Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

NCA-15 and AC-12 Annual Meeting Orlando Worldgate, Orlando, FL February 5-6, 2006 Minutes SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2005 Welcome and introductionsRob Wiedenmann (Chair) Local Arrangements UpdateRich Merritt 1. Comments from NCA-15 Administrative Adviser Tom Payne spoke about changes that are occurring in funding in CSREES and the consequences of those changes for NCR. Dr. Payne stressed the need for obtaining good examples of how investments made in agriculture save time, money and lives. 2. Regional Project Reviews NCR 193 (NCR_temp193) Plant health: Managing insects and diseases of landscape plants Primary Reviewer: Mark Ascerno Secondary Reviewer: James Nechols It was not clear from the proposal whether it was to be considered as an NCERA or NCCC proposal. We recommend NCERA status is most appropriate given the strong links between extension and research in the project. Therefore, the proposal needs to be expanded to include specific research and extension objectives. The absence of specific citations and references throughout the proposal needs to be addressed in the revision. A motion was made and seconded to renew with appropriate revisions. The motion passed unanimsouly. NCR201 (NC_temp1801) Integrated Pest Management Primary Reviewer: Steve Yaninek Secondary Reviwer: Fred Baxendale Dr. Yaninek noted that he reviewed the proposal last year and approved with significant revisions. The proposers needed to identify goals, realistic objectives and provide much more detail. The current proposal is much stronger. A coordination plan is in place. The objectives listed are achievable. The procedures could still be more detailed and a description of how priorities would be developed by the group would be helpful. Motion to approve NCtemp1801 with normal revision. The motion carried unanimously. NCR202 (NCR_temp202) Health and survival of honey bee colonies Primary Reviewer: Gary Brewer Secondary Reviewer: Walter Goodman The reviewers noted that the proposal had a strong scientific justification. The current proposal was basically the same as the previous one. One goal is to put together a regional publication which they havent done. They group has a website with links to other websites but not coordination is evident. The goals and objectives of the proposal are good but the group hasnt shown the capacity to deliver on them. Lots of good research activities but all of the ones described are state projects with little regional integration. It was hard to find evidence that the group was having annual meetings as there were no reports or minutes. In general , the proposal has lots of potential but needs to be significantly revised. A motion was made and seconded to approve the proposal with major revisions. The motion passed unanimously. NCD202 (NCDC_temp206) Impact of changing management systems on soil nematode communities Primary Reviewer: Dale Gallenberg Secondary Reviwer: Tom Holtzer This project proposal is well done with two exceptions: 1) There is no statement of milesones provided for time-linked accomplishments; 2) The proposal does not provide an outreach plan explicitly in the format requested. At least a brief outline should be included under the heading outreach plan, rather than simply stating outreach plans are integrated with the project objectives NCERA200 (NCERA_temp200) Primary Reviewer: Jon Tollefson Secondary Reviewer: Robert Sharp Entomologists and plant pathologists are well represented on this proposal and interdisciplinary linkages are evident. The group is establishing operating procedures and an identity that brings both groups together. The group is making good headway on its goals by discussion of virus and vector prevalence and experimentation to minimize disease impacts. A recommendation was made to require details of the methods used in this proposal. A motion was made and seconded to accept the proposal with revison. The motion passed unanimously. NCR46 (NCR_temp46) Development, optimization and delivery of management strategies for corn rootworms Primary Reviewer: Susan Fisher Secondary Reviwer: Lee Solter The proposal is comprehensive both in terms of what will be evaluated (efficacy of many treatments ranging from transgenics to new insecticides) and the geographic, settings in which the evaluations will take place. The research is timely and up to date and includes new technologies, e.g., computer simulation modeling. The proposal is flexible and will look at broad regional trends while still being nuanced enough to pick up emerging site-specific issues. The working group is well coordinated and very active. A governance mechanism is in place. However, no record of meetings was presented or minutes. A list of all projects being conducted under this project would be a welcome addition. A motion was made and seconded to support with normal revisions. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Report from CSREES representative. Bob Nowierski, CSREES, gave a brief report, focusing on the permitting process for importation of alien species. He noted that, due to persistent lobbying, the prohibition against hand-carrying has been eliminated. Some carriers refuse to ship biological specimens because they are afraid of bioterrorism. A consistent policy across countries is needed. NCA members thanked Bob for doing yeomans work on having the prohibition against hand-carried specimens eliminated. 4. Department reports Summaries from each institution were distributed and discusses. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2006 4. Continuation of Department Reports 5. NCA business Next years meeting will probably take place in Albuquerque, NM from January 14-16 with the plant pathologists. Jim English will confirm time and date with the plant pathologists. J. Obrycki has agreed to be the local arrangements chair for the 2007 meeting. After being nominated and seconded from the floor and voted into office by acclamation, Jon Tollefson graciously agreed (upon seeing no recourse) to be secretary for 2007. Some discussion took place regarding the format for the 2007 meeting that would streamline the presentations of department reports, thus, freeing up time for discussion with the plant pathologists on issues of substance. 6.Adjournment at 12:00. Respectfully submitted, Susan W. Fisher Secretary, 2006