Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

Chair Loren Giesler called the annual meeting of the NCR-200 committee to order on Tuesday, November 9, 2004 at Ames, Iowa. The agenda for the meeting had been distributed by e-mail prior to the meeting. No objections or additions were offered, and the agenda was accepted by assent. The minutes of the previous NCR-200 meeting were distributed. John Hill offered a motion to accept the minutes. Rouf Mian seconded the motion, and the motion to accept the minutes was unanimously accepted. Rotation of officers was the next order of business on the agenda. The terms of Chair Giesler and Secretary Marie Langham would be ending with this meeting. In accordance with previous decisions of the committee, Vice Chair Glen Hartman will move up to fill the position of chair. Nominations for the office of Vice Chair were opened. Administrator Steve Slack suggested Marie Langham to fill the position of Vice Chair. John Hill offered a motion to nominate Marie Langham for Vice Chair, and Rouf Mian seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously accepted. Nominations for the office of Secretary were opened. Marie Langham nominated Les Domier to fill the position of Secretary. Rouf Mian seconded the motion, and the motion was unanimously accepted. Rewriting of the NCR200 committee will be required in the next year. Administrator Slack noted that the timeline required to meet the October 1, 2006 requirement would be very tight. The documents would need to be written by December 2005, and the objectives and title would need to be done by September 2005. The committee for rewriting needs to be established now, and a draft needs to be ready for a walk through by the next meeting. A committee is needed for the rewriting. Chair Giesler volunteered to serve as chair of the rewrite committee. Marie Langham and John Hill volunteered to serve on the committee. Craig Grau was nominated to serve on the committee. John Hill made a motion to establish the rewrite committee composed of the above members. Marie Langham seconded the motion, and the motion was unanimously approved. One of the issues brought forward to be addressed by the rewrite committee is the involvement of entomologists in this committee as an interdisciplinary effort. Entomologists had been active in the beginning of this committee, but this involvement has lessened over the years as the entomologists became involved in more specialized issues and some of the entomology groups developed a different orientation. There has been a turnover in several positions, and efforts should be made to recruit new people. John Hill stated that the chairs of the NCR200, NCR137, and soybean entomology committee have traditionally gotten together at St. Louis during the meeting to discuss issues. However, now that the committees were meeting at different times, it would require more communication to establish working relationships. Funding and issues concerning the future growth of this committee were discussed, but no action was taken. Future meetings were discussed. Chair Giesler suggested that a format discussing new and emerging viruses would be a good topic, particularly including alfalfa mosaic virus (AMV) and soybean dwarf virus (SbDV). The presentations could be given in the morning with state reports in the afternoon and the business meeting would be the following morning as it currently is. John Hill noted that rooms were available on the Iowa State University campus, including a high technology teaching room. He would need to put a hold on the room as soon as possible. Berlin Nelson added that a meeting on viruses would be well attended. Administrator Slack suggested that we focus on research areas that this committee is trying to support. Discussion on whether or not a meeting with the soybean breeders would be a better option was contrasted with the reasons why the committee had decided to meet at a different time and venue from the other committees. John Hill summarized the discussion by stating that if the meeting were widely advertised, people would be interested in coming to a program on new and emerging diseases. Discussion proceeded to location for next years meeting. Des Moines was discussed as a possibility, but Ames, Iowa was decided to be the most central location and the initial point for the virus workshop. Berlin Nelson suggested starting a day earlier. A motion was made by John Hill to have a program on new and emerging viruses for the meeting in Ames next year. Secretary Langham seconded this motion. It would give the committee more visibility and depth and would enhance recognition of the committee and the viruses. Dates for the meeting next year were discussed. Rouf Mian suggested that the first week in November would be too close to the ASA meeting. Chair Giesler suggested having the meeting a week earlier. It was noted that this would conflict with Halloween. Thus, October 24 and 25, 2005 were suggested as dates for the meeting. Chair Giesler asked John Hill to serve to put the program together for a mini-symposium with a focus on AMV and SbDV. David Wright asked if the Plant Health Initiative could help sponsor this symposium. Administrator Slack suggested that the maximum attendance would probably be 50 research or extension personnel. Administrator Slack introduced the need to discuss changes in the NMISS system. The NMISS system is changing its nomenclature for committee names. Most of the NCR committees will either become NCCC or NCERA committees. The difference is primarily based on if it is a coordinating effort (NCCC) or if the committee integrates coordination, communication, research, education, and extension in its efforts (NCERA). Discussion focused on comparing the two roles. NCERA had the advantage of better fitting the ongoing functions of the current committee. Chair Giesler made a motion for the NCR-200 to become an NCERA committee. Secretary Langham seconded the motion, and the motion was unanimously accepted. Reporting the presentations that members of the committee make was the next topic of discussion. Secretary Langham stated that this represented educational efforts that the committee was not being credited with. Administrator Slack stated that this could have a benefit when asked if this could be included. Chair Giesler stated that he already tracked the hours of presentations and numbers of people in attendance during his presentations. Administrator Slack stated that this could show more integration and that if the information is available, then it will not hurt to put it in. Chair Giesler lead the group in a review of progress on the committees objectives. The first objective is to identify and understand the virus problem in the North Central states. Studies were to focus on virus/virus strain identification, development of rapid, sensitive detection and diagnostic techniques that will be shared among states, identification of principle insect vectors involved in dissemination, virus-vector ecology and vector seasonal dynamics, and vector transmission mechanisms. Reports of SbDV were noted. John Hill reported on antisera development. Les Domier discussed diagnostics for SbDV and the involvement of different aphid species. The second objective is based on the development and implementation of virus disease control strategies. Data is becoming available on management through the studies that are being done. This goal works well with the NCERA committee structure. Administrator Slack suggested that Chair Giesler, Secretary Langham, and John Hill coordinate this information into a publication. Chair Giesler stated that this would also fit well with Goal 3--To establish media for more effective dissemination and communication of information. Keith Smith suggested that soybean fact sheets for distribution to the states. Chair Giesler asked if it could be a regional sheet. Administrator Slack stated that it could be made into a regional sheet. Chair Giesler suggested that it be in a database where all can contribute information, but it can be downloaded and published with the state logos or stamps. This has been done in other situations. John Hill suggested that this be in a slide set. David Wright suggested that funds could be available and that Julie Meyer would be available for assistance. The slide set could come out early next year. Chair Slack suggested that one contact coordinate and get together pieces. John Hill could coordinate SMV, and Les Domier could coordinate SbDV. Administrator Slack stated it should be considered what aphid information the set would involve. David Wright stated that the critical pieces need to be planned, and the fact sheets can be printed. Chair Giesler moved to close the formal meeting in order to discuss the possibility of a regional survey for AMV and SbDV. A motion was made to close the meeting. The motion was seconded, and the meeting adjourned to discuss the survey. SUMMARY OF AMV AND SbDV SURVEY DISCUSSION: The goal of this survey is detect ion and identification of AMV and SbDV spread and range of in soybean fields throughout the Midwest. It would be taken from random samples and not just symptomatic plants. Processing of the samples by AGDIA would be explored as an option for diagnosis. Using crop enumerators to collect the samples was suggested, but others added that crop enumerators are not easy to work with in all states. The suggested sampling unit would be to collect two sets of ten plant samples per field. Each field would be sampled twice. It was suggested to approach Kitty Cardwell and discuss the availability of funds for this type of project. A two-year study with a unified set of protocols would be needed. Problems that were discussed included sample size, level of sensitivity, replication of samples, freezing of samples, specificity of antisera, and variability of virus within in the plant. The collection of both symptomatic and random samples for SbDV and problems with the detection of SbDV was discussed. The use of PCR for SbDV detection was raised. Les Domier is currently using SbDV monoclonals from Bob Martin that he had increased at the monoclonal center in Illinois. Other areas that were discussed for future research included: AMV-vector relationships, AMV movement in the plant, AMV strain variability, need for an AMV stock collection, a proven method of inoculating AMV, potential field losses, limited passages, using fixed versus native antigen, affected acreages, and the issue of quality and cost in doing own assays vs. having them done. John Hill stated that AMV might be a good candidate for antisera production. Ben Lockhart suggested that antisera available for AMV should be compared. John Hill summarized by saying that the objectives should be 1.) to show that it is there, 2.) determine the incidence, and 3.) establish importance.

The committee continues to have ongoing monitoring efforts on soybean virus incidence. Annual meeting discussions foster the exchange of viral incidence data and information on the occurrence of new viruses. Thus far, Soybean dwarf virus (SbDV) in Wisconsin and Illinois and the occurrence of Alfalfa mosaic virus in soybean has been of greatest interest. Several cooperating states have soybean breeding programs as a part of their land-grant university. The discussion and presentation of data regarding germplasm evaluation is resulting in improvements in screening methods. Committee activities continue to foster the exchange of methodology to develop standardized methods for the evaluation of germplasm for soybean viral disease tolerance/resistance. Members of the NCERA200 committee continue to coordinate research and extension efforts in managing soybean viral diseases. Cooperative projects with entomologist with many committee members and presentation/discussion of results is resulting is improving research efforts in cooperating states. Both identification of new vectors and ecological studies of said vectors have resulted for committee member projects. Committee members also strive for excellence in the development of management programs for commonly encountered viral diseases in the region and effectively utilize technology transfer tools to educate soybean growers and commercial agricultural advisors. Sharing of the results from management studies at annual meetings greatly improve the development of management guidelines for soybean producers or results in the development of new approached to research on management of soybean viruses.

Zhang, C. and Ghabrial S.A. 2004. Development of Bean pod mottle virus (BPMV) as vector for stable foreign gene expression in soybean. Annual meeting of the American Phytopathological Society, Anaheim, CA. Cihlar-Strunk,C.L., M.A.C. Langham. 2004. Bean pod mottle virus effects on yield of ten soybeans lines. (Abstr.) Phytopathology 94:S19. Langham, M.A.C., C.L. Cihlar-Strunk, and A.E. Hoberg. 2004. Evaluation of high pressure spray inoculation of bean pod mottle virus on yield and test weight of soybean. (Abstr.) Phytopathology (In Press).