WP 4-Regional testing- Biovesity (Inge van den Bergh)

Four modules are included in WP4.

• 
  Baseline study
  
• 
  Standardization of protocol
  
• 
  Participatory Varietal selection (PVS) trials.
  
• 
  Towards adoption
  

• 
  All 5 regions visited with same PRA tools used; CIRAD contributed to the development of some of these tools.
  
• 
  Data collection: Mobile application was used for intra HH survey (using SMAP). This allows real time information in any region. Enumerators were trained in both countries in data collection and on use of IT technologies for data collection. Members of WP2 joined the team to collect info on diseases and pests.
  
• 
  Gender specific information was also collected using specific tools; mapping of agro ecological conditions and its impact for adoption and impact of new varieties is also studied.
  
• 
  Standardization of protocols: Revision of existing International Musa testing program (IMTP); tablets for data collection have been procured.
  
• 
  Planting material for mother trials- provided by IITA Ibadan. Multiplication and hardening was done locally in several local institutions. Not all plant material has been replicated, so not all accessions will be included in the upcoming PVS.
  
• 
  Study on nutrition impact is going to be done at the end of the project including preference by farmers and consumers on banana consumption.
  
• 
  Open question: What is the feedback from the Baselines? Most urgent analyses of BL is feedback to breeders on traits preferences.
  

• 
  MusaBase.org - it contains news, events, and links to publications (that is currently empty!); there is a space for a logo that so far has not been filled in –discussion for logo should be enabled.
  
• 
  What does this database allow? It is about keeping breeding data in the cloud. It is an open data system: it can manage multiple breeding programs, clones and accessions, breeding locations, trials’ design and layout, phenotyping using tablet devices; limited data analysis (seems than more capacity on that will be coming), data exchange with other tools. The database can be explored using metadata.
  
• 
  The database must be done in advance to ensure proper coordination and provision to it of appropriate and technically sound data.
  
• 
  Very important! - Avoid accession duplication: Accessions can be loaded in the database and these are carefully scrutinized to identify entry duplicates. This is one of the main challenges of the project, to avoid duplication of accessions (to avoid synonyms). Uploading information has to be very precise. Crosses can also be uploaded.
  

• 
  So far there are about 1000 accessions registered from the existing breeding programs. 4 test trials have been uploaded.
  
• 
  A MusaBase test Database has been developed- it is a database for testing if researchers want to try new things.
  
• 
  There is a field book app that can be used in the field for data collection in the field.
  
• 
  Training workshops for staff have been provided in IITA Nigeria, Sendusu in Uganda, Arusha in Tanzania.
  

• 
  Pedigrees need to be set up in the database (should be amended soon by Lukas’s team).
  
• 
  An on-line manual has been developed for cassava and could be used for banana; Lukas’s team to link it into the MusaBase.
  
• 
  Ontology should be discussed jointly to populate the DB.
  
• 
  Need to clarify how to represent cycles: In ontology or on trial level?
  
• 
  Plant-level phenotyping?
  
• 
  Organize regular skype meetings with breeders.
  
• 
  GPS data should be captured.
  
• 
  Responsibility on who is uploading data in each group should be brought to the table as it might come from each WP: a data manager could be selected within each WP to make sure that all the information produced in each WP is going to be included.
  
• 
  To be discussed by all: Interaction between this website and the other Musa websites? This website is linking with others in order to enhance synergies and capitalize as much as possible the investment done already. MGIS and the Banana Genome Hub.
  
• 
  Agree on future workshops.
  

• 
  Communication and coordination between work packages must be improved and database from WP5 should be a central station that can assist on the same.
  
• 
  How to deal with the short-time frame of the project considering the length of the banana crop.
  
• 
  Focus more on the overall outcomes of the project and re-visit the overall objectives of each package and ensure that all align to the intended general ones, coordination, information exchange and “standardization”.
  
• 
  Re-plan based on the reality on the ground and readjust if needed milestones and the overall project framework (B&M GF suggestion).
  

• 
  Plenary agreement Discussion on ontology will be set up for Thursday at lunch time.
  
• 
  All presentations will be consolidated in a flash drive and at the end of the week will be delivered to all participants.
  

• 
  Partners need to report on the project based on the IITA contracts; once the IITA reporting unit is in agreement with the technical report, which may involve being sent back to partners, this will be sent to B&M GF. It is reviewed internally for the technical and financial contents. This may well come back to IITA for verification or clarification, as for the first year annual report. Once this first internal review is approved, the report will undergo internal technical review within the Gates Foundation with around three internal reviewers. Only once the reviewers have all accepted the report it is approved and then the next installment of money can be disbursed.
  
• 
  Delays in reporting to ITA therefore cause delays to the B&M GF and have consequences to project implementation if funding release is delayed as a consequence. If delays to the report extend to the Christmas period then this additionally affects the flow.
  
• 
  Therefore, it is essential that reports come timely to IITA in order to ensure proper follow up of the reporting mechanisms and timely delivery of the installments. Reports need to be sent to the SAG and the SC to also review them and use for feedback to the annual meeting and for interaction with WP’s to improve the quality of the report.
  
• 
  A report is required from each partner on six monthly basis for IITA to monitor and track on progress. For the annual report each WP leader also needs to provide a consolidated WP report in addition to the partner report.
  
• 
  Reports should cover the 6 months and/or 1 year accordingly but it is recommended that those results achieved during each period are presented in the context of the previous reported achievements.
  
• 
  Dates for reporting internally to IITA and to B&M GF are in the contract that each organization has with IITA; deadlines have been now been shifted ahead by two weeks in order to provide more time to go through the reports and send back for clarifications as required.
  
• 
  Bioversity reporting scheme has been used as an example template for reporting, as it structures all the information in a clear manner with an organized structure that helps in the consolidation of all the information from all partners easily.
  
• 
  Maintaining a consistent format helps PL to prepare the overall report more easily.
  

• 
  There are 69 outputs to be reported in the overall project and information on why delays are being experienced in some of these outputs must be provided clearly in each report: “Why we experience delay and how this is being handled and mitigated?”.
  
• 
  Reports must have quality and have to be done on time: what cannot be reported on this report can be sent to the next one, so it is crucial to prioritize that timeliness and quality are achieved.
  
• 
  Annexes are also very important- in the report we should be very concise- but additional information is actually very much welcomed by the Gates Foundation and encouraged.
  
• 
  Variance: this term refers to how much we have deviated from the expected achievements (i.e. 0% means that there is NO variance and all has been completed as expected); the higher the % the more delay is being experienced or deviation from the overall goals reported. Whenever a figure > 0% is provided, WP leaders need to justify the deviations and explain how that will be corrected in the future.
  
• 
  Actual: What has been achieved after year 1; this is an “accumulative” contribution of all partners working on that WP (i.e. as of today, we should be reporting updates on 1.5 years). Needs to be done by the WP leader.
  
• 
  Primary outcomes cannot be modified in the project although adjustments to outputs can be made if required. That should be done in agreement with all the WP members, Project Manager, and ultimately agreed upon by the Project Leader.
  

For the East African Highland Banana: according to WP2, there is a need to select a small population of the most promising accessions/hybrids by WP1 that can be tested by WP2. Early identification trials for pests/diseases are already established by WP1 in Kawanda, so information for WP2 could be collected there. WP2 indicates that it is important to select those promising hybrids as trials should be set up considering also the inclusion of controls.

The information that needs to be collected to improve coordination of activities between WP1 and WP2 is:

• 
  What trials have been established?
  
• 
  Where are they?
  
• 
  What information has been collected at the moment?
  

Related to the parental lines, it is important to understand their response to Nematodes, Fusarium wilt and weevils; improve observation of symptoms in the breeding plots can help to guide the teams to choose materials that may have good potential; this information should be available by the end of the year if possible. The existing parental lines are: 30 diploids, 18 tetraploids and 14 lines for EAHB; and 7 varieties of Mchares. Therefore, WP1 will be supported by WP2 to improve the skills of the staff in the field of WP1 to have a better sense of the response of the breeding material to the target P & D. To achieve this, WP2 needs to understand what are the materials that are already in the field, so WP2 can establish parallel plots to do further screening on those same varieties. Screening tests have to be done in Tanzania (for Fusarium wilt) and in Uganda (for Sigatoka); 100 plants/ accessions should be used for the analyses.

Related to WP3, it was agreed that WP2 will screen the parents of all the mapping populations for resistance to weevil, Fusarium wilt and black Sigatoka. Screening for nematode resistance for the parents is ongoing. For black Sigatoka, the PhD student, Janet Kimunye has the parents in the list of the accessions to be screened. WP1 and WP3 are going to select some hybrids from EETs, 200 to 400 of them. These will be “deeply” phenotyped and genotyped to enrich the training population. Selection of the genotypes will be based on specific parental combinations, and phenotypes ranging from worst to best.

Members of the team suggest that molecular markers should be also established for other characters such as improved yields. For comprehensive genomic selection there is also a need of the right genotypes and these have not been done yet. We need to ensure we define what will be the genetic gains within farmer fields that we need to monitor and to use as indicators for a possible next phase of the project, and those gains have to be achieved using local varieties.

Breeding Assessment tool: it is planned that a team of evaluators will come to assess how the project is breeding “today” and will do the same at the end of the project. This should have happened already in year one but this was not done initially, so it might happen in the second year. What the project will be evaluated about is “Are we breeding/selecting/delivering faster to farmers?”

New triploids of Matoke hybrids are being produced every year; in order to prove that these lines are better than the NARITA’s there is a need to provide preliminary/baseline data on the Matokes and there is a need to measure certain parameters that we all have to agree upon- yields, height, pictures, etc. The project needs to find a way to collect data to show this early performance. Indicators are yet to be selected by WP1.

• 
  The trial site managers gave an update on the status of the 3 sites in Tanzania (Arusha – Grace; Bukoba – Mgenzi; Mbeya – Daud).
  
• 
  Over the coming months, different data collection methods will be compiled, and standardized data collection protocols will be worked out. The crop ontology will be updated with the variables and methods to be used for the evaluation trials. The team discussed the possibility of having a workshop to standardize the protocols.
  
• 
  Suggestion to develop manual for data collection.
  
• 
  A training will be organized in Uganda 12-16 September (back to back with breeding course). Trial site managers and data collection people from the 5 sites will be invited to the course.
  

• 
  Two mobile tools for data collection will be tested over the coming months:
  
  • 
    The Fieldbook app linked to Musabase
    
  • 
    The smap app developed by Rhiannon
    
• 
  Whatever tool will be chosen, the data collected in the 5 trial sites will be uploaded in Musabase.
  

• 
  There is a need to get consensus on the general terms and terminologies (ontology) to ensure proper coordination and improve results on outcomes.
  
• 
  BMS database provides a management system for breeders and Musa-Base is valuable to provide information on genomics. Hence both should be kept in parallel in a complementary manner and the current project should feed them both.
  
• 
  Discussion on Open Access: A debate is created in the forum on whether the information collected under the project should be in Open Access Musa-Base. B&M GF has recommended that the project focuses more on publishing and not necessarily on the database.
  

• 
  Accountability and transparent sharing of information obtained with public funds has to be taken into consideration.
  
• 
  Opening project data can also create an incentive to the project’s researchers to publish faster.
  
• 
  A wider access to the data can also help the project to link with other researchers, expand the project’s network and create synergies with other projects.
  
• 
  Increased publicity of the database and of the project.
  

1. 
   Cookies- Permission will be requested to visitors to ensure a correct use of the information. “The Toronto Agreement” could be used: under this “contract” information cannot be published unless the main researchers involved in the project provide agreement on that.
   
2. 
   Official request in writing could be sent to MusaBase where external scientist provide details on their research proposal and expected publications on the same; external teams should provide detailed information on why and for what the information will be required/used. This request should be to be reviewed/approved by the SC and the SAG and WP leaders.
   
3. 
   Others to be explored.
   

• 
  Explicit acknowledgment to the project to be published in the paper; and/or
  
• 
  Include project’s researchers as co-authors of that new external publication - Authorship recognized officially; in this way detailed information on materials and methods could be provided to those papers; this information does not appear in the MusaBase as the platform is not yet ready for including such data yet.
  

• 
  Compilation of data collection methods.
  
• 
  Fine tune the data collection protocols.
  
• 
  Agree on basics on ontology.
  
• 
  A possible workshop to be organized to achieve a common understanding on the tools. Inge to provide further information on the same once it will be finally agreed and possible budget identified.
  
• 
  Development of apps for the data collection in the field; information should be included in Musa Base regardless of the tool selected for data collection. A manual might be developed to assist on the data collection process.
  
• 
  In each of the 5 sites there will be a site manager that will be collecting data; training for these will be done in Uganda from 6-12^th September, the week before the breeding training program.
  
• 
  Agreements with Clark University and CIRAD have been achieved to frame collaborations related to preservation of data collection and publication of results.
  

• 
  Internal and external communication should be improved.
  
• 
  IT support for the project is provided from IITA.
  
• 
  The management would like to see more updated communication in each of the WP.
  
• 
  Related to publications, these can be uploaded in the ProMusa website – on MusaLit; InfoMusa Newsletter (sent out every three months) can also be used to announce and present publications on this project (Inge’s group may facilitate that).
  
• 
  Open Access publication now covered by B&M Gates foundation; papers for OA must go through Danny and then from there those will be sent straight to B&M GF and they will cover the costs for OA. Hence, the original budget line in the project now can be used for other activities (this to be decided by the PI-Rony).
  
• 
  Trip reports should be also be prepared and shared and can be useful for other project’s partners.
  
• 
  A working space for the project should be made available to all the team (“AgShare” Today², Dropbox, etc.)
  
• 
  Logo in working progress to consolidate the image of all partners under a single one for project identity.
  

• 
  Explore the potential inclusion of Radio Farm international to support on data collection from the farms.
  
• 
  UK contribution to metabolomic analyses.
  
• 
  CIRAD- post harvest: Post –harvest research with NARITAs.
  
• 
  Musa breeding course
  
• 
  Gender component to be considered for the breeding aspects of the project; Bioversity will bring a post doc specialist in gender to reinforce the gender component of this project.
  
• 
  ProMusa Symposium 2020/ISHS.
  
• 
  Support for students involvement in the project is being achieved through external cooperation/ grants programmes such as:
  
  • 
    Clark University (UK).
    
  • 
    KULeuven to study agro-ecological conditions of banana trials will be joining the project and genomics.
    
  • 
    CORAF funds have been tagged to bring in another PhD student to the project (Muller).
    
  • 
    EARTH student.
    
  • 
    Beauvais student.
    

• 
  Nematodes Uflet (ask Amos)
  
• 
  RTB- TR4
  
• 
  EMBRAPA hybrids
  

• 
  NARO training on banana breeding (QTL mapping).
  
• 
  Nessie support by PEARL.
  

• 
  New species of Pratylenchus coffeae reported to parasitize banana and pathogenicity needs to be assessed for banana.
  
• 
  Concern of communication though Farm Radio; the group considers that those are only focusing in urban areas and peri-urban areas and do not reach rural areas. Programs should be done more frequently to increase impact and mobile technologies should back up these as well. It would be important also to increase the number of radios stations to be used for info dissemination.
  

• 
  Dessert banana hybrids obtained from EMBRAPA were planted at NARO.
  
• 
  QTL mapping training which benefited NAR0 members of staff.
  
• 
  Some of the new employees leave for greener pastures.
  
• 
  Field attachments of 7 students.
  

1. 
   Main points presented are available in the power points.
   
2. 
   Questions from the forum and Richard Sikora (SAG) and Jim -B&MGF):
   

1. 
   Q1: B&M GF: EET Data will be collected on the diploid hybrids to do genetic prediction to overcome bottleneck? WP3: The discussion already took place; the team will do a selection of parental combination of 200 to 400 genotypes and these will be genotyped for the EETs (ranging from “worst to best”), considering parental combinations; deep-phenotyping will also be conducted.
   

1. 
   Main points presented are available in the power point.
   
2. 
   Questions from the forum and Richard Sikora (SAG) and Jim (B&MGF):
   

• 
  WP4: only those NARITA lines screened in WP4 will be screened.
  

1. 
   Main points presented are available in the power point.
   
2. 
   Questions from the forum and Richard Sikora (SAG) and Jim (B&MGF):
   

1. 
   Main points presented are available in a report by Inge.
   
2. 
   Questions from the forum and Richard Sikora (SAG) and Jim (B&MGF):
   

1. 
   Main points presented are available in a report by Inge.
   
2. 
   Questions from the forum and Richard Sikora (SAG) and Jim (B&MGF):
   

• 
  Danny: one of the outcomes expected from this meeting is that each WP will be able to clearly define what are feasible objectives that will be achieved at end of the year and what needs to be reviewed and adjusted; feedback on the same to be provided to B&M GF in the next few weeks;
  
• 
  B&MGF: It is important to report on what has been modified and what are the deviations of the project and the reasons for that. Adjustments are possible but have to be properly explained/ presented.
  
• 
  Rony: Improved communication within and among teams is needed/ encouraged and all along the project and not only during reporting time- this will help to overcome challenges and adjust to changes.
  

• 
  Interactions among WP and SAG: open dialogue is crucial and should be improved and ensured.
  
• 
  SAG members to meet every 6 months, by Skype and face to face during the annual meetings; its main role is to interact with the WPs.
  
• 
  During Monthly/bimonthly WPs meetings integrations will be established with SAG.
  
• 
  Results framework trackers will be updated quarterly by WPs-leaders; that should help to improve communication and reporting (timelines to be achieved).
  
• 
  Adjustment the result framework will happen at WP level, and information to PL and PM and B&MGF will be provided on the same.
  
• 
  MusaBase will be in OA. Mechanisms will be explored and set in place to protect the authorship of the research team of this project.
  
• 
  Communication: Visibility of the project is important and Danny has been tasked to move forward with this one and to supervise the drafting of logos and web site/page.
  
• 
  Internal communication: IT platforms will be explored to improve the work space; Dropbox or secure area in website will be considered to make available documents to all participants.
  
• 
  A date should be fixed as soon as possible for the next annual meeting in order to ensure all participants can actually attend. (Last week of April 2017 later set; dates will be agreed and set 6 months in advance to avoid changes of dates)
  
• 
  Changes/re-direction in budgets: these are decisions to be ultimately taken by the PI and not by the SAG or the SC.
  
  • 
    Rony’s comment on the budget: external opportunities to bring in money and complement activities of the project (i.e. PhD and MSc students) should always be considered. If WP require some extra money they should be requesting clearly what is the amount of money required and for what activities, and requests will be studied; money exchange between WPs can be done but not based on amendments of contracts (this should be done internally); Payments are released every 6 months at the moment- at the end of year 3- there will be an evaluation on the money spent in each WP and for those that have been “saving” money and not spending as expected, IITA will consider to hold-back further payments until that money has been spent.
    

• 
  Clear reporting on time to B&MGF is crucial; understanding of the framework is crucial; all this will have to be linked with improved communication.
  
• 
  Open Access has been agreed.
  
• 
  Joint discussions on Ontology will help to unify criteria among all WP members.
  
• 
  Technical discussions should be encouraged more in the next annual meeting and have less of “management” discussions. These should revolve around:
  

1. 
   How many new hybrids have been developed?
   
2. 
   Have we done this faster?
   
3. 
   Are those hybrids being accepted by farmers?
   

• 
  WP1 & WP4: No changes expected.
  
• 
  WP2 & WP5: Shifts in timing, not in contents
  
• 
  WP3: New activities to be done – discussion underway between PI and B&MGF.
  

• 
  Good progress on technical aspects of the hybrids screening and characterization; catalogues on hybrids to be developed.
  
• 
  Different stages of breeding have been achieved.
  
• 
  Good/close collaboration envisaged with WP2 to screen faster.
  

• 
  Pests/disease identified already in many implementation sites.
  
• 
  Good interaction with WP4 on the selection of the sites for the screening.
  

There followed a detailed discussion and agreement on ontology terms, and the spreadsheet filled