Final Report
Applicant Name: / Manitoba Pulse Growers Association
Project Title: / Survey for Soybean Cyst Nematode (SCN) and Development of Diagnostic Capacity in Manitoba
MRAC Program Coordinator: / Kristin Yaworski-Lowdon
Project Number: / CAAP MB0436
Reporting Period: / Final Report
Date of Submission: / October 10, 2013
Executive Summary
- Briefly summarize the activities funded in this project, highlighting key achievements and results. Your summary should provide answersto the questions below.
(b)Why are the project and its results significant for the target group and/or stakeholders?
(c)What are the actual achievements/outcomes, and any unintended impacts?
(d)Were there any aspects not completed?
(e)What were the lessons learned?
(f)What factors contributed to the project’s success or non-success?
(g)What are the next steps? (Not all projects will have next steps, but often there are activities planned for after the end of the project that are directly or indirectly a result of the project.)
(h)Is the solution or strategy likely to be further implemented or is the innovative product, process or technology likely to be adopted by the sector?
- If you answered yes to the above, describe what you expect will be the next activities.
- If you answered no, explain why not.
Thus the current project was initiated between the University of Manitoba, the Manitoba Pulse Growers Association and Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to survey for the presence of SCN in Manitoba. In total, 48 fields were sampled with fields more prone to being infested selected. Each field was sectioned into areas that could be responsible for introduction, such as entrance ways, headlands near ditches, depressions, drainage ways etc. The “W’ or zigzag pattern was used to sample soil in each section with the samples composited for a section. A soil washing unit, a modified Fenwick elutriator based on the USDA soil cyst extractor, was obtained and used in this project. The unit had an efficiency of 75 % in recovery of cysts from samples with known amounts. In total, 282 composite soil samples were analyzed. Five lb of air-dried soil was soaked in water and subjected to cyst extraction with the unit. Floated cysts and debris were collected on a 60 mesh screen. The collected material was dried and then carefully scanned using microscopes for the presence of cysts of any nematode.
In total, 37 of the composite soil samples from 22 fields had nematode cysts. Sixty cysts, with an average of 1.6 cysts per each of the 37 composite samples were obtained. Cyst identification was performed based on morphology and microscopy (Wouts and Baldwin 1998) and molecular analysis. Most of the cysts were damaged but 26 were sufficiently intact for observation. Of these 26 cysts, 23 had vulval cone structures that were circumfenestrate, consistent with belonging to the genera Cactodera, Punctoderaand Betulodera. Three cysts had bifenestratevulvalcone structures, which is consistent for the genus Heterodera. Not all the cysts contained nematodes either as juveniles (J2 stage) or eggs. Most were empty except for 15 circumfenestrate and one bifenestrate cysts. However, of the 26 cysts examined, 6 had eggs and J2 juveniles inside, 4 just had eggs, and 6 just had J2 juveniles; the remaining 10 cysts were empty. These 16 cysts were then followed up with molecular analysesbyITS sequencing, three SCN species specific PCR approaches (Ou et al. 1993, Subbotin et al. 2001, Madani et al. 2013), and in one case, by 28s rDNA gene sequencing. ITS sequencing was possible for 14 of the circumfenestrate cysts. These best matched the sequence database for the cyst nematode Cactodera. Only one of the bifenestrate cysts yielded DNA for analysis. Two of three species specific PCR approaches identified the cyst as being SCN. ITS failed to amplify for this cyst. 28s rDNA gene amplification was successful and the sequence best matched that of Cactodera in the database. One cyst that also failed in ITS sequencing was analyzed using 28s rDNA and it best matched Punctodera.
This survey did not find a field heavily, moderately or even lightly infested with SCN. Cactodera, and possiblyPunctodera, were found in very low levels. Theseare cyst nematodes but not a pest of soybean or important pests of other crop plants in Manitoba. Thesecyst nematodesare likely naturally present, living on weeds and grasses in the sampled fields. The presence of SCN is possible in one of the fields examined but with only a single cyst and J2 juvenile recovered and the identification ambiguous between Cactodera and SCN, further sampling and analysis is recommended for this field and also another field which had bifenestratevulval cone cyst structure but did not yield DNA for molecular analysis. In no way should the results be interpreted to conclude that SCN was found in Manitoba, the results rather show the contrary. The findings mean SCN has still not been detected in the Province. Further annual surveys are suggested using the extraction facility setup in this current project for the next two years to encompass more soy fields and verify the non-presence of the pest.
Objectives and Activities
2. Provide an update on all of the project objectives outlined in Schedule “B” Part I of the Agreement. If there were any that were not met, please explain:
This project has the objectives to a) establish a SCN extraction facility and b) conduct a targeted survey of SCN in fields most likely to be infested. Both objectives were accomplished as detailed below.
3.Provide an update on all activities outlined in the Project Work Plan in Schedule “B” Part II of the Agreement(insert extra lines as needed). If any of the activities have not been completed, please describe any challenges or risks that have been encountered that have impacted the completion of the activities. Describe how you have mitigated these risks or challenges or plan to address them going forward.
Activities
/Final Update on Outcomesand Challenges or Risks Encountered
/Completion Date (actual or expected)
/Degree of Activity Completion (%)
Activity One: Extraction Unit
/Afterdelays in funding the unit wasordered and deliveredtook 2 months longer thanoriginallyquoted
/30/03/2013
/100%
Activity Two:Unit Setup
/This took a month longer thanexpectedbecause the unit needed to bereplumbed by us to stop water leaks
/15/06/2013
/100%
Activity Three:Field Sampling
/Wewaited for funding to start the fall 2012 sampling but that came through in January 2013. So weconducted the fallsamplinganyway in order to move the project. Wewere able to sample37fieldsbefore a veryearly large snow in Novemberstoppedfurthersampling. The latespring 2013 preventedsampling and sampling of 11 fieldswasundertaken in summer 2013. Though 2 fieldslessweresampled, 1100 more soilsamplesweretakenbecause more sections per fieldweretaken. Thus the 96+% activitycompletiongiven.
/15/08/2013
/96+%
Activity Four:Sample Analyses
/Completed in timelyfashion once sampleswereavailable. Sorting the recoveredmaterialfrom extractions took longer thanexpectedwithtwo and one techniciansworking full time and part time in the summermonths of 2013. The sortingtook longer because of the highorganiccarbon content of the red river soilsthat made for a lot of material to besortedthrough.
/30/09/2013
/100%
Activity Five:Outreach
/Pulse Beat articles, twopresentations to growers, and three media articleswereverysuccessful. In addition presentation to the Canadian Phytopathology Manitoba Meeting in Nov 2013 and distribution of presentation to MAFRD staff
/31/10/2013
/100+%
Activity Six:Administration
/The Universityand MPGA executed administration of the projectverywell.
/15/11/2013
/100%
4. Identify the project inputs used to complete the activities and during the course of the project(include: financial contributions, other government funding, staff resources, other resources, etc.) If you did not access all of the CAAP funding, or if your actual budget is different from the approved budget, please explain why and outline the reason(s) for those variances. All categories that are over/under budget should be discussed:Income
MRAC/CAAP $51,549.00
MPGA $31,000.00
Total $82,549.00
Waiting on University Budget System to be Updated and Provide Financial Report. Will forward as soon as availabl.
Expenditures
Purchase of extractors (Budgeted $6,000)
Hook up supplies (Budgeted $143.26)
Hook up and testing labour (Budgeted $7,799.85)
Soil Sampling Labour (Budgeted $6,884.00)
Vehicle use (Budgeted $999.17)
Processing, extraction and examination of soil (Budgeted $48,860.72)
Laboratory consumables (Budgeted $4,076.00)
Administration $7,786.00 (Budgeted $7,786.00)
In-kind Contributions (not given a value)
MPGA– production of two Pulse Beat Articles and organization of one oral presentation with Dr. Tenuta
Denis Lange – identification of candidate fields (location, grower, contact and field history). Denis is with MAFRI
Mario Tenuta – project management and outreach (preparing of articles and delivery of presentations)
Soil Ecology Laboratory Facilities – stereo and dissecting microscope use, instrumentation for molecular identification
North Star Genetics – organization of one oral presentation by Dr. Tenuta
Reach and Communications/Technology Transfer
5. Identify the primary target of this project and how this has helped them adapt or remain competitive:
The primary target of this project was soybean growers in Manitoba. MPGA provided partial funding and communication means to outreach awareness of SCN’s damage to yield, how to scout for it, control measures, and about this project’s objectives and results to growers. MAFRI supported the project in providing grower contacts to sample fields. In all, this was a very successful project showing the synergy of University, a commodity group, Federal and Provincial Governments working to insure the growth of soybean acreage in the Province.
Firstly, growers are now much more aware of SCN and what it will mean to yields and change in practices when it is found in their fields. This is a major accomplishment of the project because early detection of SCN in Manitoba means yield losses will be lower and will slow the dispersal of the pest throughout the soy growing regions of the Province. The extraction facility is a great asset also for future surveys of SCN. Finding no SCN in the survey is welcomed news to growers because it simplifies their management. However, we must be vigilant and keep up awareness of the pest and conduct future surveys.
6. Indicate the total number of people reached by this project (i.e. 10,500 producers through an electronic newsletter, 450 attendees at a conference, circulation of 26,000 through a magazine, etc.):
Pulse Beat Spring 2013 article on the project – 500+ producers, 100+ industry
Manitoba Specialty Crops Symposium (Feb 7, 2013) – 50 producers, 25 industry
North Star Genetics Morris Producer Day (April 2, 2013) – 250+ producers
Manitoba Co-operator article print and online (Feb 12, 2013) – 5,000+ producers
Steinbach Online article (Feb 12, 2013) – 300+ producers
Grain News Article print and online (March 20, 2013) – 50,000+ producers
Pulse Beat Fall 2013 followup article on the project findings (Fall 2013) – 500+ producers, 100+ industry
Canadian Phytopathology Manitoba Meeting (Nov 2013) – 5 industry, 25 researh
8. Indicate when you acknowledged funding provided through CAAP in accordance with Schedule “E” of the CAAP Agreement:
MPGA and Government of Canada through MRAC and CAAP are acknowledged in interviews, presentations and articles. Sometimes the writer neglected to list all funders. It will also be acknowledged in journal articles relating to the project.
Final
9. If applicable, outline how this initiative will be economically viable and self-sustaining from this point forward and the next steps for this initiative:
Research such as tracking the presence of pest requires continued efforts. Two fields will be resampled in late fall 2013 that had bifenestrate cysts. The funding for that work will come from the Pulse Cluster 2 that is part of Growing Forward 2 of AAFC. Dr. Tenuta has a project supported by the pulse industry on surveying and determining the importance of nematode pests of crops in Prairie Canada. As part of that project, a new method based on molecular quantification of SCN in soil will be developed to replace the laborious hand sorting and observation required. Dr. Tenuta with Activation Labs of Anacaster ON have applied to the AIP GF2 program for the commercialization of our methods. A survey for SCN is recommended every 2 or 3 years to pin point when the pest builds to levels damaging to SCN. This will then determine when growers move to management practices to combat and adapt to SCN.
10. Describe any anticipated or actual environmental and economic impact of the project (in quantifiable terms, as outlined in the project application):
As described in the proposal, the direct economic benefits arising from the project will be difficult to measure. The project provides a detailed information base regarding the presence of SCN in the Province through a survey of soybean fields for the occurrence of SCN and provides a sample processing facility for continued monitoring of the nematode in Manitoba.
Awareness of SCN to growers and industry from this project has encouraged the evaluation of SCN resistant varieties in Manitoba. The use of these varieties, if continued to show competitive yields to non resistant varieties, means establishment of SCN in the Province will be slowed. This should result in lower yield loses. The Thus the project will allow Manitoba producers and seed companies to adapt to the presence of SCN and manage the pest to insure the commodity’s growth is not restricted by this pest.
11. Provide a discussion of lessons learned, recommendations and overall perception of project success:
Lessons Learned:
The extractor had an efficiency of 75% recovery of cysts in soil
The fields sampled were free of SCN
There are other cyst nematodes present in very low levels in soils that are not SCN
The levels of these other cyst nematodes are so low that it indicates they are not pest of crops
The few cysts recovered from soils were heavily damaged. Future analyses may want to not dry and store samples but rather conduct extractions on freshly obtained soil from the field
The technical project report following this report gives recommendations
Perception of Project Success:
Producers have been very receptive to our efforts of communicating about the project and SCN. Particularly, the producers growing tight rotations or continuous soybeans have rightly been very interested. I am sure some of these producers will be changing their rotation in light of this project. MPGA and MAFRI have been very pleased with the project as it has provided a robust examination of the presence or lack of SCN in the Province, increased producer awareness and diagnosis of SCN, and has developed capacity in Manitoba for high quality analysis of soil for SCN. The capacity is important because suspect fields can processed here and follow up surveys can be done in Manitoba as well.
Media Coverage (add extra lines, if required)*
Date / Source / Title / Reach / CAAP Recognition
(Yes/No)
March 2013 / MPGA Pulse Beat / SCN Coming to a Field Near You? / 600+ / MRAC and CAAP
Feb 12 2013 / Manitoba Co-operator / Put These Crop Pests on Your Radar / 5,000+ / No (article was about many pests including our work with SCN)
Feb 12 2013 / Steinbach Online / Soybean Cyst Nematode Survey Underway / 300+ / MRAC
March 20 2013 / Grain News / Soybean Cyst Nematodes / 50,000+ / MRAC and CAAP
Oct 2013 / MPGA Pulse Beat / SCN Survey Followup / 600+ / MRAC and CAAP
*If possible, please provide a copy of the media coverage for our files.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) is committed to working with industry partners. Opinions expressed in this document are those of the Applicant and not necessarily those of AAFC
Page 1 of 6