title=Pierce's disease costs California $104 million per year |journal=California Agriculture |volume=68 |issue=1 |year=2014 |doi=10.3733/ca.v068n01p20 |pages=20–29 |s2cid=86821506|doi-access=free }} Besides vectoring PD they are also themselves a sucking pest and Hewitt et al., 1949 found they will often additionally go through reproduction on the vines.

File:European Vine Moth.Lobesia botrana.Tortricidae - Flickr - gailhampshire.jpg

The {{visible anchor|European Grapevine Moth|EGVM|Lobesia botrana}} (Lobesia botrana, EGVM) was present from at least 2009 through 2014.

:*{{cite journal |last1=Gilligan |first1=Todd M. |last2=Epstein |first2=Marc E. |last3=Passoa |first3=Steven C. |last4=Powell |first4=Jerry A. |last5=Sage |first5=Obediah C. |last6=Brown |first6=John W. |title=Discovery of Lobesia botrana ([Denis & Schiffermüller]) in California: An Invasive Species New to North America (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) |journal=Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington |volume=113 |issue=1 |year=2011 |doi=10.4289/0013-8797.113.1.14 |pages=14–30 |s2cid=84709211}}

:*{{cite journal |last1=Schartel |first1=Tyler E |last2=Bayles |first2=Brett R |last3=Cooper |first3=Monica L |last4=Simmons |first4=Gregory S |last5=Thomas |first5=Shyam M |last6=Varela |first6=Lucia G |last7=Daugherty |first7=Matthew P |title=Reconstructing the European Grapevine Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), Invasion in California: Insights From a Successful Eradication |journal=Annals of the Entomological Society of America |volume=112 |issue=2 |date=January 4, 2019 |doi=10.1093/aesa/say056 |pages=107–117}}

:*{{cite web |title=European Grapevine Moth |website=USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service |url=http://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/resources/pests-diseases/hungry-pests/the-threat/hp-egvm |access-date=July 3, 2022}}

:*{{cite web |url=http://ipm.ucanr.edu/Invasive-and-Exotic-Pests/European-grapevine-moth/ |title=European Grapevine Moth |date=November 2009 |website=University of California Integrated Pest Management |first1=Frank G. |last1=Zalom |first2=Lucia G. |last2=Varela |first3=Monica |last3=Cooper}}

:*{{cite web |first1=Barrett |last1=Gruber |first2=Matt |last2=Daugherty |title=European Grapevine Moth |website=Center for Invasive Species Research |publisher=University of California Riverside |date=December 26, 2019 |url=http://cisr.ucr.edu/invasive-species/european-grapevine-moth |access-date=July 3, 2022}}

:*{{cite web |title=Plant Health - European Grapevine Moth Pest Profile |website=Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services Division, CDFA |date=January 10, 2017 |url=http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/pdep/target_pest_disease_profiles/EGVM_PestProfile.html |access-date=July 3, 2022}}

:*{{cite web |title=European Grapevine Moth (EGVM) |website=County of Sonoma |date=August 18, 2016 |url=http://sonomacounty.ca.gov/natural-resources/agricultural-weights-and-measures/programs-and-services/european-grapevine-moth |access-date=July 3, 2022}}

:*{{cite web |title=European Grapevine Moth |website=National Invasive Species Information Center |date=March 8, 2019 |url=http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/terrestrial/invertebrates/european-grapevine-moth |access-date=July 3, 2022}}

:*{{cite web |title=European Grapevine Moth Cooperative Eradication Program: A Model for Fighting Future Invasive Species Threats |website=United States Department of Agriculture |date=November 2, 2016 |url=http://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2016/11/02/european-grapevine-moth-cooperative-eradication-program-model-fighting-future |access-date=July 3, 2022}}

:*{{cite web |title=European Grapevine Moth |website=Napa County, CA |date=August 18, 2016 |url=http://www.countyofnapa.org/1274/European-Grapevine-Moth |access-date=July 3, 2022}}

:*{{cite magazine |title=An Invasive-Species Success Story: The Eradication of the European Grapevine Moth in California |magazine=Entomology Today |date=March 8, 2019 |url=http://entomologytoday.org/2019/03/08/invasive-species-success-story-eradication-european-grapevine-moth-california/ |publisher=Entomological Society of America |access-date=July 3, 2022}}

A {{convert|10|acre}} block in Napa suffered a 100% crop loss in 2009 due to a burrowing worm. This was confirmed to be the EGVM by Gilligan et al., on September 30, 2009 (published in 2011). (It is native to southern Italy and may have arrived elsewhere in the state, possibly being detected as early as 2007 by Mastro et al., and published in 2010). Both USDA and CDFA impose quarantines if two moths are found within {{convert|3|mi}} of each other within one lifecycle span. At first the quarantine zone was {{convert|5|mi}} around the detection sites. In 2010, 40,000 traps revealed an expanded presence {{endash}} in Fresno, Mendocino, Merced, Monterey, Napa, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, and Sonoma. The first detection in Sonoma was around Kenwood on March 29, 2010, then a total of 59 across the County that year. In 2011 only nine were detected on two sites in Sonoma, and despite the quarantine the pest spread to Nevada County in 2011. The quarantine was lifted in Fresno, Mendocino, Merced, and San Joaquin in February 2012, only one insect was found in Sonoma for the year, the quarantine was lifted in Nevada, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz counties in December, and was greatly shrunk in Solano and Sonoma in the same month. No detections occurred in Sonoma in 2013. The quarantine was lifted in Solano in 2014 but one EGVM was found in Sonoma for the year and so the quarantine remained in Napa and Sonoma. The last detection being in June 2014 in Sonoma, all USDA and state quarantine and trapping activities ended with the declaration in August 2016 of a successful eradication.

File:Prionoxystus robiniae larva.jpg

{{visible anchor|Carpenter Worm|Carpenter worm|Prionoxystus robiniae}} (Prionoxystus robiniae),{{cite web |title=Fig Insect, Mite & Nematode Pests |website=UC Davis Fruit & Nut Research & Information Center |url=http://fruitandnuteducation.ucanr.edu/fruitnutproduction/Fig/Fig_Pest_Deficiencies/Fig_Insect_Mite_Nematode_Pests/ |access-date=June 29, 2022 |date=2022}} {{visible anchor|Darkling ground beetle|Blapstinus fuliginosus|Blapstinus}} (Blapstinus fuliginosus), {{visible anchor|Dried fruit beetle}} (Carpophilus hemipterus), {{visible anchor|Freeman sap beetle}} (Carpophilus freemani), {{visible anchor|Confused sap beetle}} (Carpophilus mutilatus), {{visible anchor|Fig beetle}} (Cotinis texana syn. C.{{nbsp}}mutabilis),{{cite web |url=http://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/fig/Fig-Beetle/ |title=Fig Beetle / Fig / Agriculture |website=UC Integrated Pest Management |publisher=UC Agriculture |date=July 2006 |id=UC ANR Publication 3447}}

{{visible anchor|Fig mite}} (Aceria fici), {{visible anchor|Fig scale}} (Lepiosaphes conchiformis), and Navel orangeworm are among the most important pests of fig here.

File:Jblarva.jpg

{{visible anchor|Japanese Beetle|Popillia japonica}} (Popillia japonica) has been repeatedly found here and repeatedly eradicated.{{cite web |url=http://ipm.ucanr.edu/Invasive-and-Exotic-Pests/Japanese-Beetle/ |website=UC Integrated Pest Management |publisher=UC Agriculture |title=Japanese Beetle Repeatedly Eradicated from California}} Monitoring and eradication continue especially because of the wide host range of the grubs but also due to the grubs' and adults' destructiveness.

The {{visible anchor|Plum Bud Gall Mite|Acalitus phloeocoptes}} (Acalitus phloeocoptes (Nalepa)) was first confirmed here in Santa Clara County in February 2019,{{cite web |first1=Lucy |last2=Grothe |first3=Aparna |last1=Diekmann |first2=Krysla |last3=Gazula |url=https://ucanr.edu/sites/sccNew/files/317760.pdf |title=Plum Bud Gall Mite |publisher=University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources}} but may have been found in northern Marin in early 2014. Certainly since 2019 it has become widespread in the Bay Area, {{as of|2021|lc=yes}} reaching Contra Costa, Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, and north into Western Oregon. So far PBGM is known to be a problem on plum and pluot and not on other stonefruits, especially not almond.

File:Silverleaf whitefly.jpg

The {{visible anchor|Silverleaf Whitefly|SLW|Bemisia tabaci strain B}} (SLW, Bemisia tabaci strain B) was first noticed here in the fall of 1991. First appearing in the valleys of the state's deserts, it has caused about $500 million in agricultural losses here through 2019. Further economic effects include $774 million in lost sales, $112.5 million in lost personal income, and the loss of 12,540 jobs. SLW is intractable in the southern deserts, especially in Imperial, Palo Verde, Coachella, and the southern part of San Joaquin vallies. In the SJV this is worst on {{slink||Cotton}}.{{cite web |access-date=July 9, 2022 |year=2019 |publisher=University of California, Riverside |first3=Mark |first1=Timothy |first2=Thomas |website=Center for Invasive Species Research |last1=Paine |last2=Bellows |last3=Hoddle |url=https://cisr.ucr.edu/invasive-species/silverleaf-whitefly |title=Silverleaf Whitefly}} Himler et al., 2011 find the Rickettsia sp. nr. bellii symbiont rapidly invaded the population of California, Arizona and New Mexico.

• {{cite journal |issue=1 |date=2015 |volume=60 |last=Douglas |first=Angela |pages=17–34 |journal=Annual Review of Entomology |doi=10.1146/annurev-ento-010814-020822 |title=Multiorganismal Insects: Diversity and Function of Resident Microorganisms |pmid=25341109 |pmc=4465791}}

This review cites this research.

• {{cite journal |date=2011 |last1=Himler |first1=Anna |last2=Adachi-Hagimori |first2=Tetsuya |last3=Bergen |first3=Jacqueline |last4=Kozuch |first4=Amaranta |last5=Kelly |first5=Suzanne |last6=Tabashnik |first6=Bruce |last7=Chiel |first7=Elad |last8=Duckworth |first8=Victoria |last9=Dennehy |first9=Timothy |last10=Zchori-Fein |first10=Einat |last11=Hunter |first11=Martha |title=Rapid Spread of a Bacterial Symbiont in an Invasive Whitefly Is Driven by Fitness Benefits and Female Bias |journal=Science |volume=332 |issue=6026 |doi=10.1126/science.1199410 |pages=254–256 |pmid=21474763 |bibcode=2011Sci...332..254H |s2cid=31371994 |author-link6=Bruce Tabashnik}}

Aleyrodes spiraeoides is a native whitefly. Hosts include strawberry.

Trialeurodes vaporariorum has recently invaded the Central Coast and Southern areas. Hosts include strawberry.

Trialeurodes packardi is a pest of strawberry whiteflies but less commonly than A. spiraeoides.{{Cite web |access-date=2023-02-25 |title=Agriculture |website=UC Statewide IPM Program |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/whiteflies/}}

File:Bagrada hilaris.jpg, central Los Angeles]]

A {{visible anchor|Painted Bug|Bagrada hilaris}}, Bagrada hilaris was first detected here in 2008 in San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, 2009 in Ventura, Riverside, and Imperial counties; 2010 in Kern, San Bernardino; no new discoveries here in 2011; 2012 in Santa Barbara & San Luis Obispo; 2013 in Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Benito, Fresno, Tulare, San Francisco; 2014 in Inyo, Kings, Merced, Stanislaus, Santa Clara, Alameda, San Mateo, and Yolo. From here it has become an invasive pest of Brassicas throughout the southwest US, neighboring Coahuila, and the Big Island of Hawaii. The most valuable crop threatened is {{section link||Broccoli}}. Much of the research on this pest in this part of the world has been performed by the Palumbo group at the University of Arizona.{{cite journal |title=Biology, Ecology, and Management of an Invasive Stink Bug, Bagrada hilaris, in North America |first1=John C. |last1=Palumbo |first2=Thomas M. |last2=Perring |first3=Jocelyn G. |last3=Millar |first4=Darcy A. |last4=Reed |journal=Annual Review of Entomology |date=2016 |volume=61 |pages=453–73 |doi=10.1146/annurev-ento-010715-023843 |pmid=26735645}}

File:Lygus5.jpg

{{visible anchor|Lygus bug}}s are common pests here including the {{visible anchor|Western Tarnished Plant Bug|Lygus hesperus}} (WTPB, Lygus hesperus).{{cite web |access-date=June 27, 2022 |date=July 2018 |publisher=UC Agriculture |website=UC Integrated Pest Management |url=https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/lygus-bug/ |first1=F.G. |last1=Zalom |first2=M.P. |last2=Bolda |first3=S.K. |last3=Dara |title=Lygus Bugs (Western Tarnished Plant Bug) Agriculture: Strawberry Pest Management Guidelines}} A vacuum collector is often used for WTPB in strawberry, called the BugVac.{{cite web |access-date=June 27, 2022 |title=Single-Barrel Bug Vacuum |website=CalPoly Strawberry Center |url=https://strawberry.calpoly.edu/single-barrel-bug-vacuum}}

File:D suzukii female1.jpg

The {{visible anchor|Spotted Wing Drosophila|Drosophila suzukii}} (Drosophila suzukii) is a major insect pest of soft body fruits here,{{cite web |access-date=July 16, 2022 |date=May 20, 2005 |title=UC IPM Annual Report 2010, Spotted wing drosophila targets soft-flesh fruits |website=UC IPM |url=http://ipm.ucanr.edu/IPMPROJECT/2010/drosophila-fruits.html}} especially grape, strawberry,{{cite web |access-date=July 16, 2022 |date=July 2018 |website=UC Agriculture - UC Integrated Pest Management |url=https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/spotted-wing-drosophila/ |first1=F.G. |last1=Zalom |first2=M.P. |last2=Bolda |first3=S.K. |last3=Dara |first4=S.V. |last4=Joseph |title=Spotted-Wing Drosophila Drosophila suzukii Agriculture: Strawberry Pest Management Guidelines}} tomato, cherry,{{cite web |access-date=July 16, 2022 |date=January 2014 |website=UC Agriculture - UC Integrated Pest Management |url=https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/cherry/spotted-wing-drosophila/ |first1=J.A. |last1=Grant |first2=J.L. |last2=Caprile |first3=W.W. |last3=Coates |first4=R.A. |last4=Van Steenwyk |first5=K.M. |last5=Daane |first6=J. |last6=Colyn |first7=M. |last7=Devencenzi |first8=P. |last8=McKenzie |title=Spotted-Wing Drosophila Drosophila suzukii Agriculture: Cherry Pest Management Guidelines}} raspberry and other caneberries,{{cite web |access-date=July 16, 2022 |date=June 2015 |website=UC Agriculture - UC Integrated Pest Management |url=https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/ |first1=M.P. |last1=Bolda |first2=L.J. |last2=Bettiga |title=Spotted-Wing Drosophila Drosophila suzukii Agriculture: Caneberries Pest Management Guidelines}} peach and nectarine, fig,{{cite conference |date=April 5, 2012 |first=Janet |last=Caprile |title=Spotted Wing Drosophila: A New Pest of Cherries and ... |publisher=UC Cooperative Extension Contra Costa County}} and blueberry.{{cite web |access-date=July 16, 2022 |date=December 2018 |website=UC Agriculture - UC Integrated Pest Management |url=https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/ |first1=D.R. |last1=Haviland |title=Spotted-Wing Drosophila Drosophila suzukii Agriculture: Blueberry Pest Management Guidelines}} {{visible anchor|Ganaspis brasiliensis|text=Ganaspis brasiliensis}} is a parasitoid which has been successful as a biocontrol here.{{cite web |access-date=July 16, 2022 |date=July 15, 2022 |first=Sarah |last=Zukoff |website=Cal Poly Strawberry Center BLOG |title=SWD parasitoid releases! |url=https://strawberrycenterblog.com/2022/07/15/swd-parasitoid-releases/}}

File:Drosophila simulans-female.jpg

Other {{visible anchor|Drosophila}} species include {{visible anchor|Drosophila melanogaster|text=D. melanogaster}} and {{visible anchor|Drosophila simulans|text=D. simulans}} which vector sour rot and bunch rot pathogens between grape bunches. Hosts include grape{{cite web |access-date=July 16, 2022 |date=July 2015 |title=Drosophila Flies Drosophila Flies: Drosophila melanogaster, Drosophila simulans |website=UC Agriculture - UC Integrated Pest Management |url=https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/ |first1=L.G. |last1=Varela |first2=D.R. |last2=Haviland |first3=W.J. |last3=Bentley |first4=L.J. |last4=Bettiga |first5=K.M. |last5=Daane |first6=R.J. |last6=Smith |first7=L.R. |last7=Wunderlich |first8=F.G. |last8=Zalom}} and strawberry.{{Cite web |access-date=2023-02-27 |title=Agriculture |website=UC Statewide IPM Program |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/vinegar-fly/}}

Turelli et al., 1991 uses a genetically modified Wolbachia to suppress D. simulans to suppress its vectored diseases here. (This has become a widely known example of Wolbachia use, and has informed European decision making on vector control.)

{{cite journal |year=2020 |volume=18 |issue=11 |page=6297 |author1=EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms |first2=Hanspeter |last2=Naegeli |first3=Jean-Louis |last3=Bresson |first4=Tamas |last4=Dalmay |first5=Ian C. |last5=Dewhurst |first6=Michelle M. |last6=Epstein |first7=Philippe |last7=Guerche |first8=Jan |last8=Hejatko |first9=Francisco J. |last9=Moreno |first10=Ewen |last10=Mullins |first11=Fabien |last11=Nogue |first12=Nils |last12=Rostoks |first13=Jose J. |last13=Sánchez Serrano |first14=Giovanni |last14=Savoini |first15=Eve |last15=Veromann |first16=Fabio |last16=Veronesi |first17=Michael B. |last17=Bonsall |first18=John |last18=Mumford |first19=Ernst A. |last19=Wimmer |first20=Yann |last20=Devos |first21=Konstantinos |last21=Paraskevopoulos |first22=Leslie G. |last22=Firbank |s2cid=226976344 |doi=10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6297 |title=Adequacy and sufficiency evaluation of existing EFSA guidelines for the molecular characterisation, environmental risk assessment and post-market environmental monitoring of genetically modified insects containing engineered gene drives |journal=EFSA Journal |pmid=33209154 |pmc=7658669}}

File:Caterpillar of Estigmene acrea. Saltmarsh or Acrea Moth (37647451090).jpg

The {{visible anchor|Salt Marsh Caterpillar|Estigmene acrea}} (Estigmene acrea) is very common here, but usually causes no damage because they are a native pest with many natural enemies acting as biocontrols.{{cite web |access-date=July 20, 2022 |date=July 19, 2022 |title=Salt marsh caterpillar damage in strawberries |website=Cal Poly Strawberry Center BLOG |url=https://strawberrycenterblog.com/2022/07/19/salt-marsh-caterpillar-damage-in-strawberries/}}{{cite web |access-date=July 20, 2022 |date=July 2018 |website=UC Agriculture, UC Integrated Pest Management |url=https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/Saltmarsh-caterpillar/ |first1=F. G. |last1=Zalom |first2=M. P. |last2=Bolda |first3=S. K. |last3=Dara |first4=S. V. |last4=Joseph |title=Saltmarsh Caterpillar Estigmene acrea Agriculture: Strawberry Pest Management Guidelines}} SMC can be significant in strawberry.

File:Bactrocera zonata (06410603) (6922932505).jpg

The {{visible anchor|Peach Fruit Fly|Bactrocera zonata}} (Bactrocera zonata Saunders) has been repeatedly introduced and quickly eradicated here, in 1984{{cite web |date=May 2000 |first=Patrick |last=Gomes |pages=iv+50 |publisher=International Atomic Energy Agency & Food and Agriculture Organization |url=https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/21/06/nafa-ipc-manual-ipc-zonata-action-plan.pdf |title=Action Plan Peach Fruit Fly Bactrocera zonata (Saunders)}} and in 2006.{{cite web |url=https://download.ceris.purdue.edu/file/3137 |title=Bactrocera zonata |website=Purdue University}} Then on September 29 and/or 30, 2020, three PFF were found in Chowchilla, Madera County. This presents a tremendous hazard not only to the area but to the state, and indeed the entire country. Because the pest may spread from here to other countries, trading partners including the European Union and New Zealand are also concerned. They are considering restricting importation of fruits and vegetables from the state. As a result, the Secretary of CDFA, Karen Ross has declared a biosecurity emergency and eradication efforts using methyl eugenol lures are underway. Especially an immediate concern are California's $2.10b citrus-, $875m stonefruit-, and $1.19b tomato industries.

• {{cite web |date=April 23, 2020 |author=New Zealand Government |author-link=New Zealand Government |title=MPI Emerging Risks System for Biosecurity 21th Stakeholder Report 5 September 2020 – 19 March 2021 |url=https://kvh.org.nz/vdb/document/104784}}
• {{cite journal |issue=1 |volume=18 |date=January 29, 2021 |last1=Mertens |first1=Jan |last2=Schenk |first2=Martijn |last3=Delbianco |first3=Alice |last4=Graziosi |first4=Ignazio |last5=Vos |first5=Sybren |title=Pest survey card on Bactrocera zonata |journal=EFSA Supporting Publications |doi=10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-1999 |s2cid=234284179|doi-access=free }}
• {{cite web |title=Finding of Emergency |id=KR, Secretary of CDFA |publisher=California Department of Food and Agriculture |first=Karen |last=Ross |author-link=Karen Ross |url=https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/docs/3591-12_Finding-of-Emergency-PFF-E6-checked.pdf}}
• {{cite web |title=Official Notice for the City of Chowchilla Please Read Immediately |date=October 2, 2020 |id=KR, Secretary of CDFA |publisher=California Department of Food and Agriculture |url=https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/PDEP/treatment/notices/2020/MaderaCounty/PFF-NOT-ChowchillaMaderaCounty2020Oct2.pdf |first=Karen |last=Ross |author-link=Karen Ross}}
• {{cite web |access-date=July 20, 2022 |date=July 15, 2021 |author=California Department of Food and Agriculture |url=https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/regs_PeachFruitFly.html |title=Plant Health - Peach Fruit Fly}}

{{cite web |access-date=July 20, 2022 |date=October 2, 2020 |website=The Business Journal |url=https://thebusinessjournal.com/ag-pest-found-for-first-time-in-madera-county/ |title=Ag pest found for first time in Madera County}}

File:Cotinis mutabilis-3.jpg

The {{visible anchor|Green Fruit Beetle|Figeater beetle|Cotinis mutabilis}} (Figeater Beetle, Cotinis mutabilis) is occasionally a pest of ripened fruit, including apricot, caneberry, fig, grape, peach, and plum. The larvae/grubs are harmless however.{{cite web |access-date=July 31, 2022 |date=May 20, 2005 |publisher=UC Agriculture |website=UC Integrated Pest Management |url=https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/GARDEN/FRUIT/PESTS/grfruitbeetle.html |title=Managing Pests in Gardens: Fruit: Invertebrates: Green fruit beetle}}

File:Spodoptera exigua?.jpg

For {{visible anchor|Beet Armyworm|BAW|Spodoptera exigua}}s (BAW, Spodoptera exigua) in strawberry{{cite web |access-date=August 7, 2022 |date=July 2018 |first4=S. V. |first3=S. K. |first2=M. P. |first1=F. G. |last4=Joseph |title=Beet Armyworm |website=UC Agriculture - UC Integrated Pest Management |last1=Zalom |last2=Bolda |last3=Dara |url=https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/Beet-armyworm/}} and lettuce{{cite web |access-date=August 8, 2022 |date=April 2017 |first4=N. C. |first3=S. K. |first2=S. V. |first1=E. T. |last2=Joseph |title=Beet Armyworm |website=UC Agriculture - UC Integrated Pest Management |last1=Natwick |last3=Dara |last4=Toscano |url=https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/Beet-armyworm/}} S. exigua populations here have long standing carbamate resistance.{{Cite journal |issue=2 |year=2021 |volume=29 |last1=Hafeez |first1=Muhammad |last2=Ullah |first2=Farman |last3=Khan |first3=Musa |last4=Li |first4=Xiaowei |last5=Zhang |first5=Zhijun |last6=Shah |first6=Sakhawat |last7=Imran |first7=Muhammad |last8=Assiri |first8=Mohammed |last9=Fernandez |first9=G. Mandela |last10=Desneux |first10=Nicolas |last11=Rehman |first11=Muzammal |last12=Fahad |first12=Shah |last13=Lu |first13=Yaobin |title=Metabolic-based insecticide resistance mechanism and ecofriendly approaches for controlling of beet armyworm Spodoptera exigua: a review |journal=Environmental Science and Pollution Research |doi=10.1007/s11356-021-16974-w |pages=1746–1762 |pmid=34709552 |s2cid=240006285}}

File:Coptotermes formosanus shiraki USGov k8204-7.jpg

First identified here in 1992 in La Mesa, San Diego County by Haagsma et al.,{{cite web |access-date=August 12, 2022 |date=May 20, 2005 |title=Subterranean and Other Termites Management Guidelines |url=http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7415.html |website=UC IPM}} the {{visible anchor|Formosan Termite|Coptotermes formosanus}} (Coptotermes formosanus) has been here since at least 10 years prior. As with every other infestation anywhere in the world, it has never been eradicated, and is still present at the original La Mesa site.

• {{cite book |pages=xii+431 |year=1999 |publisher=Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht |publication-place=Dordrecht |editor-first1=Odd Terje |editor-last1=Sandlund |editor-first2=Peter Johan |editor-last2=Schei |editor-first3=Åslaug |editor-last3=Viken |title=Invasive Species and Biodiversity Management |isbn=978-0-7923-6876-2 |id={{isbn |9789401145244}}. {{isbn |978-0-412-84080-7}} |doi=10.1007/978-94-011-4523-7|doi-broken-date=November 1, 2024 }}
• {{cite journal |year=1995 |issue=1 |volume=49 |pages=30–33 |first1=Karl |first5=David |journal=California Agriculture |first3=Donald A. |first2=Michael K. |last1=Haagsma |last2=Rust |last3=Reierson |last4=Atkinson |first4=Thomas H. |last5=Kellum |title=Formosan subterranean termite established in California |doi=10.3733/ca.v049n01p30|doi-access=free }}

In the time since there have been new infestations {{endash}} mostly suspected to be independent introductions {{endash}} in Canyon Lake, Riverside County in 2020, Rancho Santa Fe, San Diego County in 2021, Highland Park, Los Angeles County in 2021.{{cite web |access-date=August 12, 2022 |date=December 16, 2021 |title=Formosan termites in California – Urban IPM SoCal |website=Urban IPM SoCal – Integrated Pest Management for Structural Pests in Southern California |url=https://urbanipmsocal.com/ipm/termites/formosan-termites-in-california/ |first=Siavash |last=Taravati}}{{cite journal |date=2021 |issue=3 |last7=Lee |first2=Jason |last4=King |volume=114 |journal=Journal of Economic Entomology |last2=Boone |last1=Tseng |first1=Shu-Ping |last3=Boone |first3=Lowell |first4=Natalee |last5=Taravati |first5=Siavash |last6=Choe |first6=Dong-Hwan |first7=Chow-Yang |title=Genetic Analysis of Formosan Subterranean Termite (Blattodea: Rhinotermitidae) Populations in California |doi=10.1093/jee/toab077 |pages=1264–1269 |pmid=33885810}} The Formosan Termite is a pest of sugarcane, and citrus, but it is most often a structural pest.{{cite web |date=November 21, 2019 |access-date=August 12, 2022 |website=Invasive Species Compendium |title=Coptotermes formosanus (Formosan subterranean termite) |url=https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/15284 |publisher=CABI)}}

File:Diabrotica balteata.jpg

{{visible anchor|Cucumber Beetle|Diabrotica balteata|Acalymma vittatum|Diabrotica undecimpunctata}}s (Diabrotica balteata, Acalymma vittatum, D. undecimpunctata) are common pests here. UC IPM provides recommended practices for apricot,{{cite web |access-date=August 19, 2022 |date=October 2014 |publisher=UC Agriculture |website=UC Integrated Pest Management |title=Cucumber Beetles |url=https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/apricot/Cucumber-beetles/}}

File:Daktulosphaira vitifoliae. closeup.jpgs]]

{{visible anchor|Phylloxera of Grape|Daktulosphaira vitifoliae}} (Daktulosphaira vitifoliae) is a perennial aphid problem here.{{rp|pages=24{{endash}}25}} The industry suffered a wipeout in the 1980s due to overreliance on one, non-resistant rootstock.{{cite book |year=2020 |edition=3 |publication-place=London |publisher=Academic Press |last=Keller |first=Markus |title=The Science of Grapevines |isbn=978-0-12-816702-1 |oclc=1137850204 |pages=xii+541}}{{rp|pages=24{{endash}}25}} Islam et al., 2013 explains some of the genetic diversity of the population here by sexual reproduction, but their sampling leaves open other possibilities for the remainder. They also find two major subpopulations differentiated by rootstock association: AxR1 associated and those associated with all others.{{cite journal |year=2014 |author=Richard Baker |author2=Claude Bragard |author3=Thierry Candresse |author4=Gianni Gilioli |author5=Jean Grégoire |author6=Imre Holb |author7=Michael Jeger |author8=Olia Karadjova |author9=Christer Magnusson |author10=David Makowski |author11=Charles Manceau |author12=Maria Navajas |author13=Trond Rafoss |author14=Vittorio Rossi |author15=Jan Schans |author16=Gritta Schrader |author17=Gregor Urek |author18=Johan Lenteren |author19=Irene Vloutoglou |author20=Wopke Werf |author21=Stephan Winter |title=Scientific Opinion on the risk to plant health posed by Daktulosphaira vitifoliae (Fitch) in the EU territory, with the identification and evaluation of risk reduction options |s2cid=73335810 |doi=10.2903/J.EFSA.2014.3678 |journal=EFSA Journal |volume=12 |issue=5|doi-access=free |hdl=11379/492698 |hdl-access=free }} cites {{cite journal |year=2013 |journal=BMC Genetics |first5=Hong |first4=Jeffrey |first3=Michael |first2=Tamara |first1=Muhammad |last5=Lin |last4=Granett |last3=Walker |last2=Roush |last1=Islam |s2cid=13391284 |title=Reproductive mode and fine-scale population genetic structure of grape phylloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifoliae) in a viticultural area in California |volume=14 |page=123 |doi=10.1186/1471-2156-14-123 |pmid=24367928 |pmc=3890642 |doi-access=free }}

File:Rhynchophorus ferrugineus larva.JPG

The detection of the {{visible anchor|Red Palm Weevil|Rhynchophorus ferrugineus}} (Rhynchophorus ferrugineus) in 2010 was very concerning to this valuable industry. It most likely arrived with in live palms which are commonly sold internationally. The adults flew up to {{convert|900|m|ft yd|0}} in a day, and over 3 to 5 days that allowed dispersal up to {{convert|7|km|mi|1}}. A tremendous effort was made to trap and eradicate, UCR's Center for Invasive Species Research recommended mostly insecticides, and quick destruction of any palms found to be infested. Pheromone attractant traps were very effective. The {{visible anchor|California Fan Palm|Washingtonia filifera}} (Washingtonia filifera) and the {{visible anchor|European Fan Palm|Chamaerops humilis}} (Chamaerops humilis) seemed to be resistant.{{cite web |website=University of California, Riverside Center for Invasive Species Research |access-date=September 9, 2022 |date=January 23, 2020 |last1=Nisson |first1=Nick |first2=Donald |last2=Hodel |first3=Mark S. |last3=Hoddle |url=https://cisr.ucr.edu/invasive-species/red-palm-weevil |title=Red Palm Weevil}} The last sighting was on January 18, 2012. Three years later on January 20, 2015, USDA's APHIS declared the eradication successful. Its relative the South American palm weevil (R. palmarum) has killed increasing numbers of Canary Island date palms (Phoenix canariensis) and is expected to become a significant pest of dates in the future.{{cite journal |last1=Hoddle |first1=Mark S. |last2=Hoddle |first2=Christina D. |last3=Alzubaidy |first3=Mohammed |last4=Kabashima |first4=John |last5=Nisson |first5=J. Nicholas |last6=Millar |first6=Jocelyn |last7=Dimson |first7=Monica |title=The palm weevil Rhynchophorus vulneratusis eradicated from Laguna Beach |journal=California Agriculture |volume=71 |issue=1 |year=2016 |doi=10.3733/ca.2016a0012 |pages=23–29|doi-access=free }}

File:CulexTarsalis 4561.jpg]]

Several {{visible anchor|Culex|text=Culex}} mosquitoes are common here including {{visible anchor|Culex quinquefasciatus|text=C. quinquefasciatus}}, {{visible anchor|Culex stigmatosoma|text=C. stigmatosoma}}, and {{visible anchor|Culex tarsalis|text=C. tarsalis}}. Insecticides are often used in their control and as a result some species have undergone resistance evolution. Mouches et al., 1986 finds one population achieved this via gene amplification of an esterase.{{cite journal |year=2018 |issue=1 |journal=Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society |volume=94 |pages=135–155 |last1=Hawkins |first1=Nichola J. |last2=Bass |first2=Chris |last3=Dixon |first3=Andrea |last4=Neve |first4=Paul |title=The evolutionary origins of pesticide resistance |doi=10.1111/brv.12440 |pmc=6378405 |pmid=29971903}}

{{cite journal |year=1992 |first1=I. |last1=Denholm |first2=M. W. |last2=Rowland |volume=37 |pages=91–112 |journal=Annual Review of Entomology |doi=10.1146/ANNUREV.EN.37.010192.000515 |title=Tactics For Managing Pesticide Resistance In Arthropods: Theory And Practice |pmid=1539942 |s2cid=35601066}}

File:Therioaphis trifolii 21251242.jpg

The southern part of the state suffers from the {{visible anchor|Walnut Aphid|Spotted Alfalfa AphidTherioaphis trifolii}} (Spotted Alfalfa Aphid, Therioaphis trifolii). Stern & Reynolds 1958 finds that from the beginning of the 1950s to the end of the decade severe parathion resistance had rapidly developed there.

File:Flesh Fly Los Angeles 2015-08-06 5.jpg]]

The common {{visible anchor|House Fly|Musca domestica}} (Musca domestica) is economically significant in poultry production worldwide, including in California. From 1964 to 1969 Georghiou & Hawley 1972 finds rapid evolution of organophosphate resistance in a poultry facility in Moorpark.{{cite journal |year=1972 |issue=1 |volume=3 |pages=133–168 |journal=Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics |last=Georghiou |first=G. P. |title=The Evolution of Resistance to Pesticides |doi=10.1146/annurev.es.03.110172.001025|bibcode=1972AnRES...3..133G }} The most common permethrin kdr allele here is kdr-his, although kdr and super-kdr are also present. (This profile is also found in New Mexican, Floridian, North Carolinian, New York, and Montanan populations.){{cite journal |year=2019 |issue=1 |volume=64 |journal=Annual Review of Entomology |last=Scott |first=Jeffrey |pages=243–257 |doi=10.1146/annurev-ento-011118-112420 |title=Life and Death at the Voltage-Sensitive Sodium Channel: Evolution in Response to Insecticide Use |pmid=30629893 |s2cid=58667542}}

The {{visible anchor|Mexfly|Mexican fruit fly|Anastrepha ludens}} (Mexican fruit fly, Anastrepha ludens) has repeatedly invaded the southern part of the state.{{cite book |year=2021 |language=en |pages=xv+1200 |first1=Victor A. |last1=Dyck |first2=Jorge |last2=Hendrichs |first3=A. S. |last3=Robinson |publisher=CRC Press |isbn=978-1-000-37776-7 |id={{ISBN |978-0-367-47434-8}}. {{ISBN |978-1-003-03557-2}} |oclc=1227700317 |title=Sterile Insect Technique: Principles And Practice In Area-Wide Integrated Pest Management}}{{rp|page=16}} Sterile insect technique (SIT) has been used to great success to eradicate them every time, both here and in Texas.{{rp|page=16}}

The {{visible anchor|Medfly|Mediterranean fruit fly|Ceratitis capitata}} (Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata) has also been controlled with SIT both here and in Florida, although before 1980 both states used malathion baits.{{rp|page=18}} Eradication by SIT was accomplished with the help of the Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture program, a joint effort of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency (FAO-IAEA).{{cite book |year=2009 |first=Q. |last=Shu |publisher=United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization & International Atomic Energy Agency |url=https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:42072639 |title=Induced Plant Mutations in the Genomics Era}}{{rp|30}} Studies of the Medfly invasion here show that there have been many almost-invasions at the state's airports and other ports, most of which have failed to establish including a small infestation in 1975 in Los Angeles which was eradicated using SIT.{{rp|174}} This has informed quarantine and invasion biology efforts and studies on the Medfly around the world.

{{cite journal |year=2005 |volume=50 |pages=293–319 |first7=David |first1=Anthony |first6=George |first2=Karen |first5=S. |first3=Amy |first4=John |last7=Yeates |last2=Armstrong |last6=Roderick |last4=Milne |last3=Carmichael |last1=Clarke |last5=Raghu |journal=Annual Review of Entomology |doi=10.1146/annurev.ento.50.071803.130428 |title=Invasive Phytophagous Pests Arising Through A Recent Tropical Evolutionary Radiation: The Bactrocera dorsalis Complex of Fruit Flies |pmid=15355242 |s2cid=19452754 |url=https://eprints.qut.edu.au/3257/1/3257_1.pdf}}

{{visible anchor|Tetranychus|text=Tetranychus}} is a genus of {{visible anchor|Spider mites|text=spider mites}}.{{rp|page=18}} Three species are common on cotton here{{rp|page=18}} including the {{visible anchor|Pacific Spider Mite}} (Tetranychus pacificus) and the {{visible anchor|Two-Spotted Spider Mite}} (T. urticae).{{cite web |access-date=September 13, 2022 |year=2019 |website=Invasive Species Compendium |publisher=CABI |url=https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/53361 |title=Tetranychus pacificus (Pacific spider mite)}}{{rp|page=18}} and they are hard to distinguish because they are sympatric.{{rp|page=18}} Distinguishing them is nonetheless necessary, because they differ widely in insecticide resistance, with the PSM the worst.{{rp|page=18}} The PSM and 2SSM are also significant in peach here.{{cite web |website=UC Integrated Pest Management |publisher=UC Agriculture |url=http://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/peach/ |title=Peach / Agriculture: Pest Management}} Two-Spotted Spider Mite is also a major pest of strawberry,{{cite journal |date=2011 |issue=11 |volume=52 |first4=José |first3=Juan |first2=Rosario |first1=Francisco |journal=Plant and Cell Physiology |last4=Caballero |last3=Muñoz |last2=Blanco |last1=Amil |pages=1873–1903 |s2cid=37885279 |pmid=21984602 |doi=10.1093/pcp/pcr136 |title=The Strawberry Plant Defense Mechanism: A Molecular Review|doi-access=free }}

{{Visible anchor|Cotton Aphid|Melon Aphid|Aphis gossypii}}s (Aphis gossypii, Melon Aphid) afflict cotton and melon crops here. Insecticides are commonly used, and this has produced resistance and may also contaminate their honeydew. Insecticide contaminated honeydew may harm beneficial insects.{{cite journal |year=2021 |issue=2 |volume=97 |first2=John |first4=Alejandro |first1=Miguel |journal=Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society |last1=Calvo-Agudo |last2=Tooker |last3=Dicke |first3=Marcel |last4=Tena |pages=664–678 |doi=10.1111/brv.12817 |title=Insecticide-contaminated honeydew: risks for beneficial insects |pmid=34802185 |pmc=9299500}}

The {{Visible anchor|Avocado Thrips}} (Scirtothrips perseae) and {{Visible anchor|Persea Mite}} (Oligonychus perseae) are two invasive pests here.{{cite book |pages=265 |date=2003 |first2=Frank |first1=Daniel |last2=Buck |publication-place=Ames, Iowa, US |last1=Sumner |publisher=Iowa State Press |oclc=212121111 |isbn=978-0-470-29012-5 |title=Exotic Pests and Diseases: Biology and Economics for Biosecurity}}

The {{Visible anchor|Tobacco Budworm|Chloridea virescens|Heliothis virescens}} (Chloridea virescens, Heliothis virescens) is common on cotton in the Imperial Valley.{{rp|page=80}} At least by 1985 C. virescens had developed permethrin resistance.{{rp|page=80}} Nicholson & Miller 1985 find severe metabolic resistance to permethrin in Imperial Valley populations.{{cite book |year=1991 |first2=Bruce |first1=Richard |publisher=Springer Publishing |publication-place=Boston, Mass, US |last1=Roush |last2=Tabashnik |pages=ix+303 |isbn=978-1-4684-6431-3 |id={{isbn |978-1-4684-6429-0}} |oclc=840289391 |s2cid=43656561 |title=Pesticide Resistance in Arthropods |doi=10.1007/978-1-4684-6429-0 |author2-link=Bruce Tabashnik}}{{rp|page=80}}

{{visible anchor|Western Flower Thrips}} (Frankliniella occidentalis) is a major pest of horticulturals around the world. Here, it is especially known as a pest of peach and strawberry.{{Cite web |access-date=2023-02-28 |title=Agriculture |website=UC Statewide IPM Program |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/western-flower-thrips/}}

• {{cite journal |issue=1 |volume=65 |date=January 7, 2020 |journal=Annual Review of Entomology |pages=17–37 |last1=Reitz |first1=Stuart R. |last2=Gao |first2=Yulin |last3=Kirk |first3=William D.J. |last4=Hoddle |first4=Mark S. |last5=Leiss |first5=Kirsten A. |last6=Funderburk |first6=Joe E. |title=Invasion Biology, Ecology, and Management of Western Flower Thrips |doi=10.1146/annurev-ento-011019-024947 |s2cid=198909961 |pmid=31536711 |url=http://eprints.keele.ac.uk/6522/1/Reitz%20et%20al%20Ann%20Rev%20Ent%202020.pdf}}
• {{cite journal |issue=5 |date=October 1, 2010 |volume=103 |first2=Helen |first3=Sonya |last1=Rahman |first1=Touhidur |last2=Spafford |last3=Broughton |title=Variation in Preference and Performance of Frankliniella occidentalis (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) on Three Strawberry Cultivars |journal=Journal of Economic Entomology |doi=10.1603/ec10056 |pages=1744–1753 |s2cid=23901346 |pmid=21061975|doi-access=free }}

File:Diamondback moth larvae.jpg

The {{Visible anchor|Diamondback Moth|Plutella xylostella}} (Plutella xylostella) is a common insect pest here. {{Visible anchor|Btk|Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki}} (Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki) is a commonly used insectide for Diamondback Moth control in California. Shelton et al., 2000 finds a high degree of natural genetic variation in Btk resistance in the state's DM population.{{cite journal |year=2002 |issue=1 |volume=47 |journal=Annual Review of Entomology |first1=Juan |last1=Ferre |last2=Van Rie |first2=Jeroen |pmid=11729083 |doi=10.1146/annurev.ento.47.091201.145234 |pages=501–533 |title=Biochemistry and Genetics of Insect Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis}}

Several {{visible anchor|Aedes|text=Aedes spp.}} are present.{{cite journal |journal=Trends in Parasitology |year=2022 |issue=5 |volume=38 |first3=Rodrigo |first2=Nicolas |first4=Florence |first1=Thierry |last3=Almeida |last2=Sauvion |first5=Haoues |last4=Fournet |last5=Alout |last1=Lefèvre |pages=404–418 |id=INRAE HAL [https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03615705/ hal-03615705]. [https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010085134 fdi:010085134]. WOS 000793468800008 |pmid=35421326 |doi=10.1016/j.pt.2022.01.004 |title=The ecological significance of arthropod vectors of plant, animal, and human pathogens |s2cid=246665939 |url=https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03615705/file/Lefevre%202022%20author%20revised%20version.pdf}} {{visible anchor|Aedes aegypti|text=A. aegypti}} is found as an exotic pest here. Gloria-Soria et al., 2016 finds a significant amount of shared genetics between the population of the southern part of the state and New Mexico, Arizona, and Mexico.

• {{cite journal |title=Global genetic diversity of Aedes aegypti |last1=Gloria-Soria |first1=Andrea |pmc=5123671 |pmid=27671732 |doi=10.1111/mec.13866 |pages=5377–5395 |year=2016 |issue=21 |volume=25 |first30=Jeffrey |first23=Joshua |first28=Walter |first13=Laura |first18=Maria |last17=Martins |first5=Dave |first25=Rosa |last9=Fernandez |first16=Joel |last25=Sanchez |journal=Molecular Ecology |last2=Ayala |first2=Diego |last3=Bheecarry |first3=Ambicadutt |last4=Calderon-Arguedas |first4=Olger |last5=Chadee |last6=Chiappero |first6=Marina |last7=Coetzee |first7=Maureen |last8=Elahee |first8=Khouaildi |first9=Ildefonso |last10=Kamal |first10=Hany |last11=Kamgang |first11=Basile |last12=Khater |first12=Emad |last13=Kramer |last14=Kramer |first14=Vicki |last15=Lopez-Solis |first15=Alma |last16=Lutomiah |first17=Ademir |last18=Micieli |last19=Paupy |first19=Christophe |last20=Ponlawat |first20=Alongkot |last21=Rahola |first21=Nil |last22=Rasheed |first22=Syed |last23=Richardson |last24=Saleh |first24=Amag |last26=Seixas |first26=Gonçalo |last27=Sousa |first27=Carla |last28=Tabachnick |last29=Troyo |first29=Adriana |last30=Powell|bibcode=2016MolEc..25.5377G }}
• {{cite journal |title=Aedes aegypti vector competence studies: A review |doi=10.1016/j.meegid.2018.11.009 |pages=191–209 |last1=Souza-Neto |first1=Jayme A. |last2=Powell |first2=Jeffrey R. |last3=Bonizzoni |first3=Mariangela |journal=Infection, Genetics and Evolution |volume=67 |year=2019 |pmid=30465912 |pmc=8135908|bibcode=2019InfGE..67..191S }}

{{Visible anchor|Procambarus clarkii|text=Procambarus clarkii}} is an invasive crayfish across the Western US. It was first imported to a frog farm in San Diego County in 1932, and proved so successful as feed and food that descendants were sold around the state. They escaped and now are a widespread nuisance.{{cite book |language=en |year=2007 |publication-place=Malden, MA, USA |publisher=Blackwell Publishing |first3=Michael |first2=Martha |first1=Julie |last3=Marchetti |last2=Hoopes |last1=Lockwood |oclc=65207100 |isbn=978-1-4051-1418-9 |title=Invasion Ecology |pages=vii+304}}

Lymantria dispar (spongy moth, gypsy moth) is an established pest here. Epanchin-Niell et al., 2012 find that annual surveillance costs can be easily reduced. Costs are reduced by 50% by targeting surveillance resources based on the difference in surveillance cost by location, and by the difference in establishment risk by location.{{cite journal |year=2017 |issue=1 |volume=55 |first4=Christopher |first3=Tim |first2=Frank |first1=Stephen |last4=Gilligan |last3=Gottwald |last2=Bosch |last1=Parnell |pages=591–610 |title=Surveillance to Inform Control of Emerging Plant Diseases: An Epidemiological Perspective |journal=Annual Review of Phytopathology |doi=10.1146/annurev-phyto-080516-035334 |pmid=28637378 |bibcode=2017AnRvP..55..591P |s2cid=12143052|url=http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/43149/1/Parnell%20et%20al%20_%20annurev-phyto-080516-035334.pdf }}{{cite journal |doi=10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01800.x |title=Optimal surveillance and eradication of invasive species in heterogeneous landscapes |year=2012 |last1=Epanchin-Niell |first1=Rebecca S. |last2=Haight |first2=Robert G. |last3=Berec |first3=Ludek |last4=Kean |first4=John M. |last5=Liebhold |first5=Andrew M. |journal=Ecology Letters |volume=15 |issue=8 |pages=803–812 |pmid=22642613|bibcode=2012EcolL..15..803E }}

{{visible anchor|California red scale|Aonidiella aurantii}} (Aonidiella aurantii) is an invasive pest here. It competitively displaced a prior invader {{visible anchor|Yellow scale|Aonidiella citrina}} (A. citrina). Debach et al., 1978 finds that A. citrina is now extinct in this state due to the invasion of A. aurantii.{{cite journal |year=2021 |doi=10.1111/ppa.13469 |doi-access=free |first3=Christophe |first2=Didier |first1=Agathe |last3=May |last2=Andrivon |last1=Dutt |title=Multi-infections, competitive interactions, and pathogen coexistence |journal=Plant Pathology |volume=71 |pages=5–22}}

The {{visible anchor|Black Vine Weevil|Otiorhynchus sulcatus}} (Otiorhynchus sulcatus) is mostly found in the Central Coast AVA but does rarely occur elsewhere. Hosts include grape and strawberry. Creeping red fescue (Festuca rubra) is an alternate host.{{cite web |date=2015 |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/grape/black-vine-weevil |title=Black Vine Weevil |publisher=Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California}}

{{visible anchor|Otiorhynchus cribricollis|Cribrate weevil|text=Otiorhynchus cribricollis}} (Cribrate weevil) is common in the San Joaquin Valley. It is sometimes a problem in strawberry in the area.{{Cite web |access-date=2023-02-20 |title=Agriculture |website=UC Statewide IPM Program |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/root-beetles/}}

Helicoverpa zea (syn. Heliothis zea) is common in several parts of the state including all strawberry growing areas. H. zea is especially troublesome in southern coastal California.{{Cite web |access-date=2023-02-21 |title=Agriculture |website=UC Statewide IPM Program |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/corn-earworm/}}

{{visible anchor|Cyclamen Mite}}s occur natively here. Hosts include strawberry.{{Cite web |access-date=2023-02-24 |title=Agriculture |website=UC Statewide IPM Program |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/cyclamen-mite/}}

Scutigerella immaculata is an introduced pest restricted to high moisture soil. Hosts include strawberry.{{Cite web |access-date=2023-02-26 |title=Agriculture |website=UC Statewide IPM Program |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/garden-symphylans/}}

Some slugs (Gastropoda spp.) are vegetable and fruit pests here. Several are introduced pests from Europe. Hosts include strawberry.{{Cite web |access-date=2023-03-01 |title=Agriculture |website=UC Statewide IPM Program |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/slugs/}}

[[File:Forficula auricularia-Male-1.jpg|frameless | right

]]

[[File:Earwig and nymphs.jpg|frameless | right

]]

European Earwigs are most destructive from April to July here. Hosts include strawberry.{{Cite web |access-date=2023-03-02 |title=Agriculture |website=UC Statewide IPM Program |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/slugs/}}

Eotetranychus lewisi is found in coastal areas including Oxnard and Salinas. Hosts include strawberry.{{Cite web |access-date=2023-03-04 |title=Agriculture |website=UC Statewide IPM Program |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/lewis-spider-mite/}}

{{Visible anchor | Agrotis ipsilon | text=Agrotis ipsilon}} is the most common cutworm here. Hosts include strawberry.{{Cite web |access-date=2023-03-05 |title=Agriculture |website=UC Statewide IPM Program |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/cutworms/}}

Pandemis pyrusana is present and eats the leaves of several crops. Hosts include strawberry.

Clepsis peritana is an ecologically important saprovore. Later in the season it is a pest of strawberry.

Myzus persicae is present. Hosts include strawberry.

Macrosiphum euphorbiae is much larger than other aphids in California. Populations here have two forms, a green and a red. Hosts include strawberry.{{Cite web |access-date=2023-03-07 |title=Agriculture |website=UC Statewide IPM Program |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/aphids/}}

Aedes albopictus is a pest of livestock concern. Modified Wolbachia have been released to control this species here.{{Cite journal |issue=1 |date=2019 |volume=53 |first3=Ary |first2=Michael |first1=Perran |last3=Hoffmann |last2=Turelli |last1=Ross |title=Evolutionary Ecology of Wolbachia Releases for Disease Control |journal=Annual Review of Genetics |doi=10.1146/annurev-genet-112618-043609 |pages=93–116 |pmid=31505135 |pmc=6944334}}

File:20181108-APHIS-LSC-0396.jpeg, eradication ceremony

]]

The {{visible anchor|Pink Bollworm|Pectinophora gossypiella}} (Pectinophora gossypiella) was devastating{{Cite book |year=2010 |publisher=Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg |last1=Horowitz |first1=A. |last2=Ishaaya |first2=Isaac |page=125 |title=Insect Pest Management |isbn=978-3-642-05859-2}} to cotton growers here and throughout the southwest. Chu et al., 1996 reports a management program in the Imperial Valley in which government imposed practices successfully reduced populations.

Rejmanek & Pitcairn 2002 overview 53 weed eradication campaigns in the state, and find that any infestation smaller than {{convert|2.5|acre}} was usually successfully eradicated, while anything which had already reached {{convert|2500|acre}} was essentially impossible to do.{{cite book |year=2021 |publication-place=Cham, Switzerland |publisher=Springer International Publishing |pages=xlii + 455 + ill., 20 b/w + 67 col |first6=Vanessa |first5=Deborah |first3=Deborah |first1=Therese |last6=Lopez |last5=Hayes |last3=Finch |last1=Poland |last2=Patel |first2=Toral |last4=Miniat |first4=Chelcy |isbn=978-3-030-45366-4 |id={{isbn |978-3-030-45369-5}}. {{isbn |978-3-030-45367-1}} |title=Invasive Species in Forests and Rangelands of the United States}}{{rp|page=137}}

{{visible anchor|Yellow Sweetclover|Melilotus officinalis}} (Melilotus officinalis L. Lam.), {{visible anchor|Chickweed|Stellaria}} (Stellaria spp.), {{visible anchor|Annual Bluegrass|Poa annua}} (Poa annua Linnaeus), {{visible anchor|Shepherd's Purse|Capsella bursa-pastoris}} (Capsella bursa-pastoris Linnaeus Medikus), {{visible anchor|Crabgrass|Digitaria}} (various Digitaria spp.), {{visible anchor|Spotted Spurge|Euphorbia maculata}} (Euphorbia maculata Linnaeus Small), and {{visible anchor|Yellow Nutsedge|Cyperus esculentus}} (Cyperus esculentus) are common weeds here, including in strawberry and parsley. (See {{section link||Strawberries}}, and {{section link||Parsley}}.)

{{visible anchor|Marestail|Conyza canadensis|Erigeron canadensis|Horseweed}} (Horseweed, Conyza canadensis, Erigeron canadensis) is a common native weed here.

• {{cite journal |year=2018 |issue=1 |journal=Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society |volume=94 |pages=135–155 |last1=Hawkins |first1=Nichola J. |last2=Bass |first2=Chris |last3=Dixon |first3=Andrea |last4=Neve |first4=Paul |title=The evolutionary origins of pesticide resistance |doi=10.1111/brv.12440 |pmc=6378405 |pmid=29971903}}
• {{cite journal |last1=Délye |first1=Christophe |last2=Jasieniuk |first2=Marie |last3=Le Corre |first3=Valérie |title=Deciphering the evolution of herbicide resistance in weeds |journal=Trends in Genetics |volume=29 |issue=11 |year=2013 |doi=10.1016/j.tig.2013.06.001 |pages=649–658 |pmid=23830583|s2cid=773929 }}
• {{cite journal |last1=Okada |first1=Miki |last2=Hanson |first2=Bradley D. |last3=Hembree |first3=Kurt J. |last4=Peng |first4=Yanhui |last5=Shrestha |first5=Anil |last6=Stewart |first6=Charles Neal |last7=Wright |first7=Steven D. |last8=Jasieniuk |first8=Marie |title=Evolution and spread of glyphosate resistance in Conyza canadensis in California |journal=Evolutionary Applications |volume=6 |issue=5 |date=March 11, 2013 |doi=10.1111/eva.12061 |pages=761–777 |pmid=29387164 |pmc=5779124|bibcode=2013EvApp...6..761O }}

Glyphosate-resistant marestail first appeared in the state in the Central Valley in 2005 and this resistance spread unusually rapidly through the southern Valley thereafter. Okada et al., 2013 finds several independent evolutionary events, and that these unrelated resistance alleles may have been passed along so quickly because C. canadensis can reproduce by selfing.{{cite journal |year=2019 |volume=283 |first4=Sara |first1=Hugh |first2=Roberto |last4=Martin |page=106566 |last1=Beckie |last2=Busi |last3=Bagavathiannan |first3=Muthukumar V. |doi=10.1016/j.agee.2019.06.005 |journal=Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment |title=Herbicide resistance gene flow in weeds: Under-estimated and under-appreciated |bibcode=2019AgEE..28306566B |s2cid=196689717}} {{visible anchor|Hairy Fleabane|Conyza bonariensis|Erigeron bonariensis}} (Conyza bonariensis, Erigeron bonariensis) is one of the major {{section link||Weeds in peach}} here. The Okada group also studies glyphosate-resistant Hairy Fleabane.{{cite journal |year=2019 |issue=1 |volume=223 |first=Regina |pages=68–82 |last=Baucom |journal=New Phytologist |s2cid=73439248 |doi=10.1111/nph.15723 |title=Evolutionary and ecological insights from herbicide-resistant weeds: what have we learned about plant adaptation, and what is left to uncover? |pmid=30710343|bibcode=2019NewPh.223...68B |hdl=2027.42/149516 |hdl-access=free }} (See also {{section link||Glyphosate}}.)

In the Central Valley the most common weeds are cool-season grass weeds ({{visible anchor|Poaceae}}), thistles (Asteraceae), mustards (Brassicaceae), fiddleneck (Boraginaceae), warm-season grass weeds, warm-season Cyperaceae, amaranths (Amaranthaceae), morning glory (Convolvulaceae), and {{visible anchor|Caltrop|Tribulus terrestris|text=caltrop}} (Tribulus terrestris, Zygophyllaceae).

• {{cite journal |last1=Spang |first1=Edward S. |last2=Moreno |first2=Laura C. |last3=Pace |first3=Sara A. |last4=Achmon |first4=Yigal |last5=Donis-Gonzalez |first5=Irwin |last6=Gosliner |first6=Wendi A. |last7=Jablonski-Sheffield |first7=Madison P. |last8=Momin |first8=Md. Abdul |last9=Quested |first9=Tom E. |last10=Winans |first10=Kiara S. |last11=Tomich |first11=Thomas P. |title=Food Loss and Waste: Measurement, Drivers, and Solutions |journal=Annual Review of Environment and Resources |volume=44 |issue=1 |date=October 17, 2019 |doi=10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033228 |pages=117–156 |s2cid=202294383}}
• {{cite journal |last1=Khadka |first1=Ram B. |last2=Cardina |first2=John |last3=Miller |first3=Sally A |title=Perspectives on Anaerobic Soil Disinfestation for Weed Management |journal=Journal of Integrated Pest Management |volume=12 |issue=1 |date=January 1, 2021 |doi=10.1093/jipm/pmab027 |pages=1–11 |s2cid=239736276|doi-access=free }}
• {{cite journal |last1=Achmon |first1=Yigal |last2=Sade |first2=Nir |last3=Wilhelmi |first3=María del Mar Rubio |last4=Fernández-Bayo |first4=Jesus D. |last5=Harrold |first5=Duff R. |last6=Stapleton |first6=James J. |last7=VanderGheynst |first7=Jean S. |last8=Blumwald |first8=Eduardo |last9=Simmons |first9=Christopher W. |title=Effects of Short-Term Biosolarization Using Mature Compost and Industrial Tomato Waste Amendments on the Generation and Persistence of Biocidal Soil Conditions and Subsequent Tomato Growth |journal=Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry |volume=66 |issue=22 |date=May 15, 2018 |doi=10.1021/acs.jafc.8b00424 |pages=5451–5461 |s2cid=21712741 |pmid=29763301|bibcode=2018JAFC...66.5451A }}

Achmon et al., 2018 dramatically lowered seed bank viability, biomass, and density of all these weeds, and improved tomato yield using biosolarization using tomato and grape crop waste.

{{visible anchor|Cape-ivy|Delairea odorata}} (Delairea odorata) is an invasive weed originally from the Drakensberg Mountains in South Africa and Swaziland.*{{cite report |title=Weed Risk Assessment for Delairea odorata Lem. (Asteraceae) – Cape ivy |author=((Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture)) |date=September 24, 2013 |url=http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/wra/Delairea_odorata_WRA.pdf |id=CABI ISC [http://www.cabi.org/isc/abstract/20143118470 20143118470] |access-date=June 23, 2022 |archive-date=January 23, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220123050028/https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/wra/Delairea_odorata_WRA.pdf |url-status=dead }}

• {{cite web |title=Delairea odorata Profile |website=California Invasive Plant Council |date=March 20, 2017 |url=http://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/profile/delairea-odorata-profile/ |access-date=June 23, 2022 }}
• {{cite web |title=Delairea odorata |website=Calflora |url=http://www.calflora.org/app/taxon?crn=9623 |access-date=June 23, 2022 }}
• {{cite web |title=Delairea odorata (Cape ivy) |website=CABI |date=November 24, 2019 |url=http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/18265 |access-date=June 23, 2022 }}
• {{cite web |title=Delairea odorata |website=University and Jepson Herbaria |date=June 23, 2022 |url=http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/eflora_display.php?tid=80449 |access-date=June 23, 2022 }}
• {{cite web |title=Delairea odorata |website=United States Fish and Wildlife Service |url=http://www.fws.gov/species/cape-ivy-delairea-odorata |access-date=June 23, 2022 }}
• {{cite web |title=cape ivy, Delairea odorata Asterales: Asteraceae |website=Invasive.Org |url=http://www.invasive.org/browse/subinfo.cfm?sub=5529 |access-date=June 23, 2022 }} It was first observed here in 1892 and has since spread to every coast of the state, and into one coastal county of Oregon. Two organisms have been found in its native range which could be introduced here as controls, see {{section link||Digitivalva delaireae}} and {{section link||Cercospora delaireae}}.

{{visible anchor|Sea Beet|Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima|Wild beet}} (Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima) and {{visible anchor|Beta macrocarpa|text=Beta macrocarpa}} are introduced weeds here. The allozyme analysis of Bartsch & Ellstrand 1999 shows free gene flow between these two and cultivated beet.{{cite book |year=2005 |language=en |publication-place=Rome, Italy |last1=Spooner |first1=David |last2=Treuren |first2=Rob van |last3=Vicente |first3=M. C. de |title=Molecular markers for genebank management |publisher=International Plant Genetic Resources Institute |isbn=978-92-9043-684-3 |oclc=136956590 |pages=viii+126 |hdl=10113/11672 |s2cid=83426985 |id=NADLC# [http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/catalog/11672 11672]. AGRIS id [http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=QJ2007000031 QJ2007000031]. Bioversity [https://www.bioversityinternational.org/e-library/publications/detail/molecular-markers-for-genebank-management/ PDF]. CGIAR {{hdl |10568/104976}}}} Wild beet is only significant in small grains in Imperial, where dicamba and 2,4-D are necessary.{{cite web |access-date=October 16, 2022 |date=February 2009 |id=3466 |first3=L. F. |first2=S. D. |first1=W. M. |last3=Jackson |last2=Wright |last1=Canevari |title=Nematodes / Almond / Agriculture: Pest Management |url=https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/small-grains/Special-Weed-Problems/ |website=UC Integrated Pest Management |publisher=UC Agriculture}} See also {{section link||Small grains}}.

{{visible anchor|Palmer Amaranth|Amaranthus palmeri}} (Amaranthus palmeri) was first discovered in San Diego County by Sereno Watson in 1876. It has since spread elsewhere, developed the worst multiresistance in the world, and become one of the most notorious crop weeds in the world.

• {{cite book |date=2010 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons Ltd |last=Nandula |first=Vijay K. |title=Glyphosate Resistance in Crops and Weeds: History, Development, and Management |publication-place=New York, NY |isbn=978-1-118-04354-7 |oclc=992891185}}{{rp|page=195}}
• {{cite journal |last=Watson |volume=12 |pages=246–278 |journal=Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences |year=1876 |first=Sereno |author-link=Sereno Watson |title=Descriptions of New Species of Plants, with Revisions of Certain Genera |doi=10.2307/25138455 |jstor=25138455}}

In California it is found in all but the northernmost counties.{{cite web |access-date=September 17, 2022 |date=2022 |website=Calflora |url=https://www.calflora.org/app/taxon?crn=281 |title=Amaranthus palmeri Calflora}}

{{visible anchor|California wild radish}} (radish (Raphanus sativus) × Jointed charlock (R. raphanistrum)){{cite journal |year=2010 |volume=3 |first8=Caroline |issue=5–6 |last6=Yao |first1=Norman |first6=Li |first2=Sylvia |last5=Burger |first4=Joanne |first3=Janet |last8=Ridley |last1=Ellstrand |last2=Heredia |last3=Leak-Garcia |last4=Heraty |first5=Jutta C. |last7=Nohzadeh-Malakshah |first7=Sahar |journal=Evolutionary Applications |title=Crops gone wild: evolution of weeds and invasives from domesticated ancestors |doi=10.1111/j.1752-4571.2010.00140.x |pages=494–504 |pmid=25567942 |pmc=3352506|bibcode=2010EvApp...3..494E }} has replaced all of its ancestral populations in the state.{{cite journal |year=2021 |volume=26 |issue=6 Special Issue |last3=Fan |last2=Lao |last1=Wu |first1=Dongya |first2=Sangting |first3=Longjiang |pages=560–574 |journal=Trends in Plant Science |title=De-Domestication: An Extension of Crop Evolution |doi=10.1016/j.tplants.2021.02.003 |pmid=33648850 |bibcode=2021TPS....26..560W |s2cid=232089929}}

Di Tomaso and Healy 2007 find Chenopodium album requires years of continuous management for any significant seedbank reduction.

X.{{nbsp}}fastidiosa was first discovered here by {{visible anchor|Newton B. Pierce|Newton Pierce}} (1856–1916) in 1892.{{cite journal |last1=Baldi |first1=Paolo |last2=La Porta |first2=Nicola |title=Xylella fastidiosa: Host Range and Advance in Molecular Identification Techniques |journal=Frontiers in Plant Science |volume=8 |date=June 8, 2017 |page=944 |doi=10.3389/fpls.2017.00944 |pmid=28642764 |pmc=5462928 |doi-access=free|bibcode=2017FrPS....8..944B }}{{cite journal |last1=Sicard |first1=Anne |last2=Zeilinger |first2=Adam R. |last3=Vanhove |first3=Mathieu |last4=Schartel |first4=Tyler E. |last5=Beal |first5=Dylan J. |last6=Daugherty |first6=Matthew P. |last7=Almeida |first7=Rodrigo P.P. |title=Xylella fastidiosa: Insights into an Emerging Plant Pathogen |journal=Annual Review of Phytopathology |volume=56 |issue=1 |date=August 25, 2018 |doi=10.1146/annurev-phyto-080417-045849 |pages=181–202 |pmid=29889627 |bibcode=2018AnRvP..56..181S |s2cid=48353386 |url=https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02791754/file/Publis18-bgpi-028_sicard_xyllela_1.pdf}} It has ever since remained a constant pathogen of many crops here, including grape, almond, citrus, and oleander.

The CDFA's {{visible anchor|Pierce's Disease Control Program}} coordinates response and research in the state.{{cite web |website=California Department of Food and Agriculture |title=Pierce's Disease Control Program |url=http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/pdcp/ |access-date=July 6, 2022}} Alston et al., 2013 estimates that PD cost the state $92m in 2013 and over Tumber et al., 2014 estimates $104m annually in 2014. Burbank estimates the cost to be $100m annually by 2022.{{cite journal |year=2022 |volume=17 |issue=21 |last=Burbank |first=Lindsey |doi=10.1079/cabireviews202217021 |title=Threat of Xylella fastidiosa and options for mitigation in infected plants |journal=CABI Reviews |s2cid=251514273|doi-access=free }}

GWSS remains a common vector of PD and as such is a severe drag on the entire continent's wine grape and table grape pricing and supply. In the Napa- and Sonoma- Valleys and other such costal AVAs PD mostly occurs in hotspots adjacent to small water flows.{{cite journal |last1=Hopkins |first1=D. L. |last2=Purcell |first2=A. H. |title=Xylella fastidiosa: Cause of Pierce's Disease of Grapevine and Other Emergent Diseases |journal=Plant Disease |volume=86 |issue=10 |year=2002 |doi=10.1094/pdis.2002.86.10.1056 |pages=1056–1066 |s2cid=73462436 |pmid=30818496|bibcode=2002PlDis..86.1056H }} These areas are defined by small streams and ornamental irrigation. These are favorable habitat for the BGSS. Lin et al., 2005 provides SSRs for differentiating between the state's various strains infecting grape and other crops and Lin et al., 2013 for grape-infecting strains here and in Texas.

The BGSS is known to thrive in higher temperatures and PD epidemics are more severe in hotter years, and there is evidence that global warming is increasing BGSS transmission of PD here. Larger data sets are needed for stronger confirmation.{{cite magazine |access-date=July 5, 2022 |date=December 2019 |magazine=Wine Business Monthly |first1=M.P. |last1=Daugherty |first2=M. |last2=Cooper |first3=R. |last3=Smith |first4=L. |last4=Varela |first5=R. |last5=Almeida |title=Has Climate Contributed to a Pierce's Disease Resurgence in North Coast Vineyards? |url=https://www.winebusiness.com/wbm/?go=getArticleSignIn&dataId=222327}}

There are two major divisions here, a lineage from Bakersfield and Santa Barbara and another from Temecula and the north. Within the northern areas there is lower gene flow, probably due to the Mayacamas Mountains.

• {{cite journal |last1=Straub |first1=Christina |last2=Colombi |first2=Elena |last3=McCann |first3=Honour C. |title=Population Genomics of Bacterial Plant Pathogens |journal=Phytopathology |volume=111 |issue=1 |year=2021 |doi=10.1094/phyto-09-20-0412-rvw |pages=23–31 |pmid=33179999 |s2cid=226310344|doi-access=free |bibcode=2021PhPat.111...23S }}
• {{cite journal |last1=Vanhove |first1=Mathieu |last2=Sicard |first2=Anne |last3=Ezennia |first3=Jeffery |last4=Leviten |first4=Nina |last5=Almeida |first5=Rodrigo P.P. |title=Population structure and adaptation of a bacterial pathogen in California grapevines |journal=Environmental Microbiology |volume=22 |issue=7 |date=March 12, 2020 |doi=10.1111/1462-2920.14965 |pages=2625–2638 |pmid=32114707 |bibcode=2020EnvMi..22.2625V |s2cid=211727090}}

Zhang et al., 2011 compares a PD strain to EB92-1 and finds that they are surprisingly similar. EB92-1 is a biocontrol strain discovered by Hopkins in 1992 and published as Hopkins 2005. It is originally from elderberry (Sambucus spp.) and is highly persistent on grapevine but is asymptomatic. Zhang finds that the EB92-1 genome is a proper subset of the {{Visible anchor|Temecula1}} genome, lacking 11 missing genes, 10 of which are predicted to be pathogenicity factors.

• {{cite book |date=2014 |first2=Ann |pages=x+278 |first1=Dennis |publication-place=Heidelberg |publisher=Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg |last1=Gross |last2=Lichens-Park |last3=Kole |isbn=978-3-642-55378-3 |oclc=881817015 |id={{isbn |978-3-642-55377-6}} |first3=Chittaranjan |title=Genomics of plant-associated bacteria}}
• {{cite journal |year=2011 |issue=19 |volume=193 |last6=Gabriel |first5=Donald |last3=Kumar |last1=Zhang |last5=Hopkins |first6=Dean |journal=Journal of Bacteriology |pages=5576–5577 |first1=Shujian |last2=Flores-Cruz |first2=Zomary |first3=Dibyendu |last4=Chakrabarty |first4=Pranjib |pmid=21914886 |pmc=3187439 |s2cid=7068164 |doi=10.1128/jb.05430-11 |title=The Xylella fastidiosa Biocontrol Strain EB92-1 Genome Is Very Similar and Syntenic to Pierce's Disease Strains}}

Vanhove et al., 2020 elucidates the current genetic situation of PD strains here, including population structure and their evolution.{{cite journal |year=2021 |issue=6 |volume=19 |first4=Massimiliano |first3=Luca |first2=Davide |first1=Alice |journal=EFSA Journal |last1=Delbianco |last2=Gibin |last3=Pasinato |last4=Morelli |s2cid=235671792 |doi=10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6674 |title=Update of the Xylella spp. host plant database – systematic literature search up to 31 December 2020 |pages=e06674 |pmid=34188716 |pmc=8220458}}

Xf is also significant in stonefruit here, causing Almond leaf scorch disease and other diseases.

• {{cite journal |last1=Moralejo |first1=E. |last2=Borràs |first2=D. |last3=Gomila |first3=M. |last4=Montesinos |first4=M. |last5=Adrover |first5=F. |last6=Juan |first6=A. |last7=Nieto |first7=A. |last8=Olmo |first8=D. |last9=Seguí |first9=G. |last10=Landa |first10=B. B. |title=Insights into the epidemiology of Pierce's disease in vineyards of Mallorca, Spain |journal=Plant Pathology |volume=68 |issue=8 |date=August 7, 2019 |doi=10.1111/ppa.13076 |pages=1458–1471 |bibcode=2019PPath..68.1458M |s2cid=199641165 |url=https://zenodo.org/record/3560221}}
• {{cite journal |last1=Delbianco |first1=Alice |last2=Gibin |first2=Davide |last3=Pasinato |first3=Luca |last4=Morelli |first4=Massimiliano |title=Update of the Xylella spp. host plant database – systematic literature search up to 31 December 2020 |journal=EFSA Journal |volume=19 |issue=6 |year=2021 |pages=e06674 |doi=10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6674 |pmid=34188716 |pmc=8220458 |s2cid=235671792}}

Xf isolates CFBP8071 and M23 are common on almond here. Moralejo et al., 2019 shed some light on the European invasion of this pathogen. Their analysis shows these isolates have a 99.4% nucleotide identity with those on grape in the introduced range {{ndash}} and more generally, these isolates, a European cherry infection, and PD isolates from both areas have a high degree of relatedness. Chen et al., 2005 provides PCR primers, Lin et al., 2015 Simple Sequence Repeats (SSRs), and Chen et al., 2010 the first genome sequence for common almond-infecting strains here. Lin et al., 2005 provides SSRs for differentiating strains from almond from various other strains. While almond and plum develop leaf scorch, Ledbetter & Rogers 2009 find that peach does not.

Besides Pierce's Disease, the glassy-winged sharpshooter also vectors Xf among stonefruit and so its arrival threatens the world's almond supply.

Lin et al., 2005 provides Simple Sequence Repeats (SSRs) which distinguish California's {{visible anchor|Citrus Variegated Chlorosis|text=Citrus Variegated Chlorosis}} strains from almond, oleander, and PD strains.

Xf has many other hosts. Chitalpa tashkentensis is a common landscaping plant here and elsewhere in the southwest that is also a host. Randall et al., 2009 propose {{visible anchor|Xylella fastidiosa subsp. tashke|text=the subspecies tashke}} for these strains but it remains unclear whether this is a distinct subspecies and whether it endures in the overall evolutionary course of Xf strains. Hernandez-Martinez et al., 2007 find {{visible anchor|Xylella fastidiosa subsp. sandyi|text=the subspecies sandyi}} causes disease of Oleander, Jacaranda spp., daylily, and magnolia.

Raju 1983 finds Xf without symptoms on wild Carneocephala fulgida, Draeculacephala minerva, the Blue-Green Sharpshooter (BGSS, Graphocephala atropunctata, a vector), Helochara delta, Pagaronia tredecimpunctata, and Philaenus spumarius. Purcell & Saunders 1999 find infections in plants common to riparian zones here often are not motile in the host and spontaneously improve.

File:Botrytis on strawberries.png of strawberry]]

File:Sonoma clusters showing signs of Botrytis (noble rot).jpg on grape, Sonoma County]]

Various strains of {{visible anchor|Gray mold|Botrytis cinerea|text=gray mold}} (Botrytis cinerea) are a constant presence in the state's horticulture, especially afflicting strawberry

• {{cite journal |last1=Cosseboom |first1=Scott D. |last2=Ivors |first2=Kelly L. |last3=Schnabel |first3=Guido |last4=Bryson |first4=Patricia K. |last5=Holmes |first5=Gerald J. |title=Within-Season Shift in Fungicide Resistance Profiles of Botrytis cinerea in California Strawberry Fields |journal=Plant Disease |volume=103 |issue=1 |year=2019 |doi=10.1094/pdis-03-18-0406-re |pages=59–64 |s2cid=205345358 |pmid=30422743|doi-access=free |bibcode=2019PlDis.103...59C }}
• {{cite journal |last1=Petrasch |first1=Stefan |last2=Knapp |first2=Steven J. |last3=van Kan |first3=Jan A. L. |last4=Blanco-Ulate |first4=Barbara |title=Grey mould of strawberry, a devastating disease caused by the ubiquitous necrotrophic fungal pathogen Botrytis cinerea |journal=Molecular Plant Pathology |volume=20 |issue=6 |date=April 4, 2019 |doi=10.1111/mpp.12794 |pages=877–892 |s2cid=93002697 |pmid=30945788 |pmc=6637890 |bibcode=2019MolPP..20..877P |author2-link=Steven J. Knapp}}
• {{cite journal |year=2021 |volume=179 |first3=Sebastien |last1=Sare |first1=Abdoul Razack |last2=Jijakli |first2=M. Haissam |last3=Massart |title=Microbial ecology to support integrative efficacy improvement of biocontrol agents for postharvest diseases management |journal=Postharvest Biology and Technology |doi=10.1016/j.postharvbio.2021.111572 |page=111572 |s2cid=236245543}}

and grape.{{cite journal |last1=Romanazzi |first1=Gianfranco |last2=Smilanick |first2=Joseph L. |last3=Feliziani |first3=Erica |last4=Droby |first4=Samir |title=Integrated management of postharvest gray mold on fruit crops |journal=Postharvest Biology and Technology |volume=113 |year=2016 |doi=10.1016/j.postharvbio.2015.11.003 |pages=69–76 |hdl=11566/229814 |s2cid=86200880|hdl-access=free }}

Fungicides are used multiple times per seasons and as a result resistance to almost every mode of action{{Cite web |access-date=2023-02-23 |title=Agriculture |website=UC Statewide IPM Program |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/botrytis-fruit-rot/}} is common. Cosseboom et al., 2019 finds the proportion of resistant isolates increased within a single season in conventional but not organic. This shows that evolution is driven by usage in this crop.

Alleles responsible include the {{visible anchor|erg27}} alleles {{visible anchor|F196C}}, {{visible anchor|F412I}}, and {{visible anchor|F412S}}; {{visible anchor|bos1}} alleles {{visible anchor|I356N}}, {{visible anchor|I365N}}, and {{visible anchor|I365S}}; the {{visible anchor|Botrytis cinerea β-tubulin|text=β-tubulin}} allele {{visible anchor|E198A}} (which Hu et al. 2016 finds has no fitness penalty); the {{visible anchor|Botrytis cinerea cytb|text=cytb}} allele {{visible anchor|G143A|text=G143A}} (found by Veloukas et al., 2014 to have no fitness penalty); the {{visible anchor|mrr1}} allele {{visible anchor|R351C}} and the mrr1 deletion event {{visible anchor|ΔL497}} (also known as {{visible anchor|MDR1h}} and found only in {{visible anchor|Botrytis group S|text=Botrytis group S}}); and {{visible anchor|sdhB}} alleles {{visible anchor|H272R}}, {{visible anchor|H272Y}}, {{visible anchor|N230I}}, and {{visible anchor|P225F}} (the only one conferring resistance to isofetamid, also confers other resistance – to penthiopyrad, to fluopyram, and to boscalid – and associated by Hu et al., 2016 with resistance to fluxapyroxad). The analysis of Cosseboom et al., 2019 explains 93.8% of resistance by already-known alleles discovered by Banno et al., 2008, Ma et al., 2007, Grabke et al., 2013, Kretschmer et al., 2009, Dowling et al., 2017, Fernández-Ortuño et al., 2012, Amiri et al., 2014, and Yin et al., 2011, so very little is due to experimental error, unknown physiological effects, or undiscovered alleles.

Organic strawberry ranches experience very active genetic transfer with conventional strawberry and as a result they have high proportions of resistance. Cosseboom et al., 2019 finds that conventional fields undergo within-season resistance evolution, while organic does not, demonstrating that they are indeed not using the fungicides they claim to not use, and that genetic transfer is not so rapid as to change the situation in a field that quickly.

Ma & Michailides 2005 developed a microsatellite primed PCR (MP-PCR) for genetic diversity in this fungus, especially for populations in this state.

• {{cite book |last1=Fillinger |first1=Sabine |last2=Elad |first2=Yigal |title=Botrytis {{emdash}} the Fungus, the Pathogen and its Management in Agricultural Systems |publication-place=Cham, Switzerland |date=2015 |isbn=978-3-319-23371-0 |oclc=932622561 |pages=x+486}} {{isbn|978-3-319-23370-3}}.
• {{cite journal |last1=Williamson |first1=Brian |last2=Tudzynski |first2=Bettina |last3=Tudzynski |first3=Paul |last4=van Kan |first4=Jan A. L. |title=Botrytis cinerea: the cause of grey mould disease |journal=Molecular Plant Pathology |volume=8 |issue=5 |year=2007 |doi=10.1111/j.1364-3703.2007.00417.x |pages=561–580 |s2cid=25802082 |pmid=20507522|bibcode=2007MolPP...8..561W }}
• {{cite journal |last1=Ma |first1=Zhonghua |last2=Michailides |first2=Themis J. |title=Genetic Structure of Botrytis cinerea Populations from Different Host Plants in California |journal=Plant Disease |volume=89 |issue=10 |year=2005 |doi=10.1094/pd-89-1083 |pages=1083–1089 |s2cid=73489328 |pmid=30791276|bibcode=2005PlDis..89.1083M }}

{{visible anchor|Strawberry Botrytis leaf spot}} was first discovered in 2018 in Santa Maria and reported by Mansouripour & Holmes 2020.

• {{cite book |last1=Singh |first1=Prem Pratap |last2=Kumar |first2=Akshay |last3=Gupta |first3=Vishal |last4=Prakash |first4=Bhanu |title=Food Security and Plant Disease Management |chapter=1 Recent advancement in plant disease management |publisher=Woodhead (Elsevier) |year=2021 |doi=10.1016/b978-0-12-821843-3.00012-x |pages=1–18 |isbn=9780128218433 |s2cid=234210229}}
• {{cite journal |last1=Mansouripour |first1=S. |last2=Holmes |first2=G. J. |title=First Report of Botrytis cinerea Causing Leaf Spot on Strawberry in California |journal=Plant Disease |volume=104 |issue=6 |year=2020 |doi=10.1094/pdis-06-19-1287-pdn |pages=1866 |s2cid=213497016|doi-access=free |bibcode=2020PlDis.104.1866M }}

Bc was not previously known to produce a leaf spot phenotype in strawberry.

In table grape there is a limit of 0.5% {{endash}} table grapes can only be shipped if an allotment contains 0.5% or less of Bc-infected berries. Ozone is one treatment option for grape.

Shao et al., 2021 find azoxystrobin resistance is very common in this population. They find it is much more common than in China where azoxystrobin is almost unknown.

• {{cite journal |year=2009 |issue=2 |volume=93 |pages=72–76 |last1=Jiang |first1=Jinhua |last2=Ding |first2=Laisong |last3=Michailides |first3=Themis J. |last4=Li |first4=Hongye |last5=Ma |first5=Zhonghua |title=Molecular characterization of field azoxystrobin-resistant isolates of Botrytis cinerea |journal=Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology |doi=10.1016/j.pestbp.2008.11.004|bibcode=2009PBioP..93...72J }}

This review cites this research.

• {{cite journal |year=2021 |issue=3 |volume=111 |pages=455–463 |last1=Shao |first1=Wenyong |last2=Zhao |first2=Youfu |last3=Ma |first3=Zhonghua |title=Advances in Understanding Fungicide Resistance in Botrytis cinerea in China |doi=10.1094/phyto-07-20-0313-ia |journal=Phytopathology |pmid=33174825 |s2cid=226301725 |doi-access=free |bibcode=2021PhPat.111..455S }}

B. cinerea is a common cause of postharvest losses in this industry. Due to the need for long shelf life in the California industry – because target markets include the whole continent – and the low moisture growing environments, Petrasch et al., 2021 find genomic selection for strawberry resistance is highly successful. In other environments and markets however this is not expected to be as simple.

• {{cite journal |year=2022 |issue=5 |volume=111 |pages=1238–1251 |last1=Senger |first1=Elisa |last2=Osorio |first2=Sonia |last3=Olbricht |first3=Klaus |last4=Shaw |first4=Paul |last5=Denoyes |first5=Beatrice |last6=Davik |first6=Jahn |last7=Predieri |first7=Stefano |last8=Karhu |first8=Saila |last9=Raubach |first9=Sebastian |last10=Lippi |first10=Nico |last11=Höfer |first11=Monika |last12=Cockerton |first12=Helen |last13=Pradal |first13=Christophe |last14=Kafkas |first14=Ebru |last15=Litthauer |first15=Suzanne |last16=Amaya |first16=Iraida |last17=Usadel |first17=Bjorn |last18=Mezzetti |first18=Bruno |title=Towards smart and sustainable development of modern berry cultivars in Europe |journal=The Plant Journal |doi=10.1111/tpj.15876 |pmid=35751152 |s2cid=250022575|doi-access=free |bibcode=2022PlJ...111.1238S |hdl=11566/307966 |hdl-access=free }}

This review cites this research.

• {{cite journal |year=2021 |issue=1 |volume=12 |last1=Petrasch |first1=Stefan |last2=Pesci |first2=Saskia |last3=Pincot |first3=Dominique |last4=Feldmann |first4=Mitchell J |last5=Lopez |first5=Cindy |last6=Famula |first6=Randi |last7=Hardigan |first7=Michael |last8=Cole |first8=Glenn |last9=Knapp |first9=Steven |last10=Ulate |first10=Barbara |url=https://academic.oup.com/g3journal/article/12/1/jkab378/6427547 |title=Genomic prediction of strawberry resistance to postharvest fruit decay caused by the fungal pathogen Botrytis cinerea |journal=G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics }}

Most B. cinerea inoculum is introduced via aeroplankton. Significant protection against this is afforded by polytunnels. Daugovish & Larson 2009 find 84%–90% greater yield and 62%–140% greater marketable yield resulting in {{convert|14,000-18,500|$/ha}} greater revenue due to polytunnels.

• {{cite journal

|year=2023

|volume=312

|first4=Melba R.

|first3=Daniel

|first2=Caroline

|first1=Nelda R.

|last4=Salazar-Gutiérrez

|last3=Wells

|last2=Blanchard

|last1=Hernández-Martínez

|journal=Scientia Horticulturae

|page=111893

|title=Current state and future perspectives of commercial strawberry production: A review

|doi=10.1016/j.scienta.2023.111893

|s2cid=256605553

|doi-access=free

|bibcode=2023ScHor.31211893H

}}

This review cites this research.

• {{cite journal

|year=2009

|issue=842

|first2=K.D.

|first1=O.

|last2=Larson

|last1=Daugovish

|pages=163–166

|journal=Acta Horticulturae

|doi=10.17660/actahortic.2009.842.20

|title=Strawberry production with protected culture in southern California

}}

Though gray mold elsewhere may be caused by both B. cinerea and B. pseudocinerea in California B. pseudocinerea is unknown on strawberry. However it is found on blueberry in the San Joaquin Valley.{{cite web |date=2016 |title=Botrytis Fruit Rot of Strawberry: Production Guideline |first1=Steven T. |last1=Koike |first2=Mark |last2=Bolda |url=https://ucanr.edu/blogs/strawberries_caneberries/blogfiles/37846.pdf |publisher=California Strawberry Commission}}

{{visible anchor|Red Blotch Disease of Grapevine|text=Red Blotch Disease}} (caused by grapevine red blotch virus, GLRaV-3{{citation needed|reason=May conflict with next paragraph. May merely need clarification for related but different viruses.|date=November 2022}}) costs the state $90 million annually. Losses in Napa County cost over {{convert|69,500|$/hectare}} across the likely 25-year lifetime of a vineyard, far higher than the {{convert|2,200|$/hectare}} estimated for eastern Washington.

Al Rwahnih et al., 2013 discovered Grapevine Red Blotch-associated Virus (GRBaV) here, a DNA virus of this crop.{{cite journal |year=2016 |volume=7 |first6=Patricio |first5=Constanza |first4=Daniela |first3=Mario |first2=Rudolf |first1=Grace |last6=Johnson |last5=Nuñez |last4=Muñoz |last3=Agurto |last2=Schlechter |last1=Armijo |journal=Frontiers in Plant Science |doi=10.3389/fpls.2016.00382 |title=Grapevine Pathogenic Microorganisms: Understanding Infection Strategies and Host Response Scenarios |page=382 |pmid=27066032 |pmc=4811896 |doi-access=free|bibcode=2016FrPS....7..382A }}

{{visible anchor|Leafroll Disease of Grapevine|text=Leafroll Disease}} (grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3) is also economically significant.{{cite journal |year=2021 |issue=1 |volume=105 |first1=M. |first3=M. |first6=K. |first13=T. |first15=K. |first16=V. |first17=R. |first19=G. |first20=R. |first2=C. V. |first4=S. S. |first5=E. J. |first7=W. R. |first8=D. A. |first9=M. I. |first10=S. J. |first11=M. K. |first12=R. R. |first14=F. M. |first18=I. E. |pages=14–26 |journal=Plant Disease |last1=Fuchs |last2=Almeyda |last3=Al Rwahnih |last4=Atallah |last5=Cieniewicz |last6=Farrar |last7=Foote |last8=Golino |last9=Gómez |last10=Harper |last11=Kelly |last12=Martin |last13=Martinson |last14=Osman |last15=Park |last16=Scharlau |last17=Smith |last18=Tzanetakis |last19=Vidalakis |last20=Welliver |title=Economic Studies Reinforce Efforts to Safeguard Specialty Crops in the United States |doi=10.1094/pdis-05-20-1061-fe |pmid=32840434 |s2cid=221305685|doi-access=free |bibcode=2021PlDis.105...14F |hdl=1813/110213 |hdl-access=free }}

The seriousness of {{visible anchor|Powdery Mildew of Grape|text=Powdery Mildew}} (Uncinula necator) has been recognized since at least 1859 in the northern grape district.{{cite journal |first=William J. |last=Moller |title=Milestones in grape pathology |journal=California Agriculture |volume=34 |issue=7 |date=July 1, 1980 |pages=13–15 |doi=10.3733/ca.v034n07p13 |s2cid=82168201 |doi-broken-date=November 1, 2024 |url=https://hilgardia.ucanr.edu/Abstract/?a=ca.v034n07p13}} Newton B. Pierce was working in the area a few decades before his discovery of Pierce's Disease, and over the 1860s he watched U.{{nbsp}}necator spread to the south. Frederic Bioletti called it the only serious fungal disease the industry suffered from, and so it has remained ever since.{{cite journal |last1=Epstein |first1=Lynn |last2=Bassein |first2=Susan |title=Patterns of Pesticide Use in California and The Implications for Strategies for Reduction of Pesticides |journal=Annual Review of Phytopathology |volume=41 |issue=1 |year=2003 |doi=10.1146/annurev.phyto.41.052002.095612 |pages=351–375 |pmid=14527333|bibcode=2003AnRvP..41..351E }} The first case of U. necator demethylation inhibitor resistance (DMI resistance) was found in this state in 1980. This was only confirmed with Gubler et al., 1996's reanalysis of 1986 and 1990 samples however. Gubler finds that reduced rates prescribed by IPM are responsible for some of U. necator{{'}}s triadimefon-, myclobutanil-, and fenarimol resistances.

• {{cite journal |date=2014 |issue=3 |volume=71 |first3=David A. |first2=George W. |first1=Janna L. |pages=331–342 |last1=Beckerman |last2=Sundin |last3=Rosenberger |title=Do some IPM concepts contribute to the development of fungicide resistance? Lessons learned from the apple scab pathosystem in the United States |journal=Pest Management Science |doi=10.1002/ps.3715 |s2cid=11868709 |pmid=24375947}}
• {{cite journal |year=1996 |issue=8 |volume=80 |first1=W. D. |first3=D. G. |first2=H. L. |first4=L. J. |pages=902–909 |journal=Plant Disease |last2=Ypema |last3=Ouimette |last4=Bettiga |last1=Gubler |title=Occurrence of Resistance in Uncinula necator to Triadimefon, Myclobutanil, and Fenarimol in California Grapevines |doi=10.1094/pd-80-0902|bibcode=1996PlDis..80..902G }}

{{cite journal |year=2020 |volume=8 |journal=Microorganisms |first6=Dolores |first5=Alejandro |first4=Antonio |first3=Laura |first2=Alvaro |first1=Alejandra |last6=Fernandez |last5=Garcia |last4=Vicente |last3=Jimenez |last2=Polonio |last1=Fernandez |title=Fungicide Resistance in Powdery Mildew Fungi |issue=9 |page=1431 |doi=10.3390/microorganisms8091431 |pmid=32957583 |pmc=7564317 |doi-access=free}}

{{visible anchor|Phomopsis dieback|Phomopsis viticola}} (caused by Phomopsis viticola) is also a major trunk disease here. It is endemic to California.{{cite journal |year=2018 |volume=8 |number=12 |page=195 |first6=BB |first5=AM |first4=EV |first3=NA |first2=SV |first1=AV |last6=Dzantiev |last5=Kamionskaya |last4=Porotikova |last3=Byzova |last2=Vinogradova |last1=Zherdev |title=Methods for the Diagnosis of Grapevine Viral Infections: A Review |journal=Agriculture |doi=10.3390/agriculture8120195 |doi-access=free|bibcode=2018Agric...8..195Z }}

{{anchor|Fusarium}}

Fusarium is a genus of many species which are ubiquitous around the world, including here.

{{visible anchor|Fusarium Wilt of Strawberry|Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. fragariae}} (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. fragariae) had only been seen once before, in Queensland, in one sample of Winks & Williams in 1966,{{cite journal |date=1966 |issue=4 |volume=22 |last2=Williams |pages=475–479 |first1=B. L. |first2=Y. N. |last1=Winks |journal=Queensland Journal of Agriculture and Animal Science |title=A wilt of strawberry caused by a new form of Fusarium oxysporum}} until appearing again here in 2006 and identified by Koike et al. 2009.{{cite journal |year=2009 |issue=10 |volume=93 |pages=1077 |last1=Koike |first1=S. T. |last2=Kirkpatrick |first2=S. C. |last3=Gordon |first3=T. R. |journal=Plant Disease |title=Fusarium Wilt of Strawberry Caused by Fusarium oxysporum in California |doi=10.1094/pdis-93-10-1077a |pmid=30754358|bibcode=2009PlDis..93.1077K }} {{As of|2018}} it has spread throughout the state.

• {{cite journal |date=2018 |issue=5 |volume=8 |first2=Thomas J. |journal=G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics |last1=Pincot |first1=Dominique D. A. |last2=Poorten |last3=Hardigan |first3=Michael A. |last4=Harshman |first4=Julia M. |last5=Acharya |first5=Charlotte B. |last6=Cole |first6=Glenn S. |last7=Gordon |first7=Thomas R. |last8=Stueven |first8=Michelle |last9=Edger |first9=Patrick P. |last10=Knapp |first10=Steven J. |title=Genome-Wide Association Mapping Uncovers Fw1, a Dominant Gene Conferring Resistance to Fusarium Wilt in Strawberry |doi=10.1534/g3.118.200129 |author10-link=Steven J. Knapp |pages=1817–1828 |pmid=29602808 |pmc=5940171 |s2cid=4493211}}
• {{cite journal |date=2020 |issue=1 |volume=7 |journal=Horticulture Research |last1=Whitaker |first1=Vance M. |last2=Knapp |first2=Steven J. |last3=Hardigan |first3=Michael A. |last4=Edger |first4=Patrick P. |last5=Slovin |first5=Janet P. |last6=Bassil |first6=Nahla V. |last7=Hytönen |first7=Timo |last8=Mackenzie |first8=Kathryn K. |last9=Lee |first9=Seonghee |last10=Jung |first10=Sook |last11=Main |first11=Dorrie |last12=Barbey |first12=Christopher R. |last13=Verma |first13=Sujeet |title=A roadmap for research in octoploid strawberry |page=33 |doi=10.1038/s41438-020-0252-1 |pmid=32194969 |pmc=7072068 |bibcode=2020HorR....7...33W |s2cid=212706734 |author2-link=Steven J. Knapp}}
• {{cite book |date=2018 |publication-place=Cham, Switzerland |first2=Julie |first3=Richard |last1=Hytönen |first1=Timo |last2=Graham |last3=Harrison |title=The Genomes of Rosaceous Berries and Their Wild Relatives |isbn=978-3-319-76020-9 |id={{isbn |978-3-030-09381-5}}. {{isbn |978-3-319-76019-3}} |oclc=1040072353}}
• {{cite journal |date=2021 |issue=3 |volume=97 |journal=Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology |last=Menzel |first=Christopher Michael |pages=273–297 |id=PubAg Agid: [https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/catalog/7757406 7757406] |title=A review of powdery mildew in strawberries: the resistance of species, hybrids and cultivars to the pathogen is highly variable within and across studies with no standard method for assessing the disease |doi=10.1080/14620316.2021.1985402 |s2cid=245346271}}

Henry et al., 2017 apply a Japanese PCR-based test of nuclear ribosomal intergenic spacer and elongation factor 1-α. They find such high similarity between the intended {{endash}} Japanese {{endash}} target populations and California populations that there are almost no false negatives. There are no false positives on other Fo types (i.e. those not pathogenic on strawberry). Although this suggests both populations have a common origin, that remains to be proven. The matching IGS and EF-1α sequences divide into three somatic compatibility groups. The vast majority fell into what they term SCG1, with a few of SCG2 and SCG3. SCG2 is always a false negative with this test which may indicate the entire group lacks the sequence in question. Although this proves to be a good test, a universally valid test may require finding a sequence specifically pertinent to virulence on the host and not other, incidental sequences.

• {{cite journal |date=2019 |issue=1 |pages=1–47 |first2=M. |volume=43 |first4=P. W. |last1=Lombard |last2=Sandoval-Denis |first1=L. |last3=Lamprecht |last4=Crous |first3=S. C. |title=Epitypification of Fusarium oxysporum – clearing the taxonomic chaos |journal=Persoonia |doi=10.3767/persoonia.2019.43.01 |pmid=32214496 |pmc=7085860 |s2cid=91706858}}
• {{cite journal |year=2017 |issue=4 |first3=C. M. |volume=101 |first2=S. C. |first1=P. M. |journal=Plant Disease |last1=Henry |first4=A. M. |last2=Kirkpatrick |first5=J. A. |last3=Islas |first7=O. |last4=Pastrana |first8=T. R. |last5=Yoshisato |last6=Koike |last7=Daugovish |last8=Gordon |first6=S. T. |title=The Population of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. fragariae, Cause of Fusarium Wilt of Strawberry, in California |doi=10.1094/pdis-07-16-1058-re |pages=550–556 |s2cid=59249617 |pmid=30677354|doi-access=free |bibcode=2017PlDis.101..550H }}

In early 2012 a previously unknown plant disease (an unidentified Fusarium) and vector (a Euwallacea, preliminarily termed the {{visible anchor|Polyphagous shot hole borer|text=polyphagous shot hole borer}}, PSHB) were detected in Los Angeles and Orange Counties.

• {{cite journal |last1=Hulcr |first1=Jiri |last2=Stelinski |first2=Lukasz L. |title=The Ambrosia Symbiosis: From Evolutionary Ecology to Practical Management |journal=Annual Review of Entomology |volume=62 |issue=1 |date=January 31, 2017 |doi=10.1146/annurev-ento-031616-035105 |pages=285–303 |pmid=27860522|doi-access=free }}
• {{cite journal |last1=Eskalen |first1=Akif |last2=Stouthamer |first2=Richard |last3=Lynch |first3=Shannon Colleen |last4=Rugman-Jones |first4=Paul F. |last5=Twizeyimana |first5=Mathias |last6=Gonzalez |first6=Alex |last7=Thibault |first7=Tim |title=Host Range of Fusarium Dieback and Its Ambrosia Beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) Vector in Southern California |journal=Plant Disease |volume=97 |issue=7 |year=2013 |doi=10.1094/pdis-11-12-1026-re |pages=938–951 |s2cid=73424166 |pmid=30722538|bibcode=2013PlDis..97..938E }}

This is especially a disease affecting avocado growers, but also other crops in this state and in its other invasive range, in Israel. In fact although PSHB was noticed on a black locust here in 2003, the associated Fusarium was only detected in 2012 on home avocado trees in LA County. As all Euwallacea in both their native and invasive ranges, this insect prefers to infest hosts in this area in locations which are stressful due to their unnaturalness, such as urban ornamental plantings and orchards.

{{visible anchor|Fusarium Wilt of Lettuce|Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lactucum}} (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lactucum) is common in the state.{{cite book |year=2011 |pages=1–6 |first8=Krishna |first7=Richard |first6=Eric |first5=Steve |first4=Louise |first3=Marita |first2=Michael |first1=Thomas |last8=Subbarao |last7=Smith |last6=Natwick |last4=Jackson |last3=Cantwell |last2=Cahn |first9=Etaferahu |last9=Takele |last1=Turini |last5=Koike |publisher=University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources |series=ANRCatalog |title=Iceberg Lettuce Production in California |isbn=978-1-60107-762-2 |doi=10.3733/ucanr.7215|doi-broken-date=April 21, 2025 }}

{{visible anchor | Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum | text=Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum}} is a disease of {{slink||Cotton}}. Kim et al., 2005 finds races 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 are present. They find race 4 arrived from India in 2003.

• {{cite journal |date=2019 |issue=1 |pages=1–47 |first2=M. |volume=43 |first4=P. W. |last1=Lombard |last2=Sandoval-Denis |first1=L. |last3=Lamprecht |last4=Crous |first3=S. C. |title=Epitypification of Fusarium oxysporum – clearing the taxonomic chaos |journal=Persoonia |doi=10.3767/persoonia.2019.43.01 |s2cid=91706858 |pmid=32214496 |pmc=7085860}}
• {{cite journal |year=2006 |issue=6 |volume=90 |last1=Davis |first1=R. M. |last2=Colyer |first2=P. D. |last3=Rothrock |first3=C. S. |last4=Kochman |first4=J. K. |pages=692–703 |journal=Plant Disease |s2cid=73477921 |pmid=30781226 |url=https://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/abs/10.1094/PD-90-0692 |title=Fusarium Wilt of Cotton: Population Diversity and Implications for Management |doi=10.1094/PD-90-0692|bibcode=2006PlDis..90..692D }}

These reviews cite this research.

• {{cite journal |last1=Kim |first1=Y. |last2=Hutmacher |first2=R. B. |last3=Davis |first3=R. M. |title=Characterization of California Isolates of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum |volume=89 |issue=4 |year=2005 |journal=Plant Disease |url=https://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/10.1094/PD-89-0366 |s2cid=73500185 |pmid=30795451 |pages=366–372 |doi=10.1094/PD-89-0366|bibcode=2005PlDis..89..366K }}

Race 4 is so common here that varieties are screened for resistance before development or deployment.{{Cite journal |issue=2 |date=2015 |volume=207 |last1=Sanogo |first1=Soum |last2=Zhang |first2=Jinfa |pages=255–271 |journal=Euphytica |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10681-015-1532-y |title=Resistance sources, resistance screening techniques and disease management for Fusarium wilt in cotton |doi=10.1007/s10681-015-1532-y |s2cid=254464904}} Unlike other strains it does not require a vector, a root-knot nematode.{{Cite journal |year=2019 |volume=50 |journal=Current Opinion in Plant Biology |first5=Libo |first4=Ping |first3=Terry |first2=Kevin |first1=Kevin |last5=Shan |last4=He |last3=Wheeler |last2=Babilonia |last1=Cox |pages=95–103 |title=Return of old foes — recurrence of bacterial blight and Fusarium wilt of cotton |doi=10.1016/j.pbi.2019.03.012 |s2cid=149455257 |pmid=31075542|doi-access=free |bibcode=2019COPB...50...95C }} Race 4 isolates here are more pathogenic on Gossypium barbadense than on G. hirsutum.

• {{cite book |date=2022 |publication-place=New York, NY |last=Coleman |first=Jeffrey |title=Fusarium wilt : methods and protocols |series=Methods in Molecular Biology |volume=2391 |doi=10.1007/978-1-0716-1795-3 |isbn=978-1-0716-1794-6 |s2cid=239461260 |oclc=1280486933}}{{RP |193}}

This review cites this research.

• {{cite journal |issue=7 |year=2021 |volume=105 |last1=Diaz |first1=Josue |last2=Garcia |first2=Jorge |last3=Lara |first3=Celeste |last4=Hutmacher |first4=Robert |last5=Ulloa |first5=Mauricio |last6=Nichols |first6=Robert |last7=Ellis |first7=Margaret |pages=1898–1911 |journal=Plant Disease |title=Characterization of Current Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum Isolates from Cotton in the San Joaquin Valley of California and Lower Valley El Paso, Texas |doi=10.1094/pdis-05-20-1038-re |pmid=33021919 |s2cid=222183925|doi-access=free |bibcode=2021PlDis.105.1898D }}

{{anchor|Alternaria}}

Various Alternaria spp. are significant fungal diseases here and often receive strobilurin, iprodione, azoxystrobin, and tebuconazole treatments. The Ma & Michaelides group has done extensive work on fungicide resistance, including in these pathogens. They have characterized resistance alleles (and in some cases produced molecular diagnostics methologies) for strobilurin-resistant-, iprodione-resistant-, and azoxystrobin-resistant- isolates.

{{visible anchor|Alternaria alternata|text=A. alternata}} has one of the widest host ranges of any fungal crop pathogen and so fungicides are commonly used. Almost all fruiting production of vulnerable crops must be fungicide-treated. Avenot, along with the Michailides group has found extensive boscalid resistance in a swathe from the center down into the central southern part of the state, especially Kern, Tulare, Fresno, and Madera.{{cite journal |date=2020 |issue=1 |last2=Lee |pages=1–7 |volume=26 |journal=Research in Plant Disease |s2cid=219795860 |doi=10.5423/rpd.2020.26.1.1 |title=Molecular Mechanisms of Succinate Dehydrogenase Inhibitor Resistance in Phytopathogenic Fungi |first1=Hyunkyu |last1=Sang |first2=Hyang Burm|doi-access=free }} Although it is also commonly applied in Kings, no resistance is known there.{{cite journal |year=2010 |issue=7 |volume=29 |pages=643–651 |journal=Crop Protection |last1=Avenot |first1=Hervé F. |first2=Themis J. |last2=Michailides |title=Progress in understanding molecular mechanisms and evolution of resistance to succinate dehydrogenase inhibiting (SDHI) fungicides in phytopathogenic fungi |doi=10.1016/j.cropro.2010.02.019 |bibcode=2010CrPro..29..643A |s2cid=41034322}}

{{visible anchor|Black Heart|Heart Rot of Pomegranate}} is a common pomegranate disease worldwide. Out of the group of causative species, here Luo et al., 2017 find it is caused by A. alternata and {{visible anchor|Alternaria arborescens|text=A. arborescens}}.{{rp|page=192}}{{cite journal |last1=Luo |first1=Y. |last2=Hou |first2=L. |last3=Förster |first3=H. |last4=Pryor |first4=B. |last5=Adaskaveg |first5=J. E. |title=Identification of Alternaria Species Causing Heart Rot of Pomegranates in California |journal=Plant Disease |volume=101 |issue=3 |year=2017 |doi=10.1094/pdis-08-16-1176-re |pages=421–427 |pmid=30677341|doi-access=free |bibcode=2017PlDis.101..421L }} Michailides et al., 2008 finds the {{visible anchor|Wonderful pomegranate|text='Wonderful' cultivar}} can suffer at a rate of 10% or more here.{{rp|page=192}}{{cite journal |first1=T. J. |last1=Michailides |first2=D. |last2=Morgan |first3=M. |last3=Quist |first4=H. |last4=Reyes |title=Abstracts Submitted for Presentation at the 2008 APS Centennial Meeting |journal=Phytopathology |volume=98 |issue=6s |year=2008 |doi=10.1094/phyto.2008.98.6.s9 |pages=S9–S181 |bibcode=2008PhPat..98S...9. |url=http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/pdf/10.1094/PHYTO.2008.98.6.S9}}{{rp|page=S105}}

{{visible anchor|Alternaria Rot of Fig}} is common here. It is caused by various species of this genus and relatives including: Ulocladium atrum, A. alternata, rarely other Alternaria spp., Dendryphiella vinosa, and Curvularia spp. Epicoccum purpurascens causes Alternaria of breba only. (The first, "breba" crop is not eaten but must be removed because it harbors inoculum of all of these microbes for the second, real crop.)

• {{cite book |year=2011 |publication-place=Cambridge |publisher=Woodhead Publishing |editor-last=Yahia |editor-first=Elhadi |series=Postharvest Biology and Technology of Tropical and Subtropical Fruits |issn=2042-8049 |eissn=2042-8057 |volume=3 |title=Cocona to mango |doi=10.1533/9780857092762 |isbn=978-0-85709-362-2 |oclc=828736900 |s2cid=116882871}}{{rp|pages=140,141}}
• {{cite book |editor-last=Bautista-Baños |editor-first=Silvia |title=Postharvest Decay: Control Strategies |publication-place=London, UK |date=2014 |isbn=978-0-12-411552-1 |oclc=880621274 |language=en |doi=10.1016/C2012-0-07916-1}}{{rp|page=148}}
• {{cite journal |year=2007 |issue=12 |volume=91 |journal=Plant Disease |last1=Doster |first1=Mark A. |last2=Michailides |first2=Themis J. |title=Fungal Decay of First-Crop and Main-Crop Figs |doi=10.1094/pdis-91-12-1657 |pages=1657–1662 |s2cid=73497359 |pmid=30780609|doi-access=free |bibcode=2007PlDis..91.1657D }}

{{anchor|Phytoplasma}}

The {{Visible anchor|Peach Yellow Leaf Roll|Candidatus Phytoplasma pyri|PYLR}} phytoplasma (Candidatus Phytoplasma pyri) was first found here in the Sacramento Valley in 1948. The same pathogen may be the cause of {{Visible anchor|Almond Brown Line and Decline|text=Almond Brown Line and Decline}}.{{cite journal |year=2020 |issue=1 |volume=18 |last24=Jacques |first1=Claude |first23=Marco |first2=Katharina |first22=Cristina |first3=Paolo |first21=Luciana |last4=Jaques |first20=Francesco |first5=Annemarie |first19=Michela |first6=Alan |first18=Domenico |first7=Christer |first17=Lucia |first9=Juan |first16=Jonathan |first10=Stephen |first15=Antonio |last11=Potting |first13=Hans |last6=MacLeod |last7=Magnusson |first4=Josep |last16=Yuen |first24=Marie |last2=Dehnen-Schmutz |last3=Gonthier |last5=Justesen |last8=Milonas |first8=Panagiotis |last9=Navas-Cortes |last10=Parnell |first11=Roel |last12=Reignault |first12=Philippe Lucien |last13=Thulke |last14=Van der Werf |first14=Wopke |last15=Civera |last17=Zappalà |last18=Bosco |last19=Chiumenti |last20=Di Serio |last21=Galetto |last22=Marzachì |last23=Pautasso |s2cid=214229451 |doi=10.2903/j.efsa.2020.5929 |journal=EFSA Journal |title=Pest categorisation of the non-EU phytoplasmas of Cydonia Mill., Fragaria L., Malus Mill., Prunus L., Pyrus L., Ribes L., Rubus L. and Vitis L. |last1=Bragard |pages=e05929 |pmid=32626484 |pmc=7008834}}

{{visible anchor|Phytophthora cactorum|text=Phytophthora cactorum}} causes {{visible anchor|Strawberry crown rot|text=Strawberry crown rot}}, a common disease here.{{cite journal |last=Whitaker |first=Vance M. |title=Applications of molecular markers in strawberry |journal=Journal of Berry Research |volume=1 |issue=3 |year=2011 |doi=10.3233/br-2011-013 |pages=115–127 |s2cid=34780711|doi-access=free |bibcode=2011JBerR...1..115W }}

The {{visible anchor|Foliar Nematode|Aphelenchoides fragariae}} (Aphelenchoides fragariae) and {{visible anchor|Northern Root Knot Nematode|Meloidogyne hapla}} (Meloidogyne hapla) are the two most common {{visible anchor|Strawberry nematodes|text=strawberry nematode diseases}} here,{{cite web |url=http://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/Nematodes/ |title=Nematodes / Strawberry |website=UC Integrated Pest Management |publisher=UC Agriculture |date=July 2018 |first1=A. |last1=Ploeg |first2=B. B. |last2=Westerdahl}} although RKN is rarely seen by CalPoly Strawberry Center's diagnostic lab.{{cite web |title=Root-Knot Nematode in Strawberry |website=Cal Poly Strawberry Center BLOG |date=June 28, 2022 |url=http://strawberrycenterblog.com/2022/06/28/root-knot-nematode-in-strawberry/ |access-date=June 28, 2022}} Even rarer are the {{visible anchor|Root Lesion Nematode|Pratylenchus penetrans|text=Root Lesion}} (Pratylenchus penetrans), {{visible anchor|Stem Nematode|Ditylenchus dipsaci|text=Stem}} (Ditylenchus dipsaci), {{visible anchor|Dagger Nematode|Xiphinema americanum|text=Dagger}} (Xiphinema americanum), {{visible anchor|Needle Nematode|Longidorus elongatus|text=Needle}} (Longidorus elongatus), {{visible anchor|Foliar Nematode|Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi|Aphelenchoides besseyi|text=Foliar}} (Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi and A. besseyi), and other {{visible anchor|Root Knot Nematode|Meloidogyne incognita|Meloidogyne javanica|text=Root Knot}} (Meloidogyne incognita and M. javanica) nematodes.

{{visible anchor|Anthracnose|text=Anthracnose}} occurs on {{visible anchor|Peach anthracnose|text=peach}}, {{visible anchor|Almond anthracnose|text=almond}}, and {{visible anchor|Strawberry anthracnose|text=strawberry}} here.{{cite journal |last1=Dowling |first1=Madeline |last2=Peres |first2=Natalia |last3=Villani |first3=Sara |last4=Schnabel |first4=Guido |title=Managing Colletotrichum on Fruit Crops: A "Complex" Challenge |journal=Plant Disease |volume=104 |issue=9 |year=2020 |doi=10.1094/pdis-11-19-2378-fe |pages=2301–2316 |pmid=32689886 |s2cid=219479598|doi-access=free |bibcode=2020PlDis.104.2301D }} {{visible anchor|Colletotrichum acutatum|text=Colletotrichum acutatum}} – a soilborne pathogen{{Cite web |access-date=2023-02-19 |title=Agriculture |website=UC Statewide IPM Program |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/anthracnose/}} – is a common cause. Natamycin is often used in strawberry. Adaskaveg & Hartin 1997 identify the C. acutatum strains most frequently responsible in peach and almond.

{{visible anchor|Monilinia fructicola|text=Monilinia fructicola}} and {{visible anchor|Monilinia laxa|text=M. laxa}} are significant diseases of stonefruits here and benzimidazole is often used. The Ma & Michaelides group has done extensive work on fungicide resistance in these microorganisms.

{{visible anchor|Botryosphaeria dothidea|text=Botryosphaeria dothidea}} is a significant fungal diseases here which often receives strobilurin, iprodione, azoxystrobin, and tebuconazole treatments. The Ma & Michaelides group has done extensive work on fungicide resistance, including in this pathogen. They have characterized resistance alleles of tebuconazole-resistant- isolates.

Figs commonly suffer from {{visible anchor|Fig Smut}} here. Smut is caused by various Aspergillus spp. and relatives, including: Aspergillus niger, A. japonicus, A. carbonarius, A. flavus and A. parasiticus, Eurotium spp., A. tamarii, A. terreus, A. wentii, A. alliaceus, A. melleus, A. ochraceus, Emericella spp., A. carneus, A. fumigatus, A. sclerotiorum, and A. sydowii.

Olives here suffer from a wide range of fungal diseases of the Botryosphaeriaceae family, as elsewhere in the world. Úrbez-Torres et al., 2013 finds {{visible anchor|Neofusicoccum mediterraneum|text=Neofusicoccum mediterraneum}} and {{visible anchor|Diplodia mutila|text=Diplodia mutila}} are the most virulent of them on Manzanillo and Sevillano. Moral et al., 2010 finds N. mediterraneum commonly causes a branch blight on several cultivars and {{visible anchor|Diplodia seriata|text=D. seriata}} causes a branch canker. More specific controls than currently available are needed for N. mediterraneum in highly susceptible cultivars, and early harvest may be the only successful treatment for D. seriata.

{{visible anchor|Avian malaria|text=Avian malaria}} is present in the state. {{visible anchor|Plasmodium relictum|text=Plasmodium relictum}} and its vectors C. quinquefasciatus, C. stigmatosoma, and C. tarsalis are most commonly responsible.

{{Visible anchor|Stripe Rust|Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici|Puccinia striiformis f.sp. tritici}} (Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici, Pst) is found on Barley, wheat, and various grasses here.{{rp|page=9}} Maccaferri et al. 2015 surveys the world's wheat and finds the Davis Pst populations are unusually heterogenous. That makes the Davis environment a useful experimental location for differentiating wheat genetic resistance.

• {{cite book |date=2017 |publication-place=Dordrecht |publisher=Springer Netherlands |last1=Kang |first1=Zhensheng |last2=Chen |first2=Xianming |pages=vii+719 |s2cid=30527470 |oclc=1006649931 |lccn=2017943111 |doi=10.1007/978-94-024-1111-9 |isbn=978-94-024-1111-9 |id={{isbn |978-94-024-1491-2}}. {{isbn |978-94-024-1109-6}} |title=Stripe rust}}{{rp|page=226}}
• {{cite journal |year=2021 |issue=4 |volume=9 |first8=Tao |first1=Tong |first7=Gavin |first3=Lei |first2=Chen |last8=Li |last1=Zheng |last7=Humphreys |last2=Hua |last6=Bai |last3=Li |last5=Yuan |last4=Sun |first4=Zhengxi |first5=Minmin |first6=Guihua |journal=The Crop Journal |pages=739–749 |s2cid=229387786 |doi=10.1016/j.cj.2020.10.006 |title=Integration of meta-QTL discovery with omics: Towards a molecular breeding platform for improving wheat resistance to Fusarium head blight|doi-access=free |bibcode=2021CropJ...9..739Z }}
• {{cite journal |year=2015 |issue=3 |volume=5 |first10=Jorge |first1=Marco |first9=Michael |first3=Peter |last8=Chen |last5=Chao |first6=Dario |journal=G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics |last10=Dubcovsky |last9=Pumphrey |first8=Xianming |first7=Eligio |last6=Cantu |first5=Shiaoman |first4=Zewdie |last3=Bulli |first2=Junli |last1=Maccaferri |last4=Abate |last7=Bossolini |last2=Zhang |pages=449–465 |s2cid=8111045 |pmid=25609748 |pmc=4349098 |doi=10.1534/g3.114.014563 |title=A Genome-Wide Association Study of Resistance to Stripe Rust (Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici) in a Worldwide Collection of Hexaploid Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)}}

Stromatinia cepivora (garlic white rot) was identified in the San Francisco area in the 1930s and Gilroy in the 1940s.{{Cite web |url=http://pnva.org/files/files/WhiterotPNWV.pdf |title=White Rot Identification and Control |publisher=University of Guelph |location=Guelph, Ontario, Canada |first1=Mary Ruth |last1=McDonald |first2=Maria |last2=Jaime |first3=Marilyn |last3=Hovius |first4=Michael |last4=Tesfaedrias |first5=Laura |last5=Barbison |first6=Greg |last6=Boland |website=Pacific Northwest Vegetable Association |access-date=November 17, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161117145015/http://pnva.org/files/files/WhiterotPNWV.pdf |archive-date=November 17, 2016}} It continues to be a problem for garlic growers in the state.{{cite news |last1=Karst |first1=Tom |title=California garlic sees resurgence |url=https://www.thepacker.com/article/california-garlic-sees-resurgence |access-date=October 24, 2019 |work=The Packer |publisher=Farm Journal |date=May 30, 2018}}

{{visible anchor|Leaf Spot of Caneberry|Mycosphaerella rubi|Septoria rubi}} (Mycosphaerella rubi, anamorph Septoria rubi) is common here. It is common on caneberry excluding raspberry, so erect and trailing blackberry, dewberry, olallieberry, and boysenberry. Treatment is simple, almost entirely relying on increased air circulation. No fungicides are registered but any fungicides for {{section link||Anthracnose}} and {{section link||Gray mold}} will work. Copper and lime sulfur work to some degree.

This should be distinguished from {{visible anchor|Leaf Spot of Raspberry|Sphaerulina rubi|Cylindrosporium rubi}} (Sphaerulina rubi, anamorph Cylindrosporium rubi). Although Leaf Spot of Raspberry is found here it is not common in California.{{cite web |access-date=July 29, 2022 |date=June 2015 |publisher=UC Agriculture |website=UC Integrated Pest Management |url=https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/caneberries/Leaf-Spot/ |first1=S.T. |last1=Koike |first2=M.P. |last2=Bolda |first3=W.D. |last3=Gubler |first4=L.J. |last4=Bettiga |title=Leaf Spot}}

{{visible anchor|Verticillium Wilt}}s (biovars of Verticillium dahliae) are found here as in any other ecozone. This includes {{visible anchor|Verticillium Wilt of Strawberry}}. Unlike every other known Vert Wilt of any other crop, this syndrome sometimes lacks any or any noticeable vascular discoloration of the crown.{{cite web |access-date=August 6, 2022 |date=2013 |website=UCANR |url=https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=10993 |title=Verticillium Wilt in strawberries: California 2013 Update |first1=Mark |last1=Bolda |first2=Steven |last2=Koike}} In strawberry, methyl bromide has historically been vital to prevention, and with phase out, this disease is of increasing concern.{{cite book |year=2014 |publication-place=Dordrecht |publisher=Springer Netherlands |isbn=978-94-007-7801-6 |title=Integrated Pest Management |doi=10.1007/978-94-007-7802-3_7 |chapter=The Impact of Integrated Pest Management Programs on Pesticide Use in California, USA |pages=173–200 |last1=Epstein |first1=Lynn |last2=Zhang |first2=Minghua}} In all cases some fumigation is necessary, and if fumigation is not possible then solarization and/or rotation are the only remaining options. Although drip fumigation (fumigation inline in the drip tape) is possible it does not produce the same results, especially failing to reach the shoulders of the beds. Nurseries universally use MB or MB + chloropicrin, while growers may use 1,3-D + chloropicrin, chloropicrin alone, metam sodium, or metam potassium.{{cite web |access-date=July 30, 2022 |first1=S. T. |first4=M. P. |first3=T. R. |first2=G. T. |date=July 2018 |publisher=UC Agriculture |website=UC Integrated Pest Management |url=https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/Verticillium-wilt/ |last1=Koike |last4=Bolda |last3=Gordon |last2=Browne |title=Verticillium Wilt}} Note that MB+chloropicrin also provides an uncharacterized growth promoter effect in this crop.{{rp|page=180}}

{{visible anchor|Strawberry Crinkle Virus}} (SCV, Strawberry crinkle cytorhabdovirus) is common here. Much of the fundamental research into SCV has been performed by a lab at UC Berkeley, including research on mechanical transmission.{{cite journal |year=2005 |issue=1 |volume=43 |journal=Annual Review of Phytopathology |pages=623–660 |last4=Bragg |last1=Jackson |last2=Dietzgen |first2=Ralf G. |last3=Goodin |first3=Michael M. |first4=Jennifer N. |last5=Deng |first5=Min |title=Biology of Plant Rhabdoviruses |first1=Andrew O. |author1-link=Andrew O. Jackson |doi=10.1146/annurev.phyto.43.011205.141136 |pmid=16078897|bibcode=2005AnRvP..43..623J }}{{cite journal |year=2021 |issue=1 |volume=8 |journal=Annual Review of Virology |last=Jackson |title=Reflections on a Career in Plant Virology: A Chip Floating on a Stream |first=Andrew O. |pages=23–50 |author-link=Andrew O. Jackson |doi=10.1146/annurev-virology-091919-105056 |pmid=34255543 |s2cid=235823348}}

Frequent use has produced streptomycin resistance in {{visible anchor|Fire Blight|Erwinia amylovora}} (Erwinia amylovora) here,

• {{cite journal |first4=James E. |year=2015 |issue=10 |first3=George W. |volume=105 |journal=Phytopathology |last1=Förster |first1=Helga |last2=McGhee |first2=Gayle C. |last3=Sundin |last4=Adaskaveg |title=Characterization of Streptomycin Resistance in Isolates of Erwinia amylovora in California |doi=10.1094/phyto-03-15-0078-r |pages=1302–1310 |s2cid=23508951 |pmid=26413887|doi-access=free |bibcode=2015PhPat.105.1302F }}
• {{cite journal |date=2018 |volume=56 |issue=1 |first1=George W. |journal=Annual Review of Phytopathology |last1=Sundin |last2=Wang |first2=Nian |title=Antibiotic Resistance in Plant-Pathogenic Bacteria |doi=10.1146/annurev-phyto-080417-045946 |pages=161–180 |pmid=29856934 |bibcode=2018AnRvP..56..161S |s2cid=46918802}}
• {{cite journal |date=2018 |first2=Dwayne |issue=5 |volume=10 |journal=Viruses |first3=Alan |last1=Svircev |first1=Antonet |last2=Roach |last3=Castle |title=Framing the Future with Bacteriophages in Agriculture |doi=10.3390/v10050218 |page=218 |pmid=29693561 |pmc=5977211 |s2cid=13813822 |doi-access=free}}
• {{cite journal |date=2016 |issue=9 |volume=17 |first1=George W. |journal=Molecular Plant Pathology |last4=Zeng |last3=Yuan |last1=Sundin |last2=Castiblanco |first2=Luisa F. |first3=Xiaochen |first4=Quan |last5=Yang |first5=Ching-Hong |title=Bacterial disease management: challenges, experience, innovation and future prospects |doi=10.1111/mpp.12436 |pages=1506–1518 |s2cid=206197845 |pmid=27238249 |pmc=6638406|bibcode=2016MolPP..17.1506S }}

first found in the state's pear isolates by Miller & Schroth 1972.{{cite journal |year=2002 |issue=1 |volume=40 |first4=Alan |first3=George |first2=Virginia |first1=Patricia |last4=Jones |last2=Stockwell |last3=Sundin |last1=McManus |journal=Annual Review of Phytopathology |pages=443–465 |doi=10.1146/annurev.phyto.40.120301.093927 |title=Antibiotic Use in Plant Agriculture |pmid=12147767|bibcode=2002AnRvP..40..443M }} This disease is a problem of pomes, including pear.

{{visible anchor|Podosphaera aphanis|Powdery mildew of strawberry|text=Podosphaera aphanis}} is the cause of powdery mildew of strawberry. It has evolved strong resistance here. Palmer & Holmes 2021 find resistance to the majority of the most commonly applied ingredients in the Oxnard population.

• {{cite journal |date=2021 |issue=3 |pages=273–297 |volume=97 |journal=Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology |last1=Menzel |first1=Christopher Michael |title=A review of powdery mildew in strawberries: the resistance of species, hybrids and cultivars to the pathogen is highly variable within and across studies with no standard method for assessing the disease |doi=10.1080/14620316.2021.1985402 |s2cid=245346271}}
• {{cite journal |first1=Angela |year=2021 |volume=149 |journal=Crop Protection |last1=Berrie |last2=Xu |first2=Xiangming |title=Developing biopesticide-based programmes for managing powdery mildew in protected strawberries in the UK |doi=10.1016/j.cropro.2021.105766 |page=105766 |bibcode=2021CrPro.14905766B |s2cid=237668708}}

These reviews cite this research.

• {{cite journal |date=2021 |last1=Palmer |issue=9 |pages=2601–2605 |volume=105 |last2=Holmes |first1=Michael G. |journal=Plant Disease |first2=Gerald J. |title=Fungicide Sensitivity in Strawberry Powdery Mildew Caused by Podosphaera aphanis in California |doi=10.1094/pdis-12-20-2604-re |s2cid=230782514 |pmid=33404274|doi-access=free |bibcode=2021PlDis.105.2601P }}

{{visible anchor|Armillaria Root Rot|Oak Root Fungus|Armillaria mellea|Armillaria solidipes}} of peach is primarily caused by Armillaria mellea and A. solidipes here. A. gallica and A. mexicana are not thought to be common here, but are common in Mexico.{{cite journal |year=2022 |issue=1 |volume=4 |first4=Antonieta |first1=Chao |last3=Hu |last1=Luo |last2=Schnabel |first2=Guido |first3=Mengjun |last4=De Cal |journal=Phytopathology Research |s2cid=251073155 |doi=10.1186/s42483-022-00134-0 |title=Global distribution and management of peach diseases |page=30 |doi-access=free |bibcode=2022PhytR...4...30L |hdl=10261/304888 |hdl-access=free }}

{{visible anchor|Tomato infectious chlorosis virus|text=Tomato infectious chlorosis virus}} afflicts tomato here.{{cite book |year=2014 |volume=90 |publication-place=Waltham, Massachusetts, US |publisher=Academic Press |series=Advances in Virus Research |issn=0065-3527 |first1=G. |first2=Nikolaos |last1=Loebenstein |last2=Katis |oclc=899003355 |isbn=978-0-12-801246-8 |id={{ISBN |978-0-12-801264-2}} |title=Control of plant virus diseases: seed-propagated crops}}{{rp|page=180}}

{{Visible anchor|16SrIII-A}} is a phytoplasma of apricot here. Uyemoto et al., 1991 found it on apricot in California.{{cite journal |year=2009 |issue=5 |volume=141 |first3=Lorne |first2=Thomas |last3=Stobbs |last2=Lowery |last1=Olivier |first1=Chrystel |journal=The Canadian Entomologist |title=Phytoplasma diseases and their relationships with insect and plant hosts in Canadian horticultural and field crops |doi=10.4039/n08-cpa02 |pages=425–462 |s2cid=85039968}}

{{Visible anchor|Downy Mildew of Lettuce|Lettuce Downy Mildew|Bremia lactucae}} (Bremia lactucae) is common on lettuce here.{{rp|page=156}} The population in the country, and especially in this state, is unusual however: It is highly clonal.{{rp|page=156}} As a result, Brown et al., 2004 finds all isolates have the same metalaxyl resistance.{{cite book |pages=ix+490 |date=2015 |publication-place=Tokyo |publisher=Springer Japan |first2=Derek |first1=Hideo |last1=Ishii |last2=Hollomon |oclc=919611866 |lccn=2015949140 |doi=10.1007/978-4-431-55642-8 |id={{isbn |978-4-431-55641-1}} |isbn=978-4-431-55642-8 |title=Fungicide Resistance in Plant Pathogens: Principles and a Guide to Practical Management |s2cid=11518793}}{{rp|page=156}}

Kim et al., 2015 finds {{Visible anchor|Penicillium digitatum|text=Penicillium digitatum}} isolates from citrus here have developed fludioxonil resistance,{{cite journal |year=2016 |issue=1 |volume=100 |pages=10–24 |first4=Antoine |first3=Per |journal=Plant Disease |first1=Jay Ram |last2=Dachbrodt-Saaydeh |first2=Silke |last3=Kudsk |last4=Messéan |last1=Lamichhane |doi=10.1094/pdis-05-15-0574-fe |title=Toward a Reduced Reliance on Conventional Pesticides in European Agriculture |pmid=30688570|doi-access=free |bibcode=2016PlDis.100...10L }} Thiabendazole (TBZ) is also commonly used in citrus here. Schmidt et al., 2006 find point mutations at codon 200 conferring TBZ resistance are common in California.

• {{cite book |date=2008 |publication-place=Berlin |publisher=Springer |last=Narayanasamy |first=P. |doi=10.1007/978-1-4020-8247-4 |oclc=261325778 |title=Molecular Biology in Plant Pathogenesis and Disease Management Vol. 3, Disease management |pages=282–283 |isbn=978-1-4020-8246-7}}

This book cites this research.

• {{cite journal

|last1=Schmidt |first1=Leigh S. |last2=Ghosoph |first2=Jennifer M. |last3=Margosan

|first3=Dennis A. |last4=Smilanick |first4=Joseph L. |title=Mutation at β-Tubulin Codon 200 Indicated Thiabendazole Resistance in Penicillium digitatum Collected from California Citrus Packinghouses |journal=Plant Disease |volume=90 |issue=6 |year=2006 |doi=10.1094/pd-90-0765 |pages=765–770 |pmid=30781237|bibcode=2006PlDis..90..765S }}

{{visible anchor|Karnal Bunt|Tilletia indica|Neovossia indica}} (Tilletia indica, syn. Neovossia indica) has spread from Asia to this continent, and since 1996 has been found in this country.{{rp|page=592}} It is present in areas of this state, and Arizona and Texas.

{{cite book |language=en |year=2005 |edition=5 |pages=xxv+922 |publication-place=Burlington, MA USA |publisher=Academic Press |first=George |lccn=2004011924 |oclc=134821046 |isbn=978-0-08-047378-9 |title=Plant Pathology |last=Agrios}}

{{rp|page=592}}

{{visible anchor|Corn Stunt Disease|Corn Stunt|Spiroplasma kunkelii}} (Spiroplasma kunkelii) affects corn (maize, Zea mays) here.{{cite journal |year=2018 |volume=19 |issue=1 |first2=Jennier |first1=Claire |last2=Lewis |pages=238–254 |last1=Bendix |journal=Molecular Plant Pathology |doi=10.1111/mpp.12526 |title=The enemy within: phloem-limited pathogens |pmid=27997761 |pmc=6638166|bibcode=2018MolPP..19..238B }}

{{visible anchor|Sudden Oak Death|Phytophthora ramorum}} (Phytophthora ramorum) is a widespread disease of oaks here and in Oregon, and is also found in Europe. It was first discovered in the 1990s on the Central Coast{{cite journal |last1=Anderson |first1=Pamela K. |last2=Cunningham |first2=Andrew A. |last3=Patel |first3=Nikkita G. |last4=Morales |first4=Francisco J. |last5=Epstein |first5=Paul R. |last6=Daszak |first6=Peter |title=Emerging infectious diseases of plants: pathogen pollution, climate change and agrotechnology drivers |journal=Trends in Ecology & Evolution |volume=19 |issue=10 |year=2004 |doi=10.1016/j.tree.2004.07.021 |pages=535–544 |pmid=16701319 |s2cid=12006626}} and was quickly found in Oregon as well.{{cite journal |last1=Rizzo |first1=David M. |last2=Garbelotto |first2=Matteo |last3=Hansen |first3=Everett M. |title=Phytophthora ramorum: Integrative Research and Management of an Emerging Pathogen in California and Oregon Forests |journal=Annual Review of Phytopathology |volume=43 |issue=1 |date=September 1, 2005 |doi=10.1146/annurev.phyto.42.040803.140418 |pages=309–335 |s2cid=33214324 |pmid=16078887|bibcode=2005AnRvP..43..309R }} P. ramorum is of economic concern due to its infestation of Rubus and Vaccinium spp. All isolates here and throughout North America have been of the A2 mating type and genetic analysis suggests that although it was discovered here, the pathogen originated elsewhere.

{{visible anchor|Phytophthora fragariae}} is a common disease of strawberry here. Weg 1997 shows that the resistance gene {{visible anchor|Rpf1}} is in a gene-for-gene relationship. Mathey 2013 shows that Rpf1 is responsible for most resistance in the Watsonville and Oxnard environments and provides a DNA test to predict performance.

• {{cite journal |year=2020 |issue=1 |volume=7 |journal=Horticulture Research |last1=Iezzoni |first1=Amy |last2=McFerson |first2=Jim |last3=Luby |first3=James |last4=Gasic |first4=Ksenija |last5=Whitaker |first5=Vance |last6=Bassil |first6=Nahla |last7=Yue |first7=Chengyan |last8=Gallardo |first8=Karina |last9=McCracken |first9=Vicki |last10=Coe |first10=Michael |last11=Hardner |first11=Craig |last12=Zurn |first12=Jason |last13=Hokanson |first13=Stan |last14=Weg |first14=Eric |last15=Jung |first15=Sook |last16=Main |first16=Dorrie |last17=Silva Linge |first17=Cassia |last18=Vanderzande |first18=Stijn |last19=Davis |first19=Thomas |last20=Mahoney |first20=Lise |last21=Finn |first21=Chad |last22=Peace |first22=Cameron |title=RosBREED: bridging the chasm between discovery and application to enable DNA-informed breeding in rosaceous crops |doi=10.1038/s41438-020-00398-7 |s2cid=226217178 |page=177 |pmid=33328430 |pmc=7603521|bibcode=2020HorR....7..177I }}

This review cites this research.

• {{cite thesis |date=2013 |type=MS |publisher=Oregon State University |url=https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/df65vb56v |last=Mathey |first=Megan |title=Phenotyping diverse strawberry (Fragaria spp.) germplasm for aid in marker- assisted breeding, and marker-trait association for red stele (Phytophthora fragariae) resistance marker Rpf1}}

No tests are available for Phytophthora fragariae var. fragariae. FPS recommends diagnosis by visual inspection.

Apple mosaic virus, Arabis mosaic virus and Tomato ringspot virus are common pathogens in strawberry.{{cite web |access-date=February 16, 2023 |title=Foundation Plant Services |website=Foundation Plant Services |url=https://fps.ucdavis.edu/strawberrytesting.cfm}}

Raspberry ringspot virus is a common pathogen in California.{{Cite web |access-date=2023-04-04 |title=Handling |website=UC Statewide IPM Program |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/handling-strawberry-transplants/}} Diagnosis is performed by cross infection of one of the alternate hosts which are herbaceous.

Strawberry feather leaf virus is a common pathogen. Foundation Plant Services (FPS) offers testing via leaf graft.{{cite web |access-date=2023-04-05 |title=Strawberry Pathogen Testing |website=University of California, Davis Foundation Plant Services |url=https://fps.ucdavis.edu/strawberrytesting.cfm}}

Hosts of Strawberry latent C virus include strawberry.

Strawberry latent ringspot virus is diagnosed by cross infection of one of the alternate hosts which are herbaceous or by polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

Strawberry leaf roll disease is a common pathogen.

Strawberry mild yellow edge virus is diagnosed by cross infection of a test strawberry or by polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

Hosts of Strawberry mottle virus include strawberry.

Strawberry pallidosis associated virus is diagnosed by cross infection of a test strawberry or by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). It is one of several viuses causing Pallidosis Related Decline of Strawberry.{{cite book |access-date=2023-04-06 |url=https://cesantabarbara.ucanr.edu/Strawberry_Production/Strawberry_Manual_English_-_Spanish/ |first1=Mark |first5=Kevin |edition=2 |date=November 2015 |title=Strawberry Production Manual For Growers on the Central Coast |website=University of California Cooperative Extension, Santa Barbara County |last1=Bolda |first2=Surendra |last2=Dara |first3=Julie |last3=Fallon |first4=Misael |last4=Sanchez |last5=Peterson}}{{rp | 68}}

Diagnosis of Strawberry vein banding virus is performed by cross infection of an herbaceous alternate host or by PCR.

Tobacco necrosis virus is diagnosed by cross infection of an herbaceous alternate host. Biosecurity Australia considers its presence here cause for concern for Australian stonefruit growers.{{Cite web |url=https://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity-trade/policy/risk-analysis/plant/stonefruit-usa |author=Biosecurity Australia |year=2010 |title=Provisional final import risk analysis report for fresh stone fruit from California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington |location=Canberra}}

Hosts of Tobacco streak virus include strawberry.

Diagnosis of Tomato black ring virus is performed by cross infection of an herbaceous alternate host.

Tomato bushy stunt virus is a common pathogen of several horticultural crops here.

Tomato ringspot virus is diagnosed by cross infection of an herbaceous alternate host. Hosts include strawberry.{{Cite web |access-date=2023-04-09 |title=Handling |website=UC Statewide IPM Program |url=https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/handling-strawberry-transplants/}}

Hosts of Xanthomonas fragariae include strawberry.

Aphelenchoides besseyi is a common horticultural nematode disease in California.

Barley/Cereal yellow dwarf virus (B/CYDV) harms native bunchgrasses more than an invasive grass, aiding the invasion.{{Cite book |date=2016 |publication-place=Switzerland |publisher=Springer Publishing |editor-first1=Aiming |editor-first2=Xueping |editor-last1=Wang |editor-last2=Zhou |title=Current Research Topics in Plant Virology |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-32919-2 |oclc=953456499 |s2cid=30788167 |page=203 |isbn=978-3-319-32919-2}}

Tomato necrotic dwarf virus is originally known from Imperial County.{{Cite journal |issue=1 |date=2015 |volume=53 |last1=Vlugt |first1=Rene |last2=Verbeek |first2=Martin |last3=Dullemans |first3=Annette |last4=Wintermantel |first4=William |last5=Cuellar |first5=Wilmer |last6=Fox |first6=Adrian |last7=Thompson |first7=Jeremy |title=Torradoviruses |journal=Annual Review of Phytopathology |doi=10.1146/annurev-phyto-080614-120021 |pages=485–512 |pmid=26047567|doi-access=free |bibcode=2015AnRvP..53..485V }}

More than 1 virus is usually present in any strawberry plant which has progressed to symptomatic infection.{{cite web |access-date=2023-04-12 |date=2022 |title=2021 Pest Management Strategic Plan for Strawberry in California |website=Regional Integrated Pest Management Centers Database |url=https://ipmdata.ipmcenters.org/source_report.cfm?view=yes&sourceid=2468}}

Lettuce Mosaic Virus has caused severe losses at times up to 100%.

{{Cite book |language=en |year=2020 |publisher=Springer Nature Singapore |editor-last1=Kumar |editor-first1=Ravindra |editor-last2=Gupta |editor-first2=Anuja |title=Seed-Borne Diseases of Agricultural Crops: Detection, Diagnosis & Management |doi=10.1007/978-981-32-9046-4 |isbn=978-981-32-9045-7 |s2cid=218682899}}{{RP|282}}

As with the entire country there is USDA subsidized crop insurance for the state. The Risk Management Agency provides various insurance schemes and deadlines by County and by crop.{{cite web |title=California |website=Risk Management Agency |url=http://www.rma.usda.gov/en/RMALocal/California |access-date=May 7, 2022}}

{{anchor|Research|Testing|Propagation material|Germplasm}}

File:NRCSCA97015 - California (1361)(NRCS Photo Gallery).tif researcher and Hmong farmer]]

{{visible anchor|Foundation Plant Services}}{{cite web |title=Foundation Plant Services |website=Foundation Plant Services, UC Davis |url=http://fps.ucdavis.edu/ |access-date=July 2, 2022}} (FPS) is a part of UCD's College of Agriculture which serves the horticultural industries. FPS performs several services including testing for diseases (especially viral diseases), identifying varieties of unknown plant samples, and supplying cuttings (vegetative propagation material) from in situ individuals they maintain. They use a library of published Simple Sequence Repeats (SSRs) known to be relevant to the state's strawberry industry to identify those varieties specifically. {{visible anchor|California Seed & Plant Lab}} is an even more active, private molecular lab for the strawberry industry. CS&PL tests for clients here and around the world.

California's experiences with the Vine mealybug, Glassy-winged sharp-shooter, and Pierce's disease have informed the process of creating geographic models for the spread of pests and diseases and their management in viticulture around the world.{{cite book |pages=xvi+505 |publication-place=Dordrecht |last2=Vincent |first3=Rufus |last3=Isaacs |first2=Charles |last1=Bostanian |first1=Noubar J. |title=Arthropod Management in Vineyards: Pests, Approaches, and Future Directions |date=June 26, 2012 |isbn=978-94-007-4032-7 |oclc=798568502 |id={{isbn |978-94-007-4031-0}}. {{isbn |978-94-007-9436-8}}}}{{rp|page=43}} See {{section link||Glassy-winged sharpshooter}} and {{section link||Pierce's Disease}}.

{{as of|2022}} Professor Juan Pablo Giraldo (UCR) has been making great progress since 2013 in nanomaterials applied to crops.{{cite journal |year=2022 |issue=1 |last2=Li |last1=Wu |first2=Zhaohu |first1=Honghong |journal=The Crop Journal |volume=10 |pages=1–12 |s2cid=237750690 |doi=10.1016/j.cj.2021.06.002 |title=Recent advances in nano-enabled agriculture for improving plant performance|doi-access=free |bibcode=2022CropJ..10....1W }}{{cite journal |year=2020 |volume=1 |issue=7 |first17=Kevin |first16=Jason |first15=Jason |first14=Joel |first13=Mathews |first11=Wess |first10=Patricia |first9=Joseph |first8=Juan |first7=Leanne |first6=John |first5=Davide |first4=Nathalie |first2=Gregory |last17=Wilkinson |last16=White |last14=Pedersen |last11=Lovell |last10=Landry |last8=Giraldo |last7=Gilbertson |last6=Dutcher |last2=Lowry ` |journal=Nature Food |last15=Unrine |first1=Thilo |last13=Paret |first12=Rafik |last9=Kinsella |last5=Brambilla |last4=Tufenkji |author4-link=Nathalie Tufenkji|first3=Subhasis |last3=Ghoshal |last12=Naccache |last1=Hofmann |pages=416–425 |doi=10.1038/s43016-020-0110-1 |title=Technology readiness and overcoming barriers to sustainably implement nanotechnology-enabled plant agriculture |s2cid=221095176}}

The University of California is one of the two institutions claiming ownership of the CRISPR/Cas9 patent. This technique has great promise for genetic improvement of agricultural organisms. What ever the outcome of the patent litigation, a license from UC or the Broad Institute or both may be required to produce such products in the future.{{cite journal |year=2021 |issue=1 |volume=8 |first5=Diane |first4=Karin |first3=Jiaqi |first2=Jingwei |first1=Emma |last5=Beckles |last4=Albornoz |last3=Zhou |last2=Yu |last1=Shipman |title=Can gene editing reduce postharvest waste and loss of fruit, vegetables, and ornamentals? |journal=Horticulture Research |page=1 |doi=10.1038/s41438-020-00428-4 |pmid=33384412 |pmc=7775472|bibcode=2021HorR....8....1S }}

{{anchor|Farmworker|Farmworkers}}

File:20181114-FPAC-LSC-0078.jpg farmworker learning additional skills in Salinas, 2018]]

{{see also|Farmworkers in the United States}}

The {{visible anchor|UC Davis Farm Labor|text=UC Davis Farm Labor}} program studies the state's farmworkers and provides information about them.{{cite web |access-date=November 6, 2022 |date=2021 |title=Farm Labor |website=University of California, Davis |url=https://farmlabor.ucdavis.edu/}}

The union organizing campaign of César Chávez and its impact on the industry has become a well known chapter in American history.{{cite book |year=2006 |pages=208 |first=Marco |publication-place=Tucson, Arizona, USA |publisher=University of Arizona Press |last=Prouty |oclc=609288779 |isbn=978-0-8165-4986-3 |title=César Chávez, the Catholic Bishops, and the Farmworkers' Struggle for Social Justice}}{{rp|page=63}} His movement was also joined by artists such as famed theater and film director Luis Valdéz.{{cite book |language=en |date=2008 |pages=xxiii+957 |first=Mark |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |id={{isbn |9780313341168}} |oclc=428815591 |isbn=978-1-57356-980-4 |title=Latino America: A State-by-State Encyclopedia |publication-place=Westport, Conn., US |last=Overmyer-Velázquez}}{{rp|92}} Ecofeminists have supported the United Farm Workers' strikes including Chávez's Grape boycott, especially for their positions on pesticides.{{cite book |year=2018 |publisher=Routledge |first=Ellen |last=O'Loughlin |pages=680–688 |title=Living with Contradictions |isbn=9780429499142}}

Despite the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Taylor & Thilmany 1992 found that the state's farmers did not reduce their hiring of illegal immigrants as farmworkers.

• {{cite journal |year=1992 |first2=Dawn |first1=Edward |issue=5 |volume=46 |last2=Thilmany |last1=Taylor |journal=California Agriculture |s2cid=73723920 |doi=10.3733/ca.v046n05p4 |title=Effects of immigration reform not as expected: California farmers still rely on new immigrants for field labor |pages=4–6|doi-broken-date=November 1, 2024 |doi-access=free }}
• {{cite journal |year=1993 |first2=Marvin |first1=Ian |issue=2 |volume=3 |last2=Pritts |last1=Merwin |journal=HortTechnology |pages=128–136 |s2cid=86309378 |doi=10.21273/horttech.3.2.128 |title=Are Modern Fruit Production Systems Sustainable?|doi-access=free }}

Indeed, illegal immigration inflows increased in the 1990s.{{cite journal |title=Proposed changes to the H-2A program would affect labor costs in the United States and California |year=2022 |issue=3 |volume=75 |first2=Zachariah |first1=Philip |last2=Rutledge |last1=Martin |pages=135–141 |doi=10.3733/ca.2021a0020 |journal=California Agriculture |s2cid=245713178 |doi-access=free }}

In addition to advising producers, the Statewide Integrated Pest Management program (UC IPM) began training farmworkers in 1988.{{cite book |edition=2 |access-date=July 25, 2022 |year=2021 |publisher=University of California Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics |url=https://giannini.ucop.edu/publications/cal-ag-book/ |isbn=978-0-578-71524-7 |title=California Agriculture: Dimensions and Issues}}{{rp|382}}

By the late 1990s the large immigrant population had expanded the workforce, reduced wages and working time per worker.{{cite journal |year=1998 |issue=1 |volume=29 |journal=Journal of the Community Development Society |first2=Refugio |first1=Elaine |last2=Rochin |last1=Allensworth |pages=119–145 |doi=10.1080/15575339809489776 |title=The Latinization of Rural Places in California: Growing Immiseration or Latino Power?}}{{rp|122}} The reanalysis of Khan et al., 2004 finds that increased production of labor demanding crops increases agricultural labor demand, but does not necessarily have to because the same workers could have been hired to perform more hours.{{cite journal |issue=January–March 2004 |first3=Phil |first2=Philip |last2=Martin |pages=35–39 |last3=Hardiman |first1=Akhtar |last1=Khan |journal=California Agriculture |s2cid=85153422 |id={{s2cid |55205815}} |doi=10.3733/CA.V058N01P35 |title=Expanded production of labor-intensive crops increases agricultural employment |year=2004 |volume=58|doi-access=free }} For many decades the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) left farmworkers alone. INS and then CBP chose not to do any significant enforcement in agriculture, hospitality, or construction.{{cite journal |year=2006 |issue=4 |volume=44 |journal=Journal of Economic Literature |last1=Hanson |first1=Gordon H. |s2cid=145485291 |doi=10.1257/jel.44.4.869 |pages=869–924 |title=Illegal Migration from Mexico to the United States |url=http://papers.nber.org/papers/w12141.pdf}} Especially in the Northern Sacramento Valley and Southern San Joaquin Valley, farmworkers had risen to a high proportion of the population by 2013.{{cite report |date=October 2013 |first2=Matthew K. |first1=Patrick |author3=California Research Bureau |publisher=California State Library & California Latino Legislative Caucus |last2=Buttice |last1=Rogers |url=https://latinocaucus.legislature.ca.gov/sites/latinocaucus.legislature.ca.gov/files/CRB%20Report%20on%20Farmworkers%20in%20CA%20S-13-017.pdf |title=Farmworkers in California: A Brief Introduction |id=S-13-017}}

The broader implications of intensified immigration enforcement are significant. The U.S. agricultural industry relies heavily on immigrant labor, with undocumented workers comprising a substantial portion of the workforce. In California, estimates suggest that undocumented immigrants make up about 70% of the state's agricultural workers.{{Cite news |last=Nowell |first=Cecilia |date=2024-11-11 |title='Mass deportations would disrupt the food chain': Californians warn of ripple effect of Trump threat |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/11/mass-deportations-food-chain-california |access-date=2025-04-01 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}

Despite the passage of the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975, by 2012 unions were less popular with farmworkers than they had been before it was passed.{{cite journal |first=Philip |last=Martin |year=2012 |title=Labor Relations in California Agriculture: Review and Outlook |journal=Agricultural and Resource Economics Update |volume=15 |issue=3 |pages=5–8 }}

The Borello 1988 decision classifies strawberry sharecroppers as independent contractors.{{Cite journal |year=2015 |issue=4 |volume=40 |last=Sanchez |first=Teresa |pages=917–938 |title=Gendered Sharecropping: Waged and Unwaged Mexican Immigrant Labor in the California Strawberry Fields |journal=Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society |doi=10.1086/680329 |s2cid=154912946 |url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/680329}}

Even when immigration was unrestricted, strawberry growers felt in 2017 that labor supply was still too tight.{{cite journal |year=2016 |issue=1 |volume=93 |first=Julie |journal=Economic Geography |last=Guthman |pages=24–43 |title=Paradoxes of the Border: Labor Shortages and Farmworker Minor Agency in Reworking California's Strawberry Fields |s2cid=157028737 |doi=10.1080/00130095.2016.1180241}} {{cite journal |year=2019 |issue=6 |volume=44 |last=Strauss |first=Kendra |journal=Progress in Human Geography |pages=1212–1224 |title=Labour geography III: Precarity, racial capitalisms and infrastructure |s2cid=213279174 |doi=10.1177/0309132519895308}} Farmers here were solid supporters of candidate and then President Trump, but were quickly surprised by the rhetoric of the administration due to the labor situation in the industry.{{cite news |newspaper=The New York Times |date=February 9, 2017 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/california-farmers-backed-trump-but-now-fear-losing-field-workers.html |title=California Farmers Backed Trump, but Now Fear Losing Field Workers |first2=Jennifer |last2=Medina |first1=Caitlin |last1=Dickerson}} As late as 2017 the illegal workforce was still projected to grow. A Pew Research Center analysis by Passel & Cohn expected continued lax enforcement to produce a continued population boom, including among California's agricultural workers.{{cite web |year=2017 |title=Immigration projected to drive growth in U.S. working-age population through at least 2035 |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/08/immigration-projected-to-drive-growth-in-u-s-working-age-population-through-at-least-2035/ |publisher=Pew Research Center |first1=Jeffrey S. |last1=Passel |first2=D'Vera |last2=Cohn}} During and after the escalated deportation raids the lack of normal labor opened opportunities for others. Many high school students with farmworker family members quit school to join them in the fields.{{cite news |year=2022 |first=Joan |last=Meiners |journal=Arizona Republic |url=https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-environment/2022/10/12/climate-change-could-raise-produce-prices-slow-food-justice-fight/8237328001/ |title=Climate change could push produce prices higher, slowing the fight for food justice}}

Some farmworkers here are not employed here all year but instead travel to other agricultural employment while California is in the off season.{{cite web |access-date=August 28, 2022 |year=2022 |title=Settlements in California |website=Indigenous Farmworker Study |url=http://www.indigenousfarmworkers.org/settlementCA.shtml}}

Although the entire tomato harvest was performed by laborers until recently, machines for harvest have been developed. The harvest of processing tomatoes is now entirely done by machines. The fresh tomato market still must be supplied by laborers however.{{cite journal |year=2022 |first2=Alastair |first1=Patrick |last2=Iles |last1=Baur |title=Replacing humans with machines: a historical look at technology politics in California agriculture |journal=Agriculture and Human Values |volume=40 |pages=113–140 |doi=10.1007/s10460-022-10341-2 |s2cid=250515385}} See {{section link||Tomatoes}}. Just before the 2018 deportations began, in 2017 strawberry pickers earned ~$150/day or ~$18.75/hour.{{cite web |access-date=September 11, 2022 |year=2017 |website=Chicago Tribune |last=Nickelsburg |first=Jerry |url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-strawberry-workers-immigration-mexico-perspec-20170504-story.html |title=Strawberry fields forever — unless immigration policy intrudes}}

The right personal protective equipment is required for fumigant applicators and those working nearby. Practices and training and provided by the state Department of Pesticide Regulation.{{cite web |year=2013 |pages=iii+34 |first6=Nita |first5=Paul |first4=Matt |first3=Marshall |first2=Nan |first1=Brian |last6=Davidson |last3=Lee |last5=Verke |last4=Fossen |last2=Gorder |last1=Leahy |publisher=California Department of Pesticide Regulation |url=http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pestmgt/strawberry/work_group/action_plan.pdf |title=Nonfumigant Strawberry Production Working Group Action Plan}}

{{as of|2019}}, 9% of all unauthorized immigrants in California are employed in this industry.{{cite web |access-date=October 8, 2022 |date=2019 |website=Migration Policy Institute |url=https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/us-immigration-policy-program-data-hub/unauthorized-immigrant-population-profiles |title=Unauthorized Immigrant Population Profiles}}

Enforcement of state laws and regulations regarding farm labor and pesticides is the responsibility of the {{visible anchor|County Agricultural Commissioner}}s.{{cite book |date=2018 |pages=xv+576 |publication-place=Washington, DC, US |series=ACS Symposium Series |issn=0097-6156 |publisher=American Chemical Society Division of Agrochemicals (Oxford University Press) |first4=Michael |first3=Mark |first2=Scott |first1=Minghua |last3=Robertson |last2=Jackson |last1=Zhang |last4=Zeiss |number=1283 |oclc=1045640106 |lccn=2018025937 |id={{isbn |9780841232907}}. {{LCCN |2018034681}} |doi=10.1021/bk-2018-1283 |isbn=9780841232891 |title=Managing and Analyzing Pesticide Use Data for Pest Management, Environmental Monitoring, Public Health, and Public Policy}}{{rp|19}}

Harrison & Getz 2015 study organic fruit and vegetable workers here and find that working conditions generally improve with increasing farm size.{{cite journal |year=2017 |issue=1 |volume=42 |journal=Annual Review of Environment and Resources |last6=Lovell |last4=Cohen |last3=Baird |first7=Elissa |first6=Robin |first5=Kelsey |first3=Graeme |first2=Timothy |first1=Carol |last7=Olimpi |last5=Forbush |first4=Hamutahl |last2=Krupnik |last1=Shennan |pages=317–346 |doi=10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085750 |title=Organic and Conventional Agriculture: A Useful Framing? |s2cid=157859275|url=https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7hg3z3h5 }} Stockton et al., 2017's meta analysis shows workers were earning two-thirds of the average Californian due to a combination of low wages and underemployment.{{cite journal |date=April–June 2017 |number=2 |volume=72 |pages=107–113 |first3=Marc |first2=Brandon |first1=Philip |last3=Stockton |last2=Hooker |last1=Martin |title=Employment and earnings of California farmworkers in 2015 |doi=10.3733/ca.2017a0043 |journal=California Agriculture |s2cid=90789787|doi-access=free }}

Hundreds of thousands of members of native Mexican ethnics are estimated to live in the state as farmworkers.{{cite news |access-date=August 28, 2022 |year=2021 |first=Leila |last=Miller |newspaper=Los Angeles Times |url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-07/la-me-indigenous-map-los-angeles |title=Zapotec in 90006, K'iche' in 90057: New map highlights L.A.'s Indigenous communities}}

The state Department of Industrial Relations (DIR){{cite web |url=https://www.dir.ca.gov/ |title=California Department of Industrial Relations |publisher=California Department of Industrial Relations}} regulates and provides information for workers and employers. DIR's Labor Enforcement Task Force (LETF) enforces such requirements as overtime.{{Cite web |access-date=2023-04-16 |title=Protect Your Business—Prevent Penalties |url=https://www.dir.ca.gov/letf/Agriculture_Employer_Brochure.pdf}} UCANR and UCCE also provide information for employers' business planning.{{cite web |access-date=October 31, 2022 |title=Labor and Personnel Management - Farm Business and Market Place |publisher=Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California & University of California Cooperative Extension |url=https://ucanr.edu/sites/FarmBus/Planning_-_Management/Labor_Information/}}

During 2021 field workers have been severely dissatisfied with working conditions. They complain of both suffering from the ongoing pandemic and from the financial impact of missing work.{{cite journal |year=2021 |first=Ricardo |last=Vela |journal=Nuestra Comunidad |url=https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=45894 |title=Field workers doubly struck by the pandemic}}

The {{visible anchor|California Strawberry Scholarship Program|California Strawberry Growers' Fund}} is operated by the California Strawberry Growers' Fund. {{As of|2022}} it has awarded over $2 million for the schooling of strawberry pickers' children.{{Cite web |access-date=November 6, 2022 |year=2022 |website=University of California, Riverside School of Medicine Student Affairs |url=https://somsa.ucr.edu/outside-scholarships-pathway-students |title=Outside Scholarships for Pathway Students}} The {{visible anchor|California Table Grape Growers}} have a similar program.{{cite news |access-date=November 6, 2022 |year=2022 |work=ABC 30 |publisher=KFSN-TV Fresno |location=Fresno, California |last=Girardin |first=Shayla |title=CA Table Grape Growers offers scholarship to farm workers, families, students interested in ag |url=https://abc30.com/ag-scholarships-california-table-grape-growers-agriculture-school-funding-higher-education-central-valley/12357753/}}

Billikopf has repeatedly (Billikopf 1999, Billikopf 2001) found that improved working conditions improve worker productivity of strawberry pickers.{{cite journal |year=2018 |issue=1 |volume=7 |first2=Zhengfei |first1=Fritz |last2=Guan |last1=Roka |journal=International Journal of Agricultural Management |pages=79–87 |doi=10.22004/ag.econ.292479 |title=Farm labor management trends in Florida, USA – challenges and opportunities |url=https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/292479}}

Demand for workers in grape cultivation is greatest from late June to early November for the San Joaquin Valley, and mid-May to early July for the Coachella Valley.{{cite web |access-date=November 15, 2022 |date=July 2015 |id=3448 |publisher=University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources |url=https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/grape/table-grapes-harvest/ |title=Agriculture: Grape Pest Management Guidelines: Harvest}}

The {{visible anchor|Indigenous Farmworker Study}} is a program of the Indigenous Program of California Rural Legal Assistance which collects information on natives of Mexico employed in agriculture here.{{Cite web |access-date=2023-03-07 |title=IFS |website=Indigenous Farmworker Study |url=http://www.indigenousfarmworkers.org/}}

Enforcement of labor laws has had little success in improving working conditions.{{cite web |access-date=2023-04-14 |work=Changing Face |author=Migration Program University of California, Davis |url=https://migration.ucdavis.edu/cf/more.php?id=174 |title=Hired Workers on California Farms}}

Richards 2018 finds chronic labor shortage in some sectors.

• {{cite journal |issue=2 |date=2020 |volume=68 |last1=Richards |first1=Timothy |last2=Rickard |first2=Bradley |pages=189–194 |title=COVID-19 impact on fruit and vegetable markets |journal=Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics |doi=10.1111/cjag.12231 |bibcode=2020CaJAE..68..189R |s2cid=218797224|doi-access=free |pmc=7264629 }}
• {{cite journal |year=2021 |volume=188 |last1=Weersink |first1=Alfons |last2=von Massow |first2=Mike |last3=Bannon |first3=Nicholas |last4=Ifft |first4=Jennifer |last5=Maples |first5=Josh |last6=McEwan |first6=Ken |last7=McKendree |first7=Melissa G.S. |last8=Nicholson |first8=Charles |last9=Novakovic |first9=Andrew |last10=Rangarajan |first10=Anusuya |last11=Richards |first11=Timothy |last12=Rickard |first12=Bradley |last13=Rude |first13=James |last14=Schipanski |first14=Meagan |last15=Schnitkey |first15=Gary |last16=Schulz |first16=Lee |last17=Schuurman |first17=Daniel |last18=Schwartzkopf-Genswein |first18=Karen |last19=Stephenson |first19=Mark |last20=Thompson |first20=Jada |last21=Wood |first21=Katie |title=COVID-19 and the agri-food system in the United States and Canada |journal=Agricultural Systems |doi=10.1016/j.agsy.2020.103039 |page=103039 |pmid=33362333 |pmc=7755574|bibcode=2021AgSys.18803039W }}

These reviews cite this research.

• {{cite journal |issue=4 |volume=100 |date=2018 |last=Richards |first=Timothy |pages=1050–1071 |title=Immigration Reform and Farm Labor Markets |url=https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/274165/files/Abstracts_18_05_03_08_25_06_05__68_230_127_173_0.pdf |journal=American Journal of Agricultural Economics |doi=10.1093/ajae/aay027}}

Goodhue et al. 2011 find Spotted Wing Drosophila imposes high labor costs in strawberry and raspberry.

• {{cite journal |date=2012 |last1=Cini |first1=A. |last2=Ioriatti |first2=C. |last3=Anfora |first3=G. |url=http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org/pdfarticles/vol65-2012-149-160cini.pdf |s2cid=16948426 |journal=Bulletin of Insectology |title=A review of the invasion of Drosophila suzukii in Europe and a draft research agenda for integrated pest management}}
• {{cite journal |date=2015 |issue=3 |volume=88 |last1=Asplen |first1=Mark |last2=Anfora |first2=Gianfranco |last3=Biondi |first3=Antonio |last4=Choi |first4=Deuk-Soo |last5=Chu |first5=Dong |last6=Daane |first6=Kent |last7=Gibert |first7=Patricia |last8=Gutierrez |first8=Andrew |last9=Hoelmer |first9=Kim |last10=Hutchison |first10=William D. |last11=Isaacs |first11=Rufus |last12=Jiang |first12=Zhi-Lin |last13=Karpati |first13=Zsolt |last14=Kimura |first14=Masahito |last15=Pascual |first15=Marta |last16=Philips |first16=Christopher |last17=Plantamp |first17=Christophe |last18=Ponti |first18=Luigi |last19=Vetek |first19=Gabor |last20=Vogt |first20=Heidrun |last21=Walton |first21=Vaughn |last22=Yu |first22=Yi |last23=Zappalà |first23=Lucia |last24=Desneux |first24=Nicolas |pages=469–494 |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10340-015-0681-z |title=Invasion biology of spotted wing Drosophila (Drosophila suzukii): a global perspective and future priorities |journal=Journal of Pest Science |doi=10.1007/s10340-015-0681-z |bibcode=2015JPesS..88..469A |s2cid=14337743}}

These reviews cite this research.

• {{cite journal |date=2011 |issue=11 |volume=67 |last1=Goodhue |first1=Rachael |last2=Bolda |first2=Mark |last3=Farnsworth |first3=Derek |last4=Williams |first4=Jeffrey |last5=Zalom |first5=Frank |title=Spotted wing drosophila infestation of California strawberries and raspberries: economic analysis of potential revenue losses and control costs |journal=Pest Management Science |pages=1396–1402 |doi=10.1002/ps.2259 |pmid=21815244|doi-access=free }}

Guthman 2017 finds many strawberry growers advocate for soil fumigants as a way to maintain employment for strawberry field workers.

• {{cite journal |date=2019 |issue=6 |volume=44 |last=Strauss |first=Kendra |title=Labour geography III: Precarity, racial capitalisms and infrastructure |journal=Progress in Human Geography |doi=10.1177/0309132519895308 |pages=1212–1224 |s2cid=213279174}}
• {{cite journal |year=2018 |volume=1 |issue=1–2 |last=Williams |first=Brian |title="That we may live": Pesticides, plantations, and environmental racism in the United States South |journal=Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space |doi=10.1177/2514848618778085 |pages=243–267 |bibcode=2018EnPlE...1..243W |s2cid=158083649}}

These reviews cite this research.

• {{cite journal |last=Guthman |first=Julie |title=Paradoxes of the Border: Labor Shortages and Farmworker Minor Agency in Reworking California's Strawberry Fields |journal=Economic Geography |volume=93 |issue=1 |date=2016 |doi=10.1080/00130095.2016.1180241 |pages=24–43 |s2cid=157028737}}

The 2022–2023 California floods devastated strawberry, other berries and greens cultivation areas, and impacted worker housing.{{Cite news |access-date=2023-04-19 |date=2023-03-27 |newspaper=The Guardian |last=Singh |first=Maanvi |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/27/california-farm-workers-pajaro-california-flooding |title=They grow America's strawberries. A vicious flood made them climate migrants}}

California's agricultural sector is heavily dependent on immigrant labor, with a significant portion of its workforce lacking legal status. According to the U.S. Department of Labor's National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS), conducted between 2015 and 2019, approximately 49% of hired crop farmworkers in California were unauthorized immigrants.{{Cite web |title=Summary Reports, Research Briefs, and Presentations |url=https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/national-agricultural-workers-survey/research |access-date=2025-04-01 |website=DOL |language=en}}

Recent immigration enforcement actions have had notable impacts on California's agricultural communities. For instance, a workplace raid in Kern County in February 2025 led to the detention of numerous farmworkers, disrupting local farming operations and instilling fear among immigrant laborers.{{Cite web |last=CalMatters |first=Wendy Fry and Sergio Olmos • |date=2025-02-27 |title=Immigration Raids Rattled Kern County -- Now, the ACLU Is Suing Over Alleged Abuses |url=https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2025/02/27/immigration-raids-rattled-kern-county-now-the-aclu-is-suing-over-alleged-abuses/ |access-date=2025-04-01 |website=Times of San Diego |language=en-US}}

In 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States under Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid struck down the right of organizers to enter California farms outside of working hours to unionize workers.{{cite news |last1=Totenberg |first1=Nina |last2=Singerman |first2=Eric |title=Supreme Court Hands Farmworkers Union A Major Loss |url=https://www.npr.org/2021/06/23/1000129827/in-a-narrow-ruling-supreme-court-hands-farmworkers-union-a-loss |access-date=30 April 2024 |date=June 24, 2021}}{{cite news |last1=Liptak |first1=Adam |title=Supreme Court Rules Against Union Recruiting on California Farms |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/us/supreme-court-unions-farms-california.html |access-date=30 April 2024 |work=The New York Times |date=23 June 2021}}{{cite news |last1=Barnes |first1=Robert |title=Supreme Court strikes down Calif. regulation allowing union access to farmworkers on growers' land |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-farm-union-california/2021/06/23/1c22fab2-d42a-11eb-a53a-3b5450fdca7a_story.html |access-date=30 April 2024 |newspaper=Washington Post |date=23 June 2021}}

{{incomplete list|date=April 2024}}

• In April 2024, over 100 farm workers protested for better wages and working conditions, asking for a minimum of US$26/hr. In 2024, farmworkers in Santa Barbara County earned an average hourly wage of ~$17/hr.{{cite news |last1=Rodriguez |first1=Christina |title=Hundreds of Central Coast Farmworkers plan a day of action in Santa Maria |url=https://keyt.com/news/santa-maria-north-county/2024/04/28/hundreds-of-central-coast-farmworkers-plan-a-day-of-action-in-santa-maria/ |access-date=30 April 2024 |work=News Channel 3-12 |date=28 April 2024}}{{cite news |title=Farmworkers protest in Santa Maria, demand better wages and working conditions |url=https://calcoastnews.com/2024/04/farmworkers-protest-in-santa-maria-demand-better-wages-and-working-conditions/ |access-date=30 April 2024 |work=Cal Coast News |date=29 April 2024}}

• Agriculture in the United States

{{reflist}}

{{Further|History of agriculture in California#Further reading}}

• [https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/PDFs/2017-18AgReport.pdf California Agricultural Statistics Review 2017-2018] from the California Department of Food and Agriculture
• {{cite web |title=Home |website=UC Davis Cost Studies |date=February 28, 2022 |url=http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/en/ |access-date=June 18, 2022 |archive-date=June 26, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220626000334/https://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/en/ |url-status=dead }}
• {{cite web |title=California Grown |website=California Grown |publisher=California Department of Food and Agriculture |date=April 20, 2020 |url=http://californiagrown.org/ |access-date=July 6, 2022}}

{{Agriculture in the United States}}

Category:Agriculture in the United States by state or territory