Notes from Meeting of Midwest Weather Working Group (MWWG)

12

Notes from meeting of Midwest Weather Working Group (MWWG)

August 3-4, 2012 – Blackstone Room, Westin Providence Hotel – Providence, RI

Purposes:

· Discuss creation of a uniform set of standards for design of pest-warning systems (diseases, insects, weeds) through participation in the developing AgGateway online system.

· Consider how to advance these ideas via collaborative grant proposals.

Leaders:

Roger Magarey, USDA/APHIS, Raleigh, NC

Joe Russo, ZedX Inc., Bellefonte, PA

Mark Gleason, Iowa State University

Other attendees:

Kiersten Bekoscke, Cornell University/Geneva

John Brightwell, North Carolina State University

Len Coop, Oregon State University

Erick DeWolf, Kansas State University

Frank Forcella, USDA/ARS, Morris, MN

Karen Garrett, Kansas State University

Glen Koehler, University of Maine

Sara Legler, Universitá Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Piacenza, Italy

Curt Petzoldt, Cornell University/Geneva

Damon Smith, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Carla Thomas, UC-Davis

Art Tuttle, University of Massachusetts-Amherst

August 3 notes:

Roger Magarey (RM):

· A key question in implementing pest advisory systems is how to compare models with substantially different inputs and outputs.

· Many different computer languages are used for running these models.

· A related question is how to preserve knowledge of warning systems when knowledge experts retire or change jobs.

· There are at least 2 main sources of diversity in models: 1) difference in model design and 2) inherent differences in the biology of the pest systems.

· Creation of uniform standard for these systems would be helpful as follows:

o To help researchers evaluate and compare models

o For implementation by extension

o For use by consultants and other private service providers.

Organization and activity of the AgGateway online system:

· Goal is to propose and develop uniform (harmonized) standards for use of various agricultural technologies utilizing automation, including warning systems.

· Create an online glossary of agricultural terms to standardize usage.

· AgGateway terms:

· API = Application Program Interface

· XML = Executable Markup Language – for communication between different web programs

· NCEAS = Ecological metadata standards

· Main envisioned applications are for control of irrigation, fertilization applications, and pesticide sprays.

· Main impetus for AgGateway has come from private sector (industry and service providers) and government.

· Ag Gateway intends to harmonize its standards with those of ISO.

· 2.5 years ago, a consortium of ag technology companies met to discuss formation of Ag Gateway.

Joe Russo:

· Data Exchange Project Information Flow

· MISs: IT companies

· Consultants, growers, service providers

· Extension could secure a place in the system.

· NPDN uses a set of standard terms, as AgGateway aspires to do.

· ISO standards would be for equipment only (e.g., precision ag field equipment).

· FMIs: Intermediate language/standards – can be applied for pest-warning systems

· There are many types of sensors per unit of electronic/autonomous/semi-autonomous agricultural equipment.

Len Coop:

· Why not crop models as well as pest models for the AgGateway system?

Joe Russo:

· Ag clients demand 1) reliability, 2) consistency and 3) accuracy

· NRCS has crop management zones; can we similarly create pest management zones to provide assurance that pest models behave reliably within designated geographic zones?

· NEON: National Ecological Observatory Network

Erick DeWolf:

· How could updates be made to the AgGateway pest models?

· JR: Must be vetted in order to be accepted. Quality control would be done by university experts, but exact mechanism is not yet clear.

Erick DeWolf:

· Risk maps are needed.

· Could the existing Fusarium head blight online disease advisory be converted to AgGateway? It has already been implemented on other websites overseas.

Carla Thomas:

· Works with many systems.

· Can all the strengths of some existing systems be re-created on AgGateway?

Erick DeWolf:

· There are problems with adapting a warning system to a new region without getting detailed local expert advice on implementation.

· Response variables may differ profoundly depending on goals of a particular pest modeling effort.

Len Coop:

· Automated tractor example is OK, but this is quite different from a pest model.

· It seems scary to have an automated tractor driving a sprayer off local-spatial-scale interpolations.

· We need an example of adaption of a pest-warning system in AgGateway.

Carla Thomas:

· There are no algorithms of models on AgGateway.

Erick DeWolf:

· Could we test “orphan” warning system models (i.e., validated but not currently implemented) on AgGateway?

Carla Thomas:

· Could we define some common lanisguage terms for pest models? For example, from a downy mildew “orphan” warning system?

· Could AgGateway adopt the “orphan” systems?

Breakout groups. Attendees subdivided into 3 groups for focused discussions on “end users” (Group 1), _______ (Group 2), and __________ (Group 3).

Notes from Group 1 discussion (End Users):

Joe Russo:

· System could highlight the key things for a user to pay attention to; further details could be accessible on request.

Curt Petzoldt:

· System should make it clear not only what a user should do, but also why; this is an extension responsibility.

· It should be adaptable to a mobile environment, including hand-held devices, so information would need to be provided in small, selective segments. A warning could be presented as a readily noticed color or sound.

· This adaptation could redefine extension function, including typing explanatory depth to the data reports and advisories.

· In the future, a dashboard system could be used for delivering disease advisories, whith extension (explanatory) links tacked to the advisories.

· A challenge would come in dealing with the “gray area” between obvious no-spray and do-spray zones – spray or not?

Glen Koehler:

· A 2-way flow of information is needed because end users must have advice based on local conditions (for example, how much scab is in leaves on an orchard floor?).

· Could growers keep their spray records in The Cloud?

Joe Russo:

· A logic matrix such as a Markov chain is a pathway for making local, grower-specific data.

· The concept of a “virtual consultant” could also include a grower’s past actions.

· The user could have a dashboard of risk tools, including: date sprayed; fungicide decay rate; etc. There could be built-in (automated) “gears” to speed up decision-making. For example, automated algorithms relating fungicide decay rate to rainfall.

· Social networking could also be built in for end users, including tweets.

· There would be a 3-way look at data: 1) Pest observations; 2) Pesticide product information; and 3) timeline (click-accessible).

Questions arose concerning the AgGateway format.

Glen Koehler:

· Potentially, grants could be awarded to growers who reduced pesticide spray frequency or amount – a form of “enriched advice.”

Group 1 general discussion:

· Number of sprays saved could be documented.

· The system could also track how much of a maximum threshold remains (e.g., for a given pesticide class).

· As an example, three alternative models for the same pathosystem could be displayed to extension educator or researcher. Then it would be helpful to track what each model advised vs. what the grower did.

· An anonymous system could be used for tracking multiple growers. Results could then be compared for one growers vs. unidentified other growers.

· Another benefit is that it could speed up the grower/educator learning curves thanks to more rapid and useful feedback.

· Pest information could be embedded (via links) into action-oriented recommendations for growers, since they must monitor all issues (not only a single pest) simultaneously.

· Will “audience fatigue” be a risk with such a system?

· Use forecast as well as hindcast weather data in AgGateway?

· Candidate disease-warning systems for validation of system could include: scab, fire blight, sooty blotch and flyspeck, gray leaf spot, wheat rust, and/or onion downy mildew.

· Should insect pest-warning systems be included in a validation effort?

· Extension needs a mechanism for getting key information from the field.

· A “scorecard” could be developed to chart financial savings and/or IPM compliance. This could permit real-time total quality improvement.

Glen Koehler:

· Snippets of information from Extension state or regional production guides in disease advisories – “enriched” advice.

· Grower confidentiality and anonymity must be assured in a system that contains information from numerous growers.

· Adoption of the system would need to be incentivized with dollar savings.

Group 3 report (Roger Magarey summarized):

· For input data, hourly format was preferred (e.g., T, RH, leaf wetness duration, solafr radiation (latter because weed germination is impacted by soil temperature).

· LWD limitations were discussed.

· National Weather Service standards for data collection: plant pathologists and entomologists often do not follow these standards.

· Better idea: use NWS data from regional and local weather stations with corrections to crop canopy environment.

· Information displayed for growers could be simplified to days rather than hours, because hourly data is often too much information for growers.

· Output options: grid vs. point. Len Coop: they use 800 x 800 m grid in Pacific NW.

· Risk can be categorized into a few useful distinctions: e.g., high/medium/low.

· Action can be represented as “Get ready to do something” to suppress pest/disease risk.

· An analogy was made to sequential sampling for decision-making.

· Metadata:

o Proportion of missing data

o What information is needed about the model?

o When?

o Where?

o What crops and cultivars?

o Time step?

o Where output is published?

o Where is output received for use (range of devices)?

o Sensitivity analysis of input parameters

o Usage statistics; what is use pattern?

Where to go next?

· Publicly available models

· Sources cited and acknowledged

· IPM/Pipe pests (Pipe-fitters)

· Climate Change proposals

· Online repository for models – with code available to users

· Related groups: NC-179 (Ag Weather and Climate); APS Epidemiology Committee; NC1191 (Weeds and Microclimate)

· Planning Grant proposal

Erick DeWolf:

· Standardization of models is needed, via cross-talking.

Roger Magarey:

· Discuss with USDA as to whether they fund modeling proposals? Could propose to preserve and archive date online and establish standards.

Joe Russo:

· Build a website to demonstrate what is needed for sending in your model according to common standards.

Carla Thomas:

· Who owns the AgGateway website? Are there precedents?

· MWWG could host a “white paper” on the NCIPM website; then, anyone could write proposals around the general subject.

· A vision is needed from this group; where we are and where we want to go. We must emphasize providing proof of concept, and also our track records.

· A precedent for “white papers” came from the WWWG in Pacific NW:

o What was working and what was not.

o But had a poor handle on model uncertainties.

o Most of time was spent running, but not using output from, networks.

Karen Garrett:

· NSF Research Coordination Networks: Her team submitted a proposal that was unsuccessful, but we could borrow from the stated goals of that proposal.

· NSF rejected proposal because it did not advance a new conceptual framework for infectious diseases.

Possible “hook” for our proposed project: It could integrate across the pest spectrum (disease, weeds, and insect pests).

SCRI CAP or SREP – Could team up with Pipe-fitters and WWWG.

SCRI RPIs: Bob Seem tried this category. They wanted A LOT of private-sector involvement. It was tough to raise the 100% match.

Carla Thomas:

· Start with planning grant? About $50,000 (SCRI)

· Collaboration between WWWG and MWWG?

NIMBS - National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis: Are our proposed ideas mathematically interesting or innovative?

NIFA Foundational Program: Would we need to change the project’s emphasis?

Use MWWG as a springboard?

Global Sustainability – Opens opportunities for international collaborations.

Len Coop:

· Gave a short presentation on Western Weather Working Group (WWWG)

· Website: uspest.org

· He gave examples of new features and outputs from the site.

· RTMA: real-time mesoscale analysis: runs once per hour for one hour; Penn State uses these data in their PestWatch online site.

· IPPC V2 – A virtual weather data network.

August 4 (8:30 am to noon) – PROPOSAL BRAINSTORMING SESSION

Attending: Mark Gleason, Roger Magarey, Joe Russo, John Brightwell, Frank Forcella, Karen Garrett, Glen Koehler, Erick DeWolf, Damon Smith

NSF program: Advances in Biological Informatics – September 2013 deadline?

Joe Russo:

· A goal of the group could be to build a glossary as a step toward ISO harmonization.

Erick DeWolf:

· Could culminate in a Letter to the Editor in Phytopathology.

· Barriers to using “orphan models” include a lack of standards, so we can’t pick up and modularize models.

Joe Russo:

· Start with a “legal” definition of terms (AgGateway approach)

Roger Magarey:

· Uncertainty as a unifying theme for a proposal. Can we quantify uncertainty?

· NSF: Decision-making under uncertainty.

· 1) Inputs; 2) Model choice (choose case studies); 3) Glossaries; 4) Output units. What is the confidence interval?

· Partition errors into false positives and false negatives where appropriate.

Joe Russo:

· Growers like Low-Medium-High rating of uncertainty.

· Risk map: Relate to a crop’s market value.

· Spatial scale vs. error magnitude: how does this relationship change?

Erick DeWolf:

· Bayesian theory to help answer question. When do you switch tactics/

· Models are valuable in gray areas of decision-making matrices.

· Break models out of academic “jail.”

Outputs:

· Glossary

· Include all 3 major pest groups

· Build a shell

· Proof of concept

· Create a model clearinghouse

· Interactivity. Growers should be able to plug in their own costs.

Erick DeWolf:

· What is the cost of doing nothing (no action to remediate pest risk)? Can we enable growers to quantify this?

Mine existing data to develop decision rules.

Karen Garrett:

· Formalize how expert opinion is elicited: Another proposal goal. “The Elicitator”

· Opinion replacing field data.

Roger Magarey:

· Make models that are easy to use, easy to share, and show application across multiple decision support systems (diseases, insects, weeds).

· Growers’ decision-making and interface must be simplified, otherwise the system will not be used. Example: Penn State Apple Orchard Consultant (expert system)

More growers today are computer-savvy than in the PSAOC era (20 years ago).

Erick DeWolf:

· His Bayesian decision theory work is designed to help simplify growers’ choices.

Carla Thomas:

· Reality check: The group is this room is a modeling group. Is decision theory too far away from the goal of common modeling standards?

Roger Magarey:

· Planning grant can be used to help develop modeling standards to fit the AgGateway framework. A “white paper” could result from that effort.

Planning grants can evolve out of Working Groups. Regional IPM Centers will have “visioning” sessions to determine future priorites.

We can have an email round-robin as Farm Bill RFAs and Regional IPM Centers RFAs are released.

Erick DeWolf:

· Do developing-world growers want decision-support advice via cell phone? Or will we just repeat mistakes made in the US?