Proposed Center for Ecology, Evolution and
Management of Pesticide Resistance
2015 CEEMPR PROPOSAL EVALUATION FORM
Please evaluate each CEEMPR project found at http://ceempr.unl.edu/revised-projects . There
is a page for each project in this form.
We request only one evaluation per CEEMPR member.
Please fill out this form, save the file, and attach it to an email to Dr. Tom Hunt at
[email protected]
Member Company/Organization: __________________________________________________
Name of individual reporting evaluations: ___________________________________________
Email Address: ____________________________
Phone Number: ___________________________
Thank you,
Thomas E. Hunt
CEEMPR Director
University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Haskell Agricultural Laboratory
57905 866 Road
Concord, NE 68728
(402) 584-3863 / [email protected]
Project 1.1 - Potential Interactions of Insect and Weed Resistance in the Western Corn Belt
Agroecosystem.
Please rank (1-4, with 1 being best) and comment on the following categories:
Scientific Merit (e.g. is experimental design sound?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
Relevance (e.g. does the project fulfil the goals of the Center?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
Feasibility (e.g. are personnel, budget, facilities adequate?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
OVERALL: Please rank the project on a scale of 1 (Very Interested), 2 (Interested), 3 (Not
Interested), or 4 (Do Not Fund).
☐ 1
☐ 2
☐ 3
Additional comments or suggestions to improve the project:
☐ 4
Project 1.2 - Development of Diagnostic Bioassays for Characterizing and Documenting Insect
Pest Susceptibility
Please rank (1-4, with 1 being best) and comment on the following categories:
Scientific Merit (e.g. is experimental design sound?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
Relevance (e.g. does the project fulfil the goals of the Center?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
Feasibility (e.g. are personnel, budget, facilities adequate?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
OVERALL: Please rank the project on a scale of 1 (Very Interested), 2 (Interested), 3 (Not
Interested), or 4 (Do Not Fund).
☐ 1
☐ 2
☐ 3
Additional comments or suggestions to improve the project:
☐ 4
Project 1.3 - Predicting Risk of Rootworm Injury to Corn in the Midwestern U.S.
Please rank (1-4, with 1 being best) and comment on the following categories:
Scientific Merit (e.g. is experimental design sound?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
Relevance (e.g. does the project fulfil the goals of the Center?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
Feasibility (e.g. are personnel, budget, facilities adequate?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
OVERALL: Please rank the project on a scale of 1 (Very Interested), 2 (Interested), 3 (Not
Interested), or 4 (Do Not Fund).
☐ 1
☐ 2
☐ 3
Additional comments or suggestions to improve the project:
☐ 4
Project 2.1 - Geographic Distribution and Patterns of Herbicide Resistance
Please rank (1-4, with 1 being best) and comment on the following categories:
Scientific Merit (e.g. is experimental design sound?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
Relevance (e.g. does the project fulfil the goals of the Center?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
Feasibility (e.g. are personnel, budget, facilities adequate?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
OVERALL: Please rank the project on a scale of 1 (Very Interested), 2 (Interested), 3 (Not
Interested), or 4 (Do Not Fund).
☐ 1
☐ 2
☐ 3
Additional comments or suggestions to improve the project:
☐ 4
Project 2.2 - Emerging Issues in Herbicide Resistance
Please rank (1-4, with 1 being best) and comment on the following categories:
Scientific Merit (e.g. is experimental design sound?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
Relevance (e.g. does the project fulfil the goals of the Center?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
Feasibility (e.g. are personnel, budget, facilities adequate?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
OVERALL: Please rank the project on a scale of 1 (Very Interested), 2 (Interested), 3 (Not
Interested), or 4 (Do Not Fund).
☐ 1
☐ 2
☐ 3
Additional comments or suggestions to improve the project:
☐ 4
Project 2.3 - Disrupting Herbicide Resistant Weed Life Cycles
Please rank (1-4, with 1 being best) and comment on the following categories:
Scientific Merit (e.g. is experimental design sound?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
Relevance (e.g. does the project fulfil the goals of the Center?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
Feasibility (e.g. are personnel, budget, facilities adequate?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
OVERALL: Please rank the project on a scale of 1 (Very Interested), 2 (Interested), 3 (Not
Interested), or 4 (Do Not Fund).
☐ 1
☐ 2
☐ 3
Additional comments or suggestions to improve the project:
☐ 4
Project 2.4 - Evaluating Genetic Control Technologies for Potential Resistance
Please rank (1-4, with 1 being best) and comment on the following categories:
Scientific Merit (e.g. is experimental design sound?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
Relevance (e.g. does the project fulfil the goals of the Center?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
Feasibility (e.g. are personnel, budget, facilities adequate?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
OVERALL: Please rank the project on a scale of 1 (Very Interested), 2 (Interested), 3 (Not
Interested), or 4 (Do Not Fund).
☐ 1
☐ 2
☐ 3
Additional comments or suggestions to improve the project:
☐ 4
Project 3.1 - Emergence and Evolution of Fungicide Resistance in Fungal Plant Pathogens
Please rank (1-4, with 1 being best) and comment on the following categories:
Scientific Merit (e.g. is experimental design sound?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
Relevance (e.g. does the project fulfil the goals of the Center?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
Feasibility (e.g. are personnel, budget, facilities adequate?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
OVERALL: Please rank the project on a scale of 1 (Very Interested), 2 (Interested), 3 (Not
Interested), or 4 (Do Not Fund).
☐ 1
☐ 2
☐ 3
Additional comments or suggestions to improve the project:
☐ 4
Project 4.1 - Modern Educational and Extension Programming for Resistance Management
and Wise Stewardship of Crop Technologies
Please rank (1-4, with 1 being best) and comment on the following categories:
Scientific Merit (e.g. is experimental design sound?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
Relevance (e.g. does the project fulfil the goals of the Center?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
Feasibility (e.g. are personnel, budget, facilities adequate?)
1
☐
2
☐
3
☐
4
☐
OVERALL: Please rank the project on a scale of 1 (Very Interested), 2 (Interested), 3 (Not
Interested), or 4 (Do Not Fund).
☐ 1
☐ 2
☐ 3
Additional comments or suggestions to improve the project:
☐ 4