Research and IPM

Grants Programs: UC IPM Competitive Research

Statewide IPM Program Request for Proposals Deadline: December 1, 2006

The University of California Statewide IPM Program (UC IPM) is soliciting new proposals for integrated pest management research for fiscal year 2007-08.

Request for new proposals
Research areas and priorities
Format for new research proposals
Appendix: A key focus for pest management: regulatory issues for water and air quality

Goals of the grants program
Research priorities
Eligibility and conflict of interest
Funding and reporting
Proposal submission

Goals of the grants program

The University of California Statewide IPM Program (UC IPM) is soliciting new proposals for integrated pest management research for fiscal year 2006-07.

Proposals may be submitted for any commodity or pest management situation, but should address one or more aspects of the UC IPM mission:

• Increase utilization of ecologically based integrated pest management programs.
• Provide leadership in IPM and build coalitions and partnerships that link with communities and public agencies.
• Increase the predictability and effectiveness of pest management techniques.
• Develop science-based pest management programs that are economically and environmentally sustainable, and socially appropriate.
• Protect human health and reduce pesticide impact on the environment.

Proposals will be reviewed by review panels in six overall research areas: 1) applied field ecology, 2) biological controls, 3) biorational use of biotic agents or chemicals; 4) cultural controls, 5) decision support, and 6) air and water quality. Funding criteria and priorities for projects in each research area are described on the following pages. Each proposal must indicate the review panel to which the proposal should be directed. Be sure to meet the requirements stated under the description of the designated research area. When review panel expertise is insufficient for adequate review, comments will be solicited from other UC or external scientists.

Research priorities

The goal of UC IPM is to develop and promote IPM programs and bring them into popular use in California. Principal investigators must demonstrate a commitment to seeing the results of their research implemented through methods, guidelines, or systems usable by those carrying out pest management programs in the field. Interdisciplinary projects and projects involving both Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension personnel are especially encouraged. Projects that seek to evaluate impacts of UC IPM research or seek to assess economic impact of specific IPM techniques or programs will be given special consideration.

In general, the Statewide IPM Program does not fund development or screening of resistant germplasm, identifying pesticide resistance in pest populations, or basic biotechnology research. UC IPM will consider research aimed at developing management programs that incorporate resistant varieties, resistance management techniques, or genetically modified organisms as components of a defined system. Examples would include development of rotational schemes using resistant cultivars, determination of action thresholds indicating the inoculum level or pest population that justifies use of resistant cultivars, or implementation or evaluation of novel uses of an existing, genetically modified plant or animal.

Also, projects that target Pierce's disease or its vectors will not be considered by this program. Instead, submit these proposals to the UC or CDFA Pierce's disease research programs.

Eligibility and conflict of interest

Each research project must include at least one academic principal investigator from the University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources (UC ANR).

If the PI or cooperator is a member of a review panel, the proposal must be sent to a different review panel for review.

Funding and reporting

For 2007-08, approximately $300,000 is expected to be available for new projects. There is no policy regarding maximum award, but in recent years the award for a single project has ranged from $5,000 to $45,000 per year. Projects normally should be completed within three years.

UC IPM will distribute funds to University of California units soon after July 1. Where external PIs or cooperators are part of the project and will receive funding, UC ANR PIs are responsible for distribution of funds to the external individual or organization.

Proposals are funded on a year-to-year basis. Multiple-year projects are conditionally approved for subsequent years, pending receipt of an acceptable progress report. An annual progress report, financial reports, and justification for continuing funds must be submitted during each year of funding; a final report is due approximately six months following termination of the project.

Proposal submission

One hard copy and one electronic copy of the proposal are required.

• Send the original (with all required signatures) to Director, Statewide IPM Program, University of California.
• The electronic version may be included on CD-ROM and mailed with the hard copy, or e-mailed as an attachment to ipmgrants@ucdavis.edu.

Note: Proposals do not need to be submitted through the PI’s Contracts and Grants Office.

All proposals must be received in the UC IPM office by 5:00 p.m. on December 1, 2006. No exceptions will be made for late proposals.

Announcement of awards will be in April, 2007.

OVERALL PRIORITIES

In addition to meeting the goals of one or more of the review panels listed below, highest priority will be given to projects that lead to nonchemical control alternatives, or a more judicious use of pesticides; are directed at economically important pests for which effective and environmentally sound controls are not available or could be dramatically improved; are interdisciplinary in nature; are targeted at meeting specific air and water quality regulations (such as significantly reducing volatile organic compounds released from pesticide and fumigant applications, or reducing insecticides in water bodies); and will rapidly result in new methods that can be reasonably used by California producers in the context of current management and marketing constraints. Proposals should address extension as well as research components.

APPLIED FIELD ECOLOGY

Research in the area of applied field ecology focuses on the interactions among pests, their hosts, their biocontrol agents, the beneficial biota, and environmental factors that affect pest population dynamics, survival, and crop damage. The emphasis is on applied ecology with attention given to the understanding of how pest–host and weed–crop interactions, and biocontrol agents are affected by both abiotic and biotic factors. Studies might determine the environmental factors that affect the ability of the biocontrol agent to effectively suppress pest populations or develop a better understanding of the mechanisms by which the biocontrol agent suppresses pests. Laboratory studies are expected to be closely related to field experimentation. Because of the general nature of field ecology, it is expected that projects here would include components found in other research categories. For example, studies on the interactions among organisms would involve the development and use of monitoring techniques. Possible research areas include studying dynamics of pest populations or natural enemy and antagonist populations, development or improvement of optimal cropping-system design, host–pest–environment interaction studies, or research on the mechanisms affecting interactions between organisms.

Highest priority will be given to field-oriented research that demonstrates a high potential to lead to control of pests or a significant reduction in pesticide use.

BIOLOGICAL CONTROLS

Biological control is narrowly defined here as the use of predators, parasites, pathogens, competitors, or antagonists to control a pest. Proposals should address those problems that have a reasonable chance of implementation within three years. An area of special interest for IPM funding is work to establish effective biological control in field situations. UC IPM would support studies of indigenous or introduced biological control agents to determine their efficacy, how they can be manipulated by cultural or other management practices to improve their efficacy, or how they are affected by pesticides. UC IPM would support development of methods for growers and PCAs to use in evaluating potential effectiveness of existing biological control agents in relation to pest populations and potential crop damage.

BIORATIONAL USE OF BIOTIC AGENTS OR CHEMICALS

This category includes development and evaluation of methods of applying or using biotic agents or regulated pest control materials more effectively and in an environmentally sound manner. Examples might include efficient production and quality control of biotic agents; application or delivery technology, effective application and use of plant growth regulators, pheromones, attractants, or repellents; methods of reducing the impact of pesticides on beneficial organisms; and methods of improving the safety, reducing environmental contamination, or reducing the total amount of the control agent needed for effective control. Research on biotic agents may include the development of technologies to maintain their survival and/or residual activity and to effectively deliver them to target sites. Research on the development and testing of environmentally safe chemicals will be considered if on-going research has shown that no reasonable alternatives exist and that there is a good potential for their use.

Highest priority will be given to research that involves materials that are environmentally benign.

CULTURAL CONTROLS

Cultural control methods include a broad range of normal management practices that can be modified or manipulated to manage one or more pest problems. Such factors as crop rotation, tillage, timing of planting and harvesting, cover crops, choice of cultivar and animal strains, fertilizer or irrigation practices, tail water and waste management, sanitation, solarization, and postharvest treatment of a commodity all have significant influences on pest species prevalence, development, damage, and survival. Relatively small changes in even one practice, e.g., the early harvesting of almonds, can have significant impacts on pest damage.

DECISION SUPPORT

The UC IPM Program will consider projects whose aim is the development and promotion of decision systems useful in crop production and pest management. General areas of such work might include but are not limited to development or improvement of sampling or detection methods, quantification of crop loss, development or improvement of damage thresholds or action levels, risk assessment, economic or other evaluation of IPM programs, development or evaluation of expert systems or other computer models.

Development of monitoring programs for pests and biological control agents involving sampling decision rules, control action thresholds, or improved methods for quantifying pest abundance or potential crop loss can significantly reduce the riskiness of pest control, reduce the number of pesticide applications, and improve adoption of new practices. Control action threshold research should be based on the relationship of pest occurrence or abundance to measurable crop loss in order to ensure cost-effective decisions.

Highest priority will be given to proposals that will produce programs that can be easily and directly used in the implementation of integrated pest management; will focus on a biological system that has had sufficient preliminary investigation to allow completion and validation of the program in a reasonable amount of time; and will involve principal investigators who have demonstrated experience in systems modeling or systems management.

AIR AND WATER QUALITY

Among the most pressing problems faced by growers in California, currently and over the next few years, are increasing regulations related to air and water quality, including pesticides and dust. In many cases, cost-effective alternatives to the regulated practices and pesticides are not yet known, yet the effects of the regulations on growers are potentially expensive, widespread, and imminent. Proposals submitted in this area must focus on pest management needs in support of these new and anticipated regulations. These regulatory issues are summarized in “A Key Focus for Pest Management: Regulatory Issues for Water and Air Quality”.

Proposals should specifically describe which regulatory concerns will be addressed and how, and priority will be given to proposals likely to have the most significant impact on improving compliance with regulations.

In the area of pest management and air quality, we encourage projects related to:

• reducing the use of organophosphate and pyrethroid insecticides near water bodies listed on California’s 303(d) list (see www.waterboards.ca.gov/tmdl/).
• improved sampling methods for plant pathogens and nematodes and/or treatment thresholds that would provide a threshold-based rationale for fumigant treatment;
• alternatives to fumigants or other methods to reduce the amount of fumigant used per acre, such as methods to contain fumigants;
• alternatives to EC formulations to chlorpyrifos on crops which use significant chlorpyrifos currently;
• pest management interventions that could reduce dust-producing activities, such as alternatives to plowdown for pink bollworm and reduced cultivation for weed management.

Deadline:  December 1, 2006

It is essential that this format be carefully followed because proposals will be evaluated in each area listed below. Point totals assigned to each area are an indication of relative weighting.

FORMAT: Proposals not meeting these specifications and not containing all required components will not be forwarded to panels for review.

• Body of the proposal:  double-spaced, font-size 12 point (Times New Roman preferred), one-inch margins, must not exceed 10 pages. See sections 8 through 11 for page limits for Budget, List of Cited References, Biographical Sketches, and Current and Pending Grant Support. 
• Number consecutively all pages following the cover sheet.

Electronic version of proposals must be in MS Word. If you wish, you may also submit a PDF to better handle graphics and images. Submit on CD-ROM or through e-mail to ipmgrants@ucdavis.edu

COVER SHEET

UC IPM Grants Program

Date submitted:

Title:

Principal investigator(s): List contact PI first. At least one PI must be a UC DANR academic staff member. Include e-mail, department address and telephone number; note major cooperators. Be sure that all PIs and cooperators have reviewed the proposal and will play a significant role in the research. Each PI and cooperator must sign the proposal.

Budget total for 2007-08 fiscal year only:

Expected duration of project (1 year, 2 years, 3 years):

IPM review panel most appropriate for reviewing this proposal (choose one only): 1) applied field ecology, 2) biological controls, 3) biorational use of biotic agents or chemicals, 4) cultural controls, 5) decision support, air and water quality. Do not submit to any review panel of which a PI or cooperator is a member.

Keywords: Briefly characterize this project by specifying the following:

Project summary: Include a summary of this project (approximately 100 words).

Required signatures: All PIs, their supervisors (county director, department chair, director), and all cooperators listed. Proposals submitted without signatures of all PIs, their supervisors, and cooperators will not be forwarded to panels for review.

BEGIN BODY OF PROPOSAL (Page 1):Be sure to address any special requirements of the applicable review panel.

1. Objective(s) (5 points): Present a clear, concise, complete, and logically arranged statement of the specific research objective(s) proposed. Number your objectives and limit them to one sentence each.

2. Justification (10 points): Describe the importance of this proposed research to the concepts of IPM and pest management practices in the field, or to regulatory issues. What impact will this research have on the economics of crop production? What impact will this research have on pesticide use on this commodity in California? How does the research address UC IPM Program goals?

3. Previous work (5 points): What previous work has been done in this area by yourself and others? If this proposal is a continuation of other work funded by UC IPM, previous results must be included in your discussion. Include a brief literature review. Proposals will be reviewed by a multidisciplinary group; provide enough background that a person outside of your discipline will understand the need for the research, methods, and procedures. What preliminary data indicate that the proposed research will accomplish the stated objectives within the proposed time frame? (Include tables and figures in Supplement to Body.)

4. Procedure(s) (20 points): For each objective, discuss the experimental procedures you propose to use. Be specific; poorly detailed proposals will not be funded. Include sampling plan; experimental design; proposed type(s) of data analysis; and form, frequency, and parameters of data collection. Specify the sample unit, the number of replications, and any other information that will help reviewers assess the scientific merit of this proposal.

5. Implementation (15 points): In this section you are asked to describe the practical implications of your research proposal and how you envision the implementation or delivery of the results.
A. What impact on practical pest management (or on meeting air or water quality regulations, for proposals in the air and water quality research area) will the anticipated results of your proposal have? What role is envisioned for PIs in moving these results into use?
B. When will these research results be available for use by growers and PCAs?
C. Do you have specific plans for involving farm or IPM advisors in the research phase? Who in Cooperative Extension will be involved in demonstrating or conducting adaptive field trials with this research, and what would be their involvement?

6. Research timetable: Present a timetable for each project objective detailing when various phases will be initiated, field demonstrated, and completed. Timetable must include all years of project, not just 2007-08.

7. Roles of PIs and cooperators: Describe the contribution of each PI and cooperator. Is the proposal concurrent with the PI's current research program or is this a new area of research? How does the proposal fit with the PI's current research program? List percentage of annual FTE for each investigator and cooperator on the project.

END BODY OF PROPOSAL (10-PAGE LIMIT)

SUPPLEMENT TO BODY (REQUIRED, NOT SUBJECT TO 10-PAGE LIMIT)

8. Budget: Prepare a budget page according to the following format. Provide all justifications requested. Although funding is granted on a yearly basis, note your needs for the length of the proposed project (usually a maximum of three years).

9. Biographical sketches: Include a brief biographical sketch for each PI. List 15 most recent publications (not just those relating to the current project). Maximum of 2 pages per PI, excluding publications.

10. Current and pending grant support: Use the following format to identify support for ALL CURRENT AND PENDING PROJECTS.

• Record information for active and pending projects, including this proposal.
• All current efforts to which PI(s) and other senior personnel have committed a portion of their time must be listed, whether or not salary for the person involved is included in the budgets of the various projects.
• Provide analogous information for all proposed work which is being considered by, or which will be submitted in the near future to, other possible sponsors.
• Where listed grant support overlaps or complements the proposal, the tie between existing and/or pending support and the proposal must be explained. How will the total support package tie together? (Footnote your explanations)
• If no other grant support, state “NONE.”

Proposals failing to follow these requirements will not be forwarded to review panels for review

11. Tables and figures: Tables or figures presenting preliminary data referred to in the body of the proposal. Any other appended material may not be considered by reviewers. Limit 5 pages.

One hard copy and one electronic version of the proposal (no faxes) must be received by December 1, 2006, for July 2007, funding. Send proposals to:

The electronic version may be included on CD-ROM with the hard copy or e-mailed to ipmgrants@ucdavis.edu.

¹ Continuing projects need not submit new proposals unless the duration of the project has been extended or the budget revised upward beyond that originally proposed or agreed to (in this case, submit a new proposal due Dec. 1, 2006). For continuing projects, a progress report will be requested.

Top of page