Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

The tenth meeting of the Soybean Rust Working group was held at the Hilton Pensacola Beach, Pensacola Beach, Florida on March 12-13, 2013. Dr. Kiersten Wise, the committee chair, opened the meeting at 8:30 am on March 12th. Group introductions followed the welcome. More than 20 people present for this session. See attachment for all state reports given. Current Status of SBR Monitoring (2013): Dr. Ed Sikora gave an update on soybean rust monitoring. The United Soybean Board funded the sentinel plot program for 2013. The program will continue to have sentinel plots in the gulf coast states and will remove them from Oklahoma, South Carolina and Arkansas. Disease monitoring in the plots will be expanded to include frog eye leaf spot, Cercospora leaf blight and web blight. Collaborators for these newly monitored diseases include Dr. Bradley U of IL, Frog Eye; Dr. Peterson MSU, Web Blight; Dr. Padgett LSU, Leaf Blight. The group then discussed the possibility of adding frog eye leaf spot to the national website. There was agreement that this disease should be added, but further discussion would be needed on how to report this disease. Standardized Fungicide Field Efficacy Tests for Soybean Rust: Dr. Ray Schneider gave a presentation entitled: "Need to Establish a Baseline Sensitivity for Several Fungicides". Research from soybean plots at LSU in 2012 indicated that substantially more disease was present in Quadris treatments than Headline. Both the 1 and 2 spray applications of Headline controlled soybean rust, but Quadris alone treatments had significant amounts of disease. The need to establish a baseline sensitivity for soybean rust fungicides is important. Dr. Schneider indicated that in 2006 and 2007, Brazilian researchers (Dr. Claudia Godoy) observed the complete failure of the DMI fungicides tebuconazole and metaconazole. In Brazil, it has been observed that with time fungicide effectiveness can change. Dr. Schneider talked about options for determining sensitivity through different assays (leaf dips, molecular techniques and germination tests). He also proposed that we develop a standardized field trial that could be used to determine the sensitivity of the fungus using different fractions of the rates. This would have to be a coordinated effort to collect a lot of data quickly and effectively. Discussion about Dr. Schneiders proposal immediately followed his presentation. Researchers in Alabama and Florida were willing to participate in a coordinated effort for determine the sensitivity of soybean rust to different fungicides in the United States. The question was raised by Dr. Tom Allen about the need for such a large test, when the spray frequency in the U.S. is less than that in Brazil. Also, many questions were raised about developing the right protocol. Dr. Kiersten Wise indicated that maybe a greenhouse screen assay to determine if resistance isolates were present may be simpler to small plot work on research farms. It was indicated that using sprays greater than the recommended rates on the label can drive resistance in strobilurins, and that conducting studies in the field with high rates may lead to the spread of resistant isolates. Dr. John Rupe indicated that in-vitro testing as another means for determining sensitivity. Questions about support for these studies were raised as the NCSRP had not funding a similar proposal in the past, and the group was unsure the USB would fund this work. Final discussion among the group focused on the methods. Dr. Heather Young indicated that using powdery mildew protocols may useful for in-vitro assays. Dr. Wise said we should look at the fungicide resistance literature and explore this topic more in the future. It was also indicated the Dr. Glen Hartman may be working on these assays in-vitro and it would be good to contact him before coordinating a multi-state effort. Fungicide Efficacy Table: Dr. Kiersten Wise presented the group with fungicide efficacy table to assist the industry with fungicide selection and recommendations for soybean diseases. This table was based off of the wheat and corn tables used by plant pathologists throughout the U.S. After presenting the table, the floor was opened to discussion. Dr. Loren Geisler provided feedback about the table and suggested adding protectant fungicides to the table. Dr. Ed Sikora commented on this and said he did not believe that protectants were being used by growers. Further discussion ensued about products and trial data that can be used to help develop this table further. It was decided that this table would be of value to producers, researchers and industry personnel. The group decided that we will continue to work adjusting the tables contents through email and again tomorrow at the meeting. Ultimately, input from researchers conducting fungicide field trials will be relied upon to fill out this table and the relative efficacy of the fungicides. Soybean Rust Survey Results: Dr. Tom Allen conducted a survey of soybean rust extension and research work being completed from 2005 to 2012. His findings were: 1.) sentinel plots numbers have been reduced by more than half since 2005, 2.) funding for sentinel plots has decreases substantially and thus many plots have been maintained by individual researchers in their spare time, and 3.) there has been a significant increase in mobile scouting efforts. A majority of the soybean rust monitoring effort is focused in the southern states, but the focus is in commercial sentinel plots and not university maintained plots. Because of these overall reductions, the epidemiological data has decreased through reductions in leaf samples from sentinel plots. The responses to this survey varied and were low. ipmPIPE Development and Changes: Dr. Scott Isard led a discussion about changes that will be coming to the ipmPIPE website and the development of the iPiPE. The iPiPE will eventually replace the ipmPIPE and with the goal to address growers needs through increased data sharing among agricultural stakeholders, regulatory agencies and academic institutions. The new site will create an electronic notebook for its users that allows for different maps to be created based on their input. iPiPE app demonstration: Ms. Julie Golod demonstrated how the iPiPE app will work and how to create an account. All data from the old website (ipmPIPE) will be transferred to the new iPiPE website and the functionality of the site will not change. APPs for the Andriod and IOS (Apple) operating systems will be available for this program. The IOS APP will be ready by the end of March. iPiPE data management and use: Ms. Golod continued the discussion about the iPiPEs data management. Data on this platform will be shared with all of the iPiPE participants and stored for 3 years. After 3 years, formal requests can be made for stored data by users and the release of the data will be discussed by a review board. Users using the website will be granted permission to only certain levels of data (i.e. APHIS PPQ and Extension Specialists), especially sensitive quarantine information. All shared data will only be at the county level, but individual notebooks will have GPS tags. Dr. Wise led the discussion about guidance for data sharing and it was a consensus from the group that a document about data sharing was needed. The group continued its discussion about data sharing and the addition of more diseases to the iPiPE monitoring map. Dr. Tom Allen was concerned about providing all the information to iPiPE participants as it may be used incorrectly or misinterpret by users. Dr. Isard indicated that certain pathogen postings could be restricted and it would up to the states extension specialist to decide. Dr. Marois felt that we should come to a consensus so each state looked the same. Further discussion about data management ensued, and Dr. Wise recommended that terms for classifying pathogens and data sharing levels be circulated for the group to discuss at the meeting tomorrow after further review. Using iPiPE to monitor fungicide-resistant pathogens: Dr. Sikora began a discussion about using the iPiPE to monitor fungicide resistance of frog-eye leaf spot. The discussion touched on topics of how to relate data to the public site, when do counties change color and how is this data confirmed, what type of commentary is needed, and does old data need to be posted on the maps. Drs. Loren, Allen, Young and Wise all mentioned that sharing fungicide resistance data has many pros and cons. The group felt that it was important to develop a detailed plan about how to release this data to the public and what should be kept private concerning frog-eye fungicide resistance. Dr. Isard mentioned that samples would be sent to Dr. Carl Bradley and Dr. Heather Young and they would determine if positive. Once a positive identification is made they would send out an email to specialists and change the public site 3 days later. Dr. Hershman mentioned that the number of isolates that test sensitive to the fungicide should also be added to the restricted portion of the website. Further discussion was put forth about how to report these results on the website and map (i.e. color schemes and commentary). A representative from the USB mentioned the importance of the information this tool provide to growers. Dr. Geisler said that timing of this resistance information is critical to growers as many make decisions in December. Dr. Young stated that the information will be released as near to real time as possible. If time permits, further discussion will be had on this topic tomorrow. Plant Disease Feature Article About SBR: Dr. Kiersten Wise provided an update about the plant disease article. Dr. Wise mentioned the article was progressing at a good rate and should be ready to submit in 2013. This topic was tabled until tomorrow. Update from USB/NCSRP Stakeholder Meeting: Dr. Kiersten Wise presented information from Dr. Anne Dorrance about comments and discussion she received at the annual stakeholders meeting. A key point from this meeting is that stakeholders would like an increased awareness about research projects being conducted with organizational funds. It was suggested the researchers increase their efforts to expose stakeholders in person to research (i.e. tours of research fields/greenhouses/labs). The USB sees a greater need to justify the work being conducted, so it is critical that researchers show the outcomes and impacts from their projects. This did not mean increasing the documented information out there, but instead developing novel techniques that summarizes the works impacts (i.e. mini-summaries, mini-videos, etc). Dr. Martin Draper said that 3 minute videos from the field about what is being done right now, would be a good way to relate to the growers. Dr. Wise asked specifically to the group what would work to relate this information to growers? A coordinated extension message from the group and executive summaries that a grower can appreciate might be the best places to start with this important effort. Meeting adjourn for evening at 4:30 pm by Dr. Kiersten Wise. Meeting brought to order at 8:30 am by Dr. Kiersten Wise. ScoutPro APP Demonstration: Mr. Mike Koenig in collaboration with Dr. Darren Mueller presented information on the agricultural APP ScoutPro. This APP offers users the ability to access ID keys, create local reports (i.e. research, chemical and pest) with geo tags and map scouting reports from a field for site specific data. The overall concept for this APP is management. The APP is only currently available for corn and soybeans, but there is interest to include new crops in the future (i.e. small grains and cotton). Dr. Darren Mueller mentioned this APP could be designed to suit specific research programs and regions, to create a tool useful to individual researchers. Dr. Martin Draper added that it would be good to pair this data with known disease distribution maps, to help in the users management decisions. The group thanked the presenters for the information and agreed it would be a useful tool. Plant Disease Feature Article About SBR: Dr. Wise opened discussion again on the feature article. The main point of the discussion was how to deal with 48 authors. The plan was to circulate the article to the authors as the draft develops. Dr. Don Hershman suggested that there be primary and secondary authors on this article, with the primary authors being Drs. Wise, Allen and Sikora. This suggestion was supported by Dr. Laura Sweets and Dr. Daren Mueller. Discussion was closed on this topic. Stakeholders Meeting Revisited: Discussion was again opened on the information gained form the stakeholders meeting that Dr. Ann Dorrance attended. Dr. Dorrance brought to the groups attention that the stakeholders need to know what researchers are doing and to continue to reach out to them. The stakeholders need to see evidence of how research dollars are spent and the impact of this spending. Dr. Wise suggested the development of a report at the end of the meeting with 4 or 5 bullet points and a few pictures, may be needed. Dr. John Rupe indicated that the venues for releasing this information are limited, and it is important not to be too verbose. Dr. Martin Draper said that the gap University personnel has with stakeholders is causing there to be a disconnect and often industry is filling in the gaps. He also mentioned that Smith-Lever reports are important and a good way to get the story to the legislature. Dr. Jim Marois and Dr. Don Hershman indicated that university administration is critical in providing this information to stakeholders and that the institutions themselves need to focus on filling these gaps. It is critical that we avoid scenarios where stakeholders pull money away from universities because they do not feel important. Discussion on this topic was closed, but the group felt that it is important to relate what impacts this NCERA has made and will try some of the methods mentioned (i.e. video and impact statements). Business Meeting: Administrative Update: Dr. Marty Draper provided the group with a brief administrative update. He congratulated the group on the award they received and mentioned that this is the most productive multi-state committee he has worked with. This committee is to be featured as a promotional piece to the legislature. Dr. Draper talked about the federal governments budget. The budget is down 15%, but is not the 30% originally expected to occur. At this time there is no new farm bill, and 10% of NIFAs operating budget was lost when farm bill was extended. Sequestration cuts were 5%. Once funding becomes available it has been indicated that it will be in 3 main areas 1.) Extension, 2.) Research and Education, and 3.) Integrated Activities (i.e. food safety, water and methyl bromide). Smith Lever Funds, National Plant Diagnostic Network and AFRI will be cut, but some large money grants will be finishing in AFRI soon and more new awards will be available. Overall, the budget will be in flux until the legislature passes a farm bill. Reporting, as discussed before, is key to the funding. CRIS reports are read by NIFA and Congress, it is critical that we avoid duplicating work. Be sure to include up front your impacts and feel free to add hyperlinks to the reports. The CRIS database will be replaced by REEport. The REEport interface will be more user-friendly and will be a tabbed base system. When doing these reports, remember that 25% of Hatch funds have to be used for multi-state activities. Dr. Draper said the better you report the better it is for us, and the more they can get to the legislature. Requests from congress occur fast and often without warning. Additional Administrative Comments: Dr. Steven Slack commented on the federal funding situation from a states government point of view. He mentioned how capacity funds support salaries and the loss of these funds could lead to less employees who can apply for competitive funds at the federal level. Funding changed dramatically in 2008, and the administration is working to find a balance with these new funding models. Each experiment station is dealing with the tight funding issue and as they all operate differently. The Farm bill will be critical to determining funds that are available. Congress will focus on consolidating funding lines that look the same. For example, 4 to 5 IPM funding lines will be combined to use one line of funding in the 3 to 5 million dollar range. The idea is to roll these programs together to avoid losing programs that are needed. It is a form of protection. How do we show what we are providing has value? Numbers are not meaningful, what politicians (and producers) need to see are impacts. It is critical we answer the questions: What is the impact of our work? Why should they support this work? It is important that as a group we express why what we do is important. This committee has done a good job of keeping up to date. The impact statements from this group are critical. Also, our roster needs to be maintained and kept current. We can add ARS employees and Canadian researchers, but must contact Dr. Slack with the information. Dr. Slack congratulated the group on the award. This committee was recognized nationally for all the work it has done. Reporting was important and Marty and Anne did a lot of work and editing. Feedback was that the nomination sailed through the reviews at both regional and national levels. It has made a difference. This award has provided the committee with 11,000 dollars for investing, but must be spent by Sept. 30th. Dr. Mueller asked Dr. Slack about how we can make our reports more effective. Dr. Slack responded by saying the economic benefit is critical. If you can indicate you create jobs or secure jobs that would be useful. Numbers can be helpful, but be sure you can back up these numbers. If, you can say that you are reporting something that can lead to economic growth, then put it in there. They like to think of it as an investment. Motion to approve the minutes from 2012: Dr. Doug Jardine moves for minutes approval in email, Dr. Daren Mueller second it. The motion passed with majority vote. How to spend money from award? $11,000 available: 1. SBRFUNGICIDES.NET domain name costs $485 for a 9 yr renewal. 2. Publishing cost for SBR article, for spending these funds. Cost unknown for reprints. Estimate costs at $400 a reprint. Consider a set number of reprints for authors and boards. 3. Higher a video producer for 2 min or 3 min video for stakeholders/USB to get the highlights of impact out. 4. Hiring a consultant to assess the impact of this group. Option 3 was indicated by the group as the best option, but option 4 will also be investigated. Drs. Slack and Draper both approved this idea. Mid-term review: Midterm review is due in 2014 with an updated impact statement. Drs. Wise, Sikora and Hartman volunteered to help with reports and edits. Due Dec. 15th, 2014 Renewal of committee in 2016: Discussion was open to decide if the NCERA 208 should be renewed in 2016 by Dr. Wise. Dr. Wise asked if we should keep this committee separate or merge with another committee. Dr. Sikora asked if it could be a sub-committee of NCERA 212. The advantages of a merger is that if soybean rust becomes a problem in the future the group will still be in place to address the problem. Dr. Slack wanted to know if there was enough activity with soybean rust to maintain an independent committee? Dr. Slack said sub-committee in 212 is possible. Drs. Giesler and Jardine suggested a merging of committees and that the overlap between the two groups would be a benefit. Drs. Rupe and Clayton agreed that the merger would be beneficial to both groups. Secretary nominations: The floor was open for nominations for secretary. Dr. Daren Mueller volunteered. This was seconded by Dr. Tom Allen seconded and closed the nominations. Dr. Mueller was unanimously elected by the group. Meeting Locations: It was discussed by the group that the next meeting occur with the NCERA 212 and southern soybean disease workers (SSDW) in Pensacola. The location will be picked after coordination with the other groups. The group acknowledged the North Central for funding, and thanked Dr. Tom Allen and the SSDW for organizing the meeting. The business meeting was concluded by Dr. Wise. Dr. Wise moved to close the meeting it was unanimously seconded by the entire group.

Objectives 1. Continue to provide leadership for the implementation of an efficient, coordinated soybean rust monitoring system (sentinel plot network) in the U.S.; 2. Collaborate with scientists in Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean to encourage soybean rust monitoring and reporting outside of the U.S.; 3. Identify and evaluate the best disease management strategies and tactics for soybean rust in the U.S., including host resistance, fungicide application, fungicide resistance monitoring and management, cultural measures, and predictive models based on sound epidemiological research; 4. Continue to develop educational materials for the identification and management of soybean rust in the U.S.; 5. Provide forums for meetings to exchange and share research data among the land grant participants and with industry and commodity groups; 6. Meet annually to exchange and share research findings and discuss conclusions among the land grant participants, industry, and commodity leaders. Accomplishments for Objective 1&2 During the 2012 USA soybean season, soybean rust was detected in 13 states that represents at total of 383 counties. A majority of these counties were in southern states with Alabama (67 counties positive), Arkansas (21), Georgia (87), Louisiana (58 parishes), Mississippi (82) and South Carolina (28) comprising almost 90% of the detections. Other states that reported positive detections in 2012 were Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. Approximately 71% of these reports (272 reports) were from soybeans and with the rest being from kudzu. However, during the months of November to December there were 45 confirmed reports of soybean rust with approximately 85% (38) of these reports being from kudzu. Soybean rust was also confirmed in Mexico with 15 separate detections being reported. As of January 1st, 2013, it was expected that soybean rust would continue to persist on the kudzu plants as a many of the sites remained frost free. This was a significant increase in the soybean rust distribution from 2011 as only 3 states and 14 counties reported the positive detections of soybean rust. This was also a significant increase form the 45 counties confirmed in 2010, but less than the 583 counties reported in 2009. These findings are the direct result of the soybean sentinel plot system and the coordinated soybean rust monitoring effort by university and industry personnel. This system includes established or traditional sentinel plots, kudzu overwintering plots, and on-farm plots. Soybean rust risk in the central and northern states was low because of the hot and dry weather conditions; however, there were significant reports of this pathogen in the south where rainfall was more abundant. Many states (IL, IN, IA, KS, OH, WI and others) had strategies in place to implement on-farm scouting if environmental conditions had changed and the reports from the southern sentinel plots indicated a threat to producing areas. All the data collected from the monitoring efforts was collected and uploaded on the USDA PIPE (Pest Information Platform for Extension and Education) website (http://www.sbrusa.net/). This data was updated on weekly basis and evaluated for use in epidemiological models and specialists recommendations. In addition to soybean rust disease information, these plots were used for monitoring other important soybean diseases (Frog Eye Leaf spot) and pests (Soybean Aphid). Specialists contributed commentary to the site for their state or province on a regular basis that helped growers, Extension personnel and consultants make decisions related to the integrated management of this pathogen. The data and commentary from this website was utilized to support specialists recommendations that no fungicide was needed to manage soybean rust and other diseases. Over 90,000 visits and over 605,000 hits were recorded for the USDA PIPE website during 2012 from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. Of these, the number of hits and visits increased in July, August and September, indicating that the site was used during peak periods in soybean production. Accomplishments for Objective 3 Fungicide trials were conducted at North Florida Research and Education Center in Quincy, FL and the Louisiana AgCenter in Alexandria, LA. The trials examined the selected fungicides for the efficacy in controlling soybean rust based on application timing and rates. While multiple products were effective at managing soybean rust, it was noted that some products (i.e. Quadris) were losing their effectiveness against this pathogen. Soybean germplasm accessions were evaluated by Dr. David Walker for their resistance to soybean rust in the southeastern United States. Dr. Walkers work has indicated that it is possible the pathogen population structures are shifting in the U.S. as lines once resistant to the pathogen were susceptible in 2012. Further testing is needed to determine the extent of this shift and the effectiveness of the different resistant genes for the integrated management of Soybean rust. Accomplishments for Objective 4 Drs. Daren Mueller, Kiersten Wise, Nicholas Dufault, Carl Bradley and Martin Chilvers edited a 120 page softcover publication called Fungicides for Field Crops. This publication was a combination of the previous publications Using Foliar Fungicides to Manage Soybean Rust and Field Crop Fungicides for the North Central United States. The previously updated (2008) Using Foliar Fungicides to Manage Soybean Rust is still available online at http://oardc.osu.edu/soyrust/. The new Fungicides for Field Crops is available through APS press and on the plant management network (http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/book/fungicide/online/). During the 2013 season, researchers form the NCERA will be involved in developing a fungicide efficacy table for soybeans, in which preliminary edits were completed at the 2012 NCERA-208 meeting. Accomplishments for Objective 5&6 The 2012 NCERA 208 meeting was held consecutively with the Southern Soybean Disease Workers (SSDW). Meeting jointly with the SSDW provide scientists and industry personnel with an improved venue for the exchange of information, ideas and experience. This type of meeting helps to foster collaborative research and expand projects being conducted on soybean rust. It was also planned by the group that the NCERA-208 meeting will be held in conjunction with the NCERA-212 meeting in 2013.

Bonde, M. R., Nester, S. E., & Berner, D. K. (2012). Effects of daily temperature highs on development of Phakopsora pachyrhizi on soybean.Phytopathology, 102(8), 761-768. Delaney, M. A., Sikora, E. J., Delaney, D. P., Palm, M. E., Haudenshield, J. S., & Hartman, G. L. (2012). First Report of Soybean Rust (Phakopsora pachyrhizi) on Florida Beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum) in Alabama. Plant Disease, 96(9), 1374-1374. Giesler, L. J., Harveson, R. M., Jackson-Ziems, T. A., Korus, K. A., Liu, B., & Wegulo, S. N. (2012). Soybean Disease Profiles I. Hartman, G. L. (2013). Characterizing soybean rust resistance within populations of Glycine tomentella and the inheritance and characterization of soybean aphid resistance in PI 587663, PI 587677, PI 587685, and PI 594592. Hartman, G., Cunningham, B., Clough, S., Eastburn, D., & Huber, S. (2012). Detection of viable urediniospores, morphological characterization in resistant and susceptible genotypes, and germ tube anastomosis of Phakopsora pachyrhizi. Hartman, G. L., Hillz, C. B., Twizeyimanaz, M., Miles, M. R., & Bandyopadhyay, R. (2012). Interaction of soybean and Phakopsora pachyrhizi, the cause of soybean rust. Plant Sciences Reviews 2011, 59. Kim, K. S., Unfried, J. R., Hyten, D. L., Frederick, R. D., Hartman, G. L., Nelson, R. L., ... & Diers, B. W. (2012). Molecular mapping of soybean rust resistance in soybean accession PI 561356 and SNP haplotype analysis of the Rpp1 region in diverse germplasm. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 125(6), 1339-1352. Mundt, C. C., Wallace, L. D., Allen, T. W., Hollier, C. A., Kemerait, R. C., & Sikora, E. J. (2012). Initial epidemic area is strongly associated with the yearly extent of soybean rust spread in North America. Biological Invasions, 1-8. Twizeyimana, M., & Hartman, G. L. (2012). Pathogenic variation of Phakopsora pachyrhizi isolates on soybean in the United States from 2006 to 2009. Plant Disease, 96(1), 75-81. VanKirk, J. R., Isard, S. A., Cardwell, K. F., & Draper, M. A. (2012). The ipmPIPE: Overview, Lessons, Opportunities, and Challenges. Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 3(2), C1-C7. Vittal, R., Yang, H. C., & Hartman, G. L. (2012). Anastomosis of germ tubes and migration of nuclei in germ tube networks of the soybean rust pathogen, Phakopsora pachyrhizi. European journal of plant pathology, 132(2), 163-167. Vittal, R., Haudenshield, J. S., & Hartman, G. L. (2012). A multiplexed immunofluorescence method identifies Phakopsora pachyrhizi urediniospores and determines their viability. Phytopathology, 102(12), 1143-1152. Ward, N. A., Robertson, C. L., Chanda, A. K., & Schneider, R. W. (2012). Effects of Simplicillium lanosoniveum on Phakopsora pachyrhizi, the Soybean Rust Pathogen, and Its Use as a Biological Control Agent. Phytopathology,102(8), 749-760. Young, H. M., George, S., Narváez, D. F., Srivastava, P., Schuerger, A. C., Wright, D. L., & Marois, J. J. (2012). Effect of Solar Radiation on Severity of Soybean Rust. Phytopathology, 102(8), 794-803.