Hosted by the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences at the University of Georgia
Managed CAP banner

Management Plan

The proposal describes the management components of the CAP and their job descriptions:

  • Project Director (Delaplane)
  • Executive Committee (Averill, Ostiguy, Skinner, Sheppard, Spivak, Hunt, Drummond)
  • Science Advisory Panel, and
  • Stakeholder Panel

As Project Director, Keith Delaplane exercised general oversight of the project. He has been responsible for assuring the execution of objectives under the various sub-awards, organizing and setting an agenda for the annual meeting (usually in conjunction with the American Association of Professional Apiculturists), supervising evaluations, supervising research and extension under his direction, making reports, and serving as a central clearinghouse for communications and issues as they have arisen. His budgeted time commitment is 45%. In all these duties he has been helped by a budgeted Project Assistant.

Dr. Delaplane has relied upon shared decision-making inputs of the Executive Committee. These individuals played key roles in developing the objectives and proposal. The Executive Committee has released and administered Requests for Applications for competitive grants from grant contingency funds. Members of the Executive Committee and funded co-investigators were eligible to apply for these funds, but members of the Executive Committee with conflicting interests were recused from voting. In deciding among competing proposals, the Executive Committee solicited input from the Science Advisory Panel. The Executive Committee was the first stop for any unforeseen internal or external management problems.

The Science Advisory Panel has served as a review board for competitive proposals from the contingency funds. Insofar as allowed by U.S. law, members of the Science Advisory Panel may apply for these funds, but individuals so doing have been recused from deliberations. Ad hoc reviewers were recruited as needed. Final funding decisions lie with the Executive Committee, but inputs by the Science Advisory Panel have carried great weight. The Panel has been asked to comment on an annual Progress Report prepared by the PD, before or around the time of the annual meeting. Finally, in the event of intractable internal management problems, the Science Advisory and Stakeholder Panels have been available to be called to assist with arbitration.

The Stakeholder Panel played a central role in our annual evaluation process. These individuals were chosen to broadly represent our interested client groups. They were asked to comment on an annual Progress Report and invited to attend our annual meeting (often held in conjunction with industry groups). The Stakeholder Panel assisted in one or more industry survey designed to measure the impacts of our research and extension initiatives on the publics most directly impacted by our work.

top


Logic Model

Our Logic Model (PDF) was heavily outward focused.  Here we provide more detail on internal modus operandi developed under the advice of our Purdue administrative advisor Sonny Ramaswamy.

top

Plans to Share Data among Members and Stakeholder Panel
The annual meeting has been a ready-made checkpoint for sharing results, re-appraising priorities and examining emerging issues. In advance of the meeting, the Project Director has solicited information from all co-investigators on progress toward goals and assimilated it into a report to share among the membership and the Scientific Advisory and Stakeholder panels. The project has been appraised face-to-face at the meeting and any new action determined with input from the Stakeholder panel. On a regular basis, co-investigators have passed information ready for media-based deliverables to the eXtension technician, Michael Wilson, who was assigned to John Skinner.  Mr. Wilson has prepared these deliverables for publication on the Managed Pollinator Community of Practice website. In the case of Objectives that were inter-dependent, it has fallen to the PD and Project Assistant to ensure that material and knowledge were being exchanged between investigative teams as needed throughout the year.

During the first year of funding, there were numerous occasions when the Executive Committee and specific investigative teams held tele-conferences to discuss questions and technical details of project execution. For investigative teams this has occurred on an as-needed basis, but for the Executive Board there was a target goal of holding tele-conferences on a bi-monthly basis to monitor the CAP and appraise progress toward goals.

There have been three tiers of regular meetings: a monthly meeting of the Executive Committee, quarterly meeting of all scientists, and one annual general meeting for face-to-face discussion of emerging priorities and public presentation of research results. The monthly and quarterly meetings have been facilitated by an electronic platform available in eXtension via their Web conferencing center. The general meeting has been held in conjunction with the annual American Bee Research Conference.

top

Plans to Enhance Collaborations
New collaborators have been invited to join the CAP by means of a pool of competitive contingency funds to support emerging priorities.

Expected Timeline for Deliverables or New Information

Goal
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
1. CCD
 
  • Time to death and threshold for Nosema
  • LD50s for most common miticides
  • Mass-Tag diagnostics
  • Viral and Nosema levels associated with morbidity
  • Colony exposure to pesticides
  • Honey bees found resistant to Nosema
  • IAPV, DWV and Nosema levels that interact with other problems
  • Impact on sperm viability of miticides
  • Impact of metabolites on morbidity
  • Bee strains resistant to IAPV, DWV and Nosema
  • Pathogens found in different regions
  • Role of biotics and abiotics in Nosemavirulence
  • Time to death for queens treated with sub-lethal pesticides
  • Sub-lethal effects on nurse bees and immatures
2. Genetics
 
  • SNP markers
  • Genes responding to infection
  • Genes involved in resistance
  • Sources of genetic diversity
  • Gene networks responding to disease
  • Maintaining genetic diversity
  • Resistance in commercial stock
3. non-Apis
 
  • Non-Apis pathogens
  • Toxicology of non-Apis
  • Optimum stocking densities of B. impatiens
  • Cost estimates for implementing non-Apis pollination
  • Spill-over infection between cultured Apis and non-Apis
  • Sub-lethal effects of neonicotinoids
  • Factors regulating foraging of managed bumble bees
4. Deliver knowledge
 
  • eXtension C of P established
  • Queen workshops
  • Recommendations to accompany diagnostic reports
  • California breeders testing for pathogens increased
  • Queen workshops
  • Beekeepers in significant numbers adopt BMP
  • Barriers to market for improved queens
  • Beekeeping profitability improved
  • Barriers to stock certification program identified

 

Photo by Zachary Huang, Michigan State University
Photo by Zachary Huang,
Michigan State University
top