April 27, 2023
Matthew Kaiser
Environmental Program Manager I
Pierce’s Disease Control Program
California Department of Food and Agriculture
1220 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Kaiser:
This letter describes the work of the Committee on Assistance to the California Department of Food and Agriculture Pierce’s Disease/Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter Board on Grapevine Viruses and Grapevine Disease Research and transmits the committee’s final evaluation of the research proposals on grapevine virus diseases and their vectors. This activity was supported by Contract No. 10006123 from the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to the National Academy of Sciences. The review process was performed under the auspices of the National Academies’ Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Grapevine red blotch disease (GRBD) is a recently recognized disease of grapes that has been detected across some of the major grape-growing regions in the United States and poses a threat to the $162 billion U.S. grape industry. It is caused by grapevine red blotch virus (GRBV), a single-stranded DNA virus within the family Geminiviridae. GRBD leads to red or chlorotic blotches on leaves of red- and white-berried vines, delayed fruit ripening, and reduced fruit quality. In 2016, the three-cornered alfalfa hopper was discovered as a vector of GRBV, but it may not be the only one. There is no cure for infected vines.
Another important viral disease affecting wine, juice, and table grape cultivars and rootstocks is grapevine leafroll disease (GLD). The impact of GLD on vine health, crop yield, and quality is difficult to assess due to a high number of variables, but significant economic losses are consistently reported over the lifespan of a vineyard if intervention strategies are not implemented. Several viruses from the family Closteroviridae are associated with GLD, but grapevine leafroll associated virus type 3 (GLRaV3) is regarded as the most important causative agent.
In 2022, the CDFA Pierce's Disease/Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter (PD/GWSS) Board requested the National Academies to conduct a study with three interrelated activities: 1) Review of Proposals Submitted to CDFA PD/GWSS Board; 2) Critique of CDFA PD/GWSS Board's Request for Proposals (RFP) and Proposal Selection Process; and 3) Review of Current Knowledge on Grapevine Viruses, GRBV, and GLRaV3 Research Outcomes/Gaps and Future Research Approach. To carry out this work, the National Academies appointed an ad hoc committee, with Anna Whitfield, a professor of entomology and plant pathology at North Carolina State University, as chair and Alexander Karasev, a University Distinguished Professor
at the University of Idaho, as vice-chair. The committee members’ collective expertise includes plant pathology, plant viruses, grapevine diseases, insect-vectored diseases, epidemiology, entomology, plant host resistance, plant disease control, insect control, biotechnology, genomics, plant-microbe interactions, insect-microbe interactions, insect-plant interactions, commercialization of research, and research program management. The committee roster is provided in Appendix D. This letter report addresses the first activity requested by CDFA. The committee’s charge was to evaluate the scientific merit and the practical application of the proposed research; the selection of proposals for funding will be determined by CDFA.
The committee received a total of 16 proposals from CDFA, listed in Appendix A. Each proposal was reviewed by a panel of three committee members. Each committee member was responsible for evaluating four or five proposals before holding a discussion in a virtual committee meeting. Prior to their evaluation of the proposals, all committee members were screened for potential conflicts of interest (COIs) including relevant relationships with organizations and individuals involved with the submitted proposals. These COIs are documented in Appendix G. Review assignments were made so that proposals were not evaluated by committee members who are from the applicant’s institution or who have had recent or ongoing close collaborative relationships with an applicant.
CDFA asked the committee to evaluate the proposals based on the following criteria:
- Objectives and Relevance (20 pts)—Are the objectives clearly stated, justified, worthwhile, and reasonable? Are the proposed objectives likely to contribute significantly to solving the problem? Does the proposed project unproductively overlap with other projects?
- Activities to Accomplish Objectives (40 pts)—Is the workplan reasonable, feasible, and capable of meeting the stated goals and objectives? For research, is the workplan of good scientific merit?
- Project Leader, Co-Project Leaders, and Others (10 pts)—Do they have appropriate backgrounds, expertise, experience, and capabilities for the proposed tasks? Is the team missing any critical capabilities?
- Resources and Likelihood of Accomplishing Objectives (10 pts)—Assuming the requested funds are awarded, will the Project Leader and associates have the resources, including facilities, to achieve the objectives?
- Project Timetable (10 pts)—Are the milestones appropriate? Are they achievable?
- Budget (10 pts)—Is the budget reasonable and appropriate?
In addition to the criteria above, the reviewers also evaluated the proposal’s scientific merit (high, medium, low), practical application (high, medium, low), funding level (requested level, reduced funding, none, or augmented funding) and funding period (3, 2, 1, or 0 years). The reviewers were also asked to provide constructive comments for each proposal’s principal investigator(s) (PI).
The committee held its evaluation meetings virtually on March 27 and 30, 2023. At the meetings, reviewers for each proposal were asked to give an overview of the proposed research and to summarize their reviews for the committee, after which the committee engaged in a discussion of the merits of the proposal. Committee members determined to have a COI with a
proposal were excused from the committee discussion on that proposal and placed in a virtual waiting room until discussion of the proposal was complete.
The committee reviewed the slate of proposals under consideration, came to a consensus on which proposals it judged as having high scientific merit and applicability and, in some cases, decided to suggest a reduced scope of work and a modified budget and funding duration. The reviewers’ scores and comments on each of the 16 proposals are appended to this letter report as non-public Appendix B.
The committee concluded that most of the proposals listed below best met the criteria provided by CDFA. Of these 11 proposals, one proposal that did not address the RFP priorities but warrants consideration due to its scientific merit was selected for a reduced scope of work and modified funding level/duration (identified below with an asterisk).
The proposals judged by the committee as having high and medium scientific merit and applicability are (in alphabetical order):
HIGH
Cooper, M., University of California Cooperative Extension-Napa County: Building Community Resilience, Coordination, and Collaboration for Individual and Regional Red Blotch Disease Management
Deluc, L., Oregon State University: Developing an Efficient DNA-Free, Non-Transgenic Genome Editing Methodology in Grapevine*
Fuchs, M., Cornell University: Epidemiological Characteristics of Grapevine Red Blotch Disease
Fuchs, M., Cornell University: Resistance to Grapevine Leafroll-Associated Virus 3 and Its Two Major Mealybug Vectors
McRoberts, N., University of California, Davis: Canine Detection of Invasive Vine Mealybugs and Grapevine Leafroll - Associated Virus 3 (GLRaV-3) in Vineyards
Tanner, J., University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources (UCANR): Evaluation of a Vine Mealybug and GLRaV-3 Regional Control Group in San Joaquin County
Zalom, F., University of California, Davis: Biology and Role of Treehoppers in Grapevine Red Blotch Disease with Emphasis on Tortistilus albidosparsus
MEDIUM
Almeida, R., University of California, Berkeley: Ecology of Grapevine Red Blotch Virus Spread
Fuchs, M., Cornell University: Mechanisms of Fanleaf Disease Symptom Development for Novel Resistance Strategies
Rivera, M., Cornell University: Investigation of the Dispersal Behavior and Host Plant Preference of the Three-Cornered Alfalfa Hopper (Spissistilus festinus; TCAH), a Vector of Grapevine Red Blotch Virus (GRBV)
Wallis, C., USA-ARS San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Sciences Center: Identification of Novel Californian Fungal Isolates for Biological Control of Glassy-Winged Sharp Shooters and Mealybugs
We hope that CDFA will find the committee’s recommendations and comments useful in its efforts to address grapevine viruses and their vectors.
Sincerely,
Anna E. Whitfield
Chair, Committee on Assistance to the California Department of Food and Agriculture Pierce’s Disease/Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter Board on Grapevine Viruses and Grapevine Disease Research
Alexander V. Karasev
Vice-Chair
cc: Kristin Lowe, President, Vine Balance Consulting
Elizabeth Eide, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
Robin Schoen, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
