UK Cereal Pathogen Virulence Survey 2025-2027

1)        Background

 The UK Cereal Pathogen Virulence Survey (UKCPVS) was set up in 1967 in response to an unexpected epidemic of yellow rust in the popular and previously resistant wheat variety Rothwell Perdix. This epidemic resulted from the sudden emergence of a new race of yellow rust with virulence for this variety. The formation of the UKCPVS was in recognition of the urgent need to detect new pathogen races at an early stage, before widespread epidemics can establish. The proposed project represents a new phase and will build on the successful history of the UKCPVS whilst making it relevant for levy payers today. Details on the evaluation which has developed this new phase are provided in Appendix 1.

AHDB Cereals and Oilseeds and the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) currently fund the UKCPVS. AHDB are looking for a supplier, or suppliers, to carry out the revised workplan which has been split into 4 work packages, outlined in Section 2. Different suppliers may be awarded different work packages and AHDB may go ahead with all, some, or none of the work packages. If proceeded, the work packages will run from 1^st January 2025 to 31^st March 2027 unless the incumbent contractor is selected for all work packages in which case the project will run from April 2025 to April 2027. If a new supplier or suppliers are selected there will be some parallel work with the existing contractor (NIAB), therefore, good communication is essential.

More information on the current project and methods can be found on the project webpage and in the annual reports, available here https://ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/uk-cereal-pathogen-virulence-survey-ukcpvs. The current milestones for the 2024-25 extension are in Appendix 4.

• Work packages (objectives) of the refreshed UKCPVS

AHDB has identified that the main objective of the UKCPVS should change from monitoring changes in the virulence of certain major cereal foliar pathogens to the work packages (objectives) outlined below. The supplier should propose the methods that would best achieve the below work packages, which may not be the same as the previous workplan and methods.

 

2) Work package 1: support breeding for durable resistance

To help breeders breed for durable resistance by collecting and characterising yellow and brown rust (Puccinia striiformis and P. triticina) of wheat isolates that represent a broad range of virulences. These should include virulences that are present in the current pathogen population and those that have historically been present. These isolates should then be used to inoculate Recommended List (RL) and Variety List (VL) trials (provided free of charge), and be provided to breeders at cost. The timing of this should allow isolates to be provided to breeders and VL/RL trials in time for the following season.

 Work package 1 is important to ensure breeding lines and varieties are challenged with a wide range of historic and current virulences, not just those that happen to be present in the natural population at the time of testing. This method may be more challenging to varieties but will test whether varieties are susceptible to rust virulences that are infrequently found in the population but that may reappear at any time.

 A side benefit of work package 1 is that it may be able to detect changes in the pathogen population and new virulences, which can then be reported to the industry. It will be up to the supplier to identify, interpret, and communicate these changes to AHDB and the industry. Information on the frequency of isolates may be incidental information from this work, but should not be a specific objective. Depending on the work plan and discussions with breeders, work package 1 may also facilitate publication of an ‘in season register’ of samples that have been received (see more information in Appendix 1).

 

Work package 2: young plant resistance status of varieties

For yellow rust (P. striiformis) only, to determine the resistance status of RL and RL candidate varieties to isolates present in the UK population at the seedling (young plant) stage for inclusion in the RL. The information would need to be available by mid-November following the season tested. 

Work package 2 has been shown to provide very valuable information to farmers and agronomists to enable them to optimise fungicide applications, and will become especially important with future changes in the availability of plant protection products and climate change. The supplier would need to guide AHDB on classification changes e.g. from resistant to susceptible.

Work package 3: maintain isolates and differentials

Ensure the pathogen isolates and differential varieties needed to restart pathotyping (such as is done in the current UKCPVS project) are maintained.

 The pathogen isolate collection that will need maintaining comprises of:

-           4000 wheat yellow rust isolates

-           800 wheat brown rust isolates

-           105 barley yellow rust isolates

-           80 barley brown rust isolates

-           70 oat crown rust isolates

-           5 wheat stem rust isolates

 

Work package 4: collect rust samples

Work package 4 will only go ahead if work package 1 is not progressed

Collect samples of yellow and brown rust from around the country and bulk them up for use in VL and RL trials.

This is to ensure that inoculum from geographically diverse isolates is available to use in VL and RL trials.

 

In summary, these are the diseases to be covered by each work package:

Work package 1 – yellow and brown rust of wheat.

Work package 2 – yellow rust of wheat.

Work package 3 – yellow and brown rust of wheat, yellow and brown rust of barley, crown rust of oats, stem rust of wheat.

Work package 4 – yellow and brown rust of wheat.

 

The supplier can bid for one or more work packages. When the tenders are submitted AHDB will decide whether it wishes to proceed with all work packages, some, or none. It is possible AHDB will not proceed with any work packages from any supplier.

3) Work package tasks

 

There may be different ways to achieve the objectives of the work packages so a supplier may wish to provide multiple quotes for one work package which use different methods. For example, work package 2 has previously been achieved using growth room tests but in 2024 AHDB are piloting a method to see if this information can be obtained through spring sown winter wheat field trials. More information can be found here https://ahdb.org.uk/assessment-of-young-plant-resistance-to-yellow-rust-in-winter-wheat-pilot-trials. If different suppliers are awarded the work packages they will need to work together and share information and isolates.

The supplier of work package 1 should:

• Source yellow and brown rust from UK crops from geographically diverse areas.
• Tell AHDB from what varieties samples have been sourced throughout the season.
• Process samples to achieve the purpose of work package 1. The supplier should use their expertise to design tests and interpret them. Please state the method you propose in the submission.
• Provide isolates for tests done for VL and RL purposes. The supplier should use their expertise and their interpretation of the results of this research project to select the most appropriate isolates to achieve the objective, in consultation with the Management Committee. Provision of these isolates should be free of charge. Please base your quote on providing 3 freshly produced isolates for 14 trials per year (7 yellow rust trials, 7 brown rust trials). The supplier would not need to perform the necessary bulking up for trial inoculation (this would be done by the trial operator).
• Provide yellow rust isolates for work package 2 to be carried out, if requested.
• Provide isolates to breeders and for relevant AHDB funded research projects (other than for VL and RL purposes) on an ‘at cost’ basis. The supplier should use their expertise and their interpretation of the results of this research project to select the most appropriate isolates to achieve the objective, in consultation with the Management Committee. Historically, breeders have requested isolates for bulking up in November/December and received them in January.
• Host, manage, and minute two meetings a year of the UKCPVS Management Committee (see Section 6).
• Continue to research and investigate ways to make the project more efficient and relevant to levy payers.
• Remain vigilant of evidence of change in populations of current non-target diseases. Should the need arise future tenders may be issued to address these emerging or new disease threats.
• Liaise and share data with the RL disease team at AHDB and RL consultant pathologists, and use their knowledge, expertise, and results of this research to inform changes in RL disease ratings.
• Interpret the data to inform changes seen in the field and provide farmers and AHDB with timely, accurate and effective information on potential risks to arable farming and other stakeholders, where practical. The supplier should ensure this information is provided directly to farmers. AHDB would also use this information (along with other evidence such as RL trial data) to produce news releases or blogs.
• Produce an annual report and a project management report (more detail in Section 9).

Assessment information is provided in Section 10. Work package 1 will be judged on all sections of the assessment criteria shown in Appendix 3.

 

The supplier of work package 2 should:

• Test RL and RL candidate varieties against yellow rust at the seedling stage (between 4 leaf stage and ear emergence) to determine the resistance status of the varieties at the seedling stage. The supplier should propose the best way to achieve this and will be expected to interpret the data for AHDB. The way this information is presented in the RL can be agreed in consultation with AHDB.
• The supplier can use isolates provided by work packages 1 or 4, or use natural infection, whichever they consider to be the most cost-effective (i.e. achieves the aim for the lowest cost).
• Liaise and share data with the RL disease team at AHDB and RL consultant pathologists, and use their knowledge, expertise, and the results of this research to inform changes in RL disease ratings.
• Interpret the data to inform changes seen in the field and provide farmers and AHDB with timely, accurate and effective information on potential risks to arable farming and other stakeholders, where practical. The supplier should ensure this information is provided directly to farmers. AHDB would also use this information (along with other evidence such as RL trial data) to produce news releases or blogs.
• Produce an annual report and a project management report (more detail in Section 9).

 

Assessment information is provided in Section 10. Work package 2 will be judged on all sections of the assessment criteria shown in Appendix 3.

 

The supplier of work package 3 should:

• Provide long-term storage and maintenance of significant pathogen isolates and sets of differential varieties for use by industry and researchers. Please quote based on the number of isolates outlined in Section 2 and maintenance of 50 differential varieties.
• Produce an annual report and a project management report (more detail in Section 9).

Assessment information is provided in Section 10. Work package 3 will be judged on all sections of the assessment criteria shown in Appendix 3 except for Section 2: Project Outcomes.

The supplier of work package 4 should:

• Source yellow and brown rust from UK crops from geographically diverse areas.
• Provide isolates for tests done for VL and RL purposes. The number and nature of isolates provided should be proposed by the supplier, and agreed by the Management Committee, but should aim to represent a broad range of virulences, for example by sourcing them from geographically distinct regions. Provision of these isolates should be free of charge. Please base your quote for providing freshly produced isolates for 14 trials per year (7 yellow rust trials, 7 brown rust trials). The supplier would not need to perform the necessary bulking up for trial inoculation (this would be done by the trial operator).
• Provide yellow rust isolates for work package 2 to be carried out, if requested.
• Provide isolates to breeders and for relevant AHDB funded research projects (other than for VL and RL purposes) on an ‘at cost’ basis. The supplier should use their expertise to select the most appropriate isolates to achieve the objective, in consultation with the Management Committee. Historically, breeders have requested isolates for bulking up in November/December and received them in January.
• Produce an annual report and a project management report (more detail in Section 9).

 

Assessment information is provided in Section 10. Work package 4 will be judged on all sections of the assessment criteria shown in Appendix 3 except for Section 2: Project Outcomes.

 4) Proposed workplan

The supplier should propose the workplan that will deliver on the work package(s). The total budget available is stated in Section 8. However, some relevant information that has come out of the AHDB evaluation of the current project is provided below:

• AHDB believes that to be as relevant and beneficial to levy payers as possible, the revised UKCPVS project needs to adapt to the increasing complexity of the pathogen populations and the nature of genetic resistance.
• If a differential set is to be used the supplier should outline what this should look like, although AHDB can help with its design once the project has started. The current differential set used by the UKCPVS is considered to be out of date and designed to provide information of academic rather than practical importance. Some ideas on changes to the differential set are presented in Appendix 1.
• Following review of the current workplan the following areas for potential cost savings and efficiencies have been identified, but innovative ideas that have not been considered to date are welcomed:
  • Do not isolate and bulk up every sample that is received, only the ones to be tested (see Appendix 1 for ideas of how to prioritise samples for testing). Continue to acknowledge and thank providers of samples.
  • Reduce the number of differentials.
  • Test mixes of isolates on the differential set rather than single isolates. This method is being piloted in 2024 by testing individual isolates and a mix of the same isolates. Consideration should be given to the risk that an isolate has a suppressive effect on other isolates.
  • The methods used by the UKCPVS are rigorous and provide extremely accurate data which are suitable for academic publication, however farmers do not necessarily need this. This provides an opportunity for efficiencies. For example, certain differentials are included in the differential set to allow results to be comparable between years, but these take up valuable room where differentials more relevant to modern day farming could be used. 
    
    
    

5) Funding and budget

The budget available for the work is £130,000 (excluding VAT) per year. This budget is for all work packages. As a guide, we suggest work package 1 should use approximately 65% of the budget.

The project will be 2 years long with a start date of 1^st January 2025 and an end date of 31^st March 2027, unless the current supplier is selected in which case the project will run from 1^st April 2025 to 31^st March 2027. This allows for a 3-month overlap of suppliers for transfer of material. There will be the option for three separate one-year extensions (so the project has the potential to be 5 years long). Some work packages may be extended whilst others are not.

The supplier is encouraged to secure co-funding for the project. Previously, APHA have contributed. If the supplier is able to secure funding from sources other than APHA, this can be in addition to the budget stated in Section 8. Please note results must be made available to all UK cereal breeders.

 

AHDB are open to co-funding proposals that allow other diseases to be tested.

6) Governance

 The project will be governed by a Management Committee established by AHDB. This is run by an independent Chair and meets twice a year. The supplier(s) will sit on the Management Committee.

 7) Communication and collaboration

 Where appropriate and practical the supplier(s) should interpret the data from this research to inform changes seen in the field and provide farmers and AHDB with timely, accurate and effective information on potential risks to arable farming and other stakeholders. The supplier should ensure this information is provided directly to farmers. AHDB would also use this information (along with other evidence such as RL trial data) to produce news releases or blogs.

 Effective communication with a range of stakeholders including the RL team, breeders, farmers, and agronomists is an important role of the survey. Previously, this has partly been achieved using an annual stakeholder meeting ahead of the disease season. The supplier can propose the best way moving forwards for results dissemination.

 If it is considered an annual meeting (such as the previous Stakeholders’ meeting) would be worthwhile AHDB will arrange the meeting and will pay for refreshments and if you cannot host the meeting at your own venue AHDB will also cover the cost of alternative room hire. At the meeting, the content will be the responsibility of the supplier in collaboration with the Management Committee. The presentation and interpretation of the results will be the responsibility of the supplier.

 International collaboration, with results feeding into the Wheat Rust Toolbox, is encouraged.

 AHDB plan to arrange for the UKCPVS supplier(s) to have access to the RL disease data.

 

8) Transfer of materials

If a new contractor is selected for the 2025-27 term of the UKCPVS, transfer of materials and information from the old supplier to the new supplier can occur between January and March 2025. The new supplier will need to deliver the annual report in autumn 2025 based on tests completed in 2024 by the old supplier.

At the end of the project the supplier must transfer information and materials to a new supplier, if one is selected.

9) Reporting

Work package 1

The contractor of work package 1 will be required to produce an annual report each year, summarizing and interpreting results which can be used by industry. The template can be found at https://ahdb.org.uk/ahdb-cereals-oilseeds-research-report-templates. Please note the ‘final project report template’ should be used for this annual report rather than the ‘annual report template’. The timing of publication can be selected in liaison with AHDB to maximise efficiency in reporting of results relative to when the results are available.

 A final report will be required from the supplier of work package 1 at the end of the project summarising results obtained during the course of the project and interpreting the impact on industry.

 A project management report will be required on 31^st December each year detailing such things as completion of milestones, change to staff, and budgets.

 

Work packages 2-4

A brief annual project report will be required updating on any significant changes or findings during the year. The template can be found at https://ahdb.org.uk/ahdb-cereals-oilseeds-research-report-templates ‘annual report template’.

 A project management report will be required on 31^st December each year detailing such things as completion of milestones, change to staff, and budgets.

 The supplier of work package 1 or 4 should provide AHDB with a list of those who have requested isolates each year

10) Submission and evaluation information

 Please fill out the AHDB Research and KE Application Form - Full Proposal Large) . In the submission please provide written details of the methods you intend to apply and state what work you can do and for what cost e.g. how many samples or isolates you can test.

 Each work package will be independently evaluated. One application form should be submitted for all work packages (even if only one work package is being applied for) but provide separate answers in the different sections for each work package (unless the information is identical) and make it clear which answer relates to which work package. Where a work package is not judged on that answer there is no need to fill in that section of the assessment form, for example for ‘work package 3: maintain isolates and differentials’ knowledge exchange is not to be assessed so section 2.2 does not need to be filled out. Please provide separate costings for each work package by duplicating the table in Section 5. If you are bidding for multiple work packages, please state if there will be a lower price if you are selected for multiple work packages.

 AHDB will use a series of milestones to monitor progress and results. The contractor is expected to include a table of proposed milestones with their bid.

 A number of criteria will used to judge the quality of the submissions which can be found on page 12 of the ‘Full project proposal assessment form’ and in Appendix 3. The scoring guidelines are also shown.

Please direct any clarifications regarding this tender to research@ahdb.org.uk. Questions and answers will be shared with all interested parties to ensure transparency. Deadlines for clarifications will be 12 noon on 19^th July 2024.

 

Your submission must be returned to research@ahdb.org.uk by 12 noon on 15^th August 2024.

 

11) Timetable

 

Deadline for clarifications	12 noon on 19th July 2024
Submission deadline	12 noon on 15th August 2024
Award notification	18th September 2024
Issue out contract	1st November 2024
Contract start date (if authorised by all parties)	1st January 2025 or 1st April 2025 (if incumbent supplier is selected)

12) Contract conditions

 

The conditions governing the contract to be provided under this invitation to tender are included on the AHDB website (https://ahdb.org.uk/research-and-knowledge-exchange-funding-applications). You will be asked to review and agree to:

 

• Contract – 2 Party
• AHDB Terms & Conditions
• Collaboration Agreement (only applicable to consortia bids) – please email Research@ahdb.org.uk for a copy.

 

If any consortiums are formed to deliver this project, then each company/party who makes up the consortium will need to complete and sign a 2-Party contract and sign a joint collaboration agreement or a Multi-Party Agreement for all consortium members.

 

Appendix 1: Evaluation of the current UKCPVS project

 

In recent years AHDB have received concerns that the value levy payers get from the current UKCPVS is not proportionate to its cost. AHDB will only fund projects that bring value to their levy payers. An extensive evaluation of the project since 2021 has pinpointed where value to levy payers arises, and has provided revised objectives. The evaluation involved independent pathologists, AHDB Sector Council members, the RL Board and crop committees, breeders, agronomists, and farmers. Overall, the consensus was that the project is valuable for levy payers, but the workplan needs to change to become more relevant and cost-effective.

 

Limitations of the UKCPVS

The evaluation showed the following limitations of the current project workplan:

 

• The direct value of the project to levy payers has been reducing due to the increasing complexity of the yellow rust population and changing nature of varieties’ genetic resistance to yellow rust.
• Levy payers are demanding more real-time information and the UKCPVS historically has not been able to deliver this.
• Much of the value was thought to be for plant breeders, however this value is limited by the way that the project is currently designed.
• Some aspects of the project have shown to provide little value to levy payers, for example the genotyping work and adult plant trials.

 

Opportunities for the new project

The following opportunities were identified:

 

• The value of the UKCPVS to levy payers comes from facilitating improved breeding for durable resistance. The UKCPVS provides yellow and brown rust isolates to breeders that can infect a wide range of resistance genes. This helps breed varieties that have been challenged with the widest possible range of rust strains meaning varieties reaching the market are likely to remain resistant for longer.
• Levy payers get particular value from the seedling (or young plant) yellow rust resistance information that was added to the RL in 2022. It helps them monitor and manage varieties. It provides the potential for T0s to be omitted and T1s cut back on varieties that are resistant at the seedling stage.
• The importance of such work is likely to increase in the future with:
  • A move by society and government to reduce pesticide use.
  • The loss of key active ingredients such as tebuconazole.
  • The possibility that reduced sensitivity to fungicides could build in the rust population.
  • An increase in disease problems and diversity due to climate change.
  • Repeated calls in the recent RL review (https://ahdb.org.uk/recommended-lists-for-cereals-and-oilseeds-RL-review-2022-2023) for varieties with more durable resistance.
• Much more can be done with existing RL data to show regional and temporal changes in the pathogen population in current varieties.

 

Changing objectives

The objective of the project should change from a focus on monitoring changes in the pathogen population to a focus on detecting all virulences in the population which can then be deployed in breeding programmes to provide resistance that is effective against all virulences present.

The inclusion of resistance genes in the differential set that have long been overcome has been to enable comparison of results against previous years, however this is providing information that is of more academic rather than practical relevance. AHDB would like the emphasis to be on practical relevance. This may also allow some procedures to be relaxed, for example the make-up of the differential set and plant/spore number during growth room tests. The scientific methods do not need to be able to provide results for publication in peer reviewed journals, instead they need to provide information that is good enough for levy payers whilst also being cost-effective.

The objective of determining the resistance status of RL varieties at the seedling stage serves a different purpose and is considered directly valuable for levy payers.

Cost-efficiencies

Cost-efficiencies are thought to be able to come from:

• Reducing the number of differential varieties
• Improving the differential set by
  • Removing differentials for which virulence is embedded in the UK population
  • Removing genes which aren’t used in breeding (and aren’t going to be)
  • Include mainly effective resistance genes or resistant varieties. This could include current RL varieties which contain resistances that are relevant to modern breeding
  • Some intelligence on which varieties to use could come from using results from the Yellowhammer project, although AHDB can help with other methods
• Prioritise important isolates for bulking up rather than every isolate received, and do not bulk up many more than can be tested
• Prioritise testing of RL varieties so results are available for the following RL, with differential tests for isolate choice coming later

Isolate provision

The purpose of objectives 1 and 4 is to provide isolates for breeder, VL, and RL trials. The evaluation showed the following considerations:

• An isolate with a broad range of traditional virulences should be included in the mix(es), alongside isolate(s) with new virulences.
• It may be appropriate to supply different isolates for breeder trials as for VL and RL trials, with the former being provided with isolates with more unusual virulences. This would ensure the VL and RL test varieties against what we would expect them to be challenged with in the natural environment. This should be agreed in collaboration with breeders and AHDB.
• Isolates provided to breeders should cover as much of the diversity as possible, this may be achieved by providing them with more than 3 isolates (they are currently provided with 3). Depending on the virulences included in this mix, and their frequency (which may be able to be determined using RL data if the UKCPVS is not able to determine frequency), it may be appropriate to provide the VL and RL with different isolates with more ‘mainstream’ virulences.

Objective 2

Objective 2 is currently achieved by testing RL and RL candidate varieties against 5 pathotyped isolates in controlled conditions. This provides information that is fit for purpose, but AHDB believes there could be more cost-effective methods, or methods that better represent what is seen in the real world.

One method which AHDB are piloting in 2024 is spring sown winter wheat trials. The logic behind this is to see the reaction in the field of RL varieties at the seedling stage to a mix of isolates that is present in the natural environment. The protocol is included in Appendix 5. In the future, if this method goes ahead, differential varieties could be added to these trials to see new virulence for specific resistances, but there is currently not enough seed of the differential varieties available so they would need bulking up. Volunteers could also be an issue but this could be mitigated by replication.

Sampling strategy

The current UKCPVS sampling strategy (which samples are prioritised for testing) was generally thought to be good, but some observations were made in relation to future sampling for objective 1:

• Samples from resistant varieties should be the priority for testing.
• The commercial importance of the variety should also be considered.
• Samples should be tested from a wide geographical range. RL trials can be targeted to facilitate this, and the Defra pest and disease survey can help.
• Ideally, samples should be tested that have been collected throughout the season
• Sample number: since the budget is unlikely to enable testing of many isolates, and since isolates with unusual reactions will be actively selected, the isolates won’t be representative of the natural population.
• It may be possible to get the information needed each year by testing very few isolates e.g. 5.

In season register

The UKCPVS currently receives diseased leaf samples from trial operators, agronomists, and farmers throughout the season. Which samples have been received (and from which varieties) is valuable information for levy payers as it could contribute to evidence that a variety is becoming more susceptible to a disease and therefore influence management decisions and variety choice. Therefore, AHDB would like to release a regular ‘in season register’ of what samples have been received. AHDB will continue to work with the supplier of the UKCPVS to find a way to enable an in season register.

Co-funding

To increase value for money for levy payers, and to ensure the outcomes of the project are valuable for those whom they intend to help, AHDB have investigated a range of co-funding opportunities, however APHA remain the only current co-funder. APHA contribute to the UKCPVS to ensure they have inoculum with which to inoculate their trials and guarantee infection.

Proven benefits of the UKCPVS

During the evaluation it was noted that the value of the UKCPVS was particularly evident in 2011, when there was the incursion of the ‘Warrior’ group of isolates. This led to the question ‘What tangible benefit did the UKCPVS actually provide in 2011’. The following points were noted:

• It helped the industry to know about the changes in the pathogen population and so how durable the current varieties were (as many fewer of them crashed than was anticipated, and not so dramatically).
• It helped the industry to trace the origin of the races.
• It enabled UK results to be compared with EU results.

Learnings from other countries

As part of the evaluation, AHDB liaised with the organisers of pathogen surveys in other countries to understand their workplans and learn about how the UK survey could be improved.

Australia

• They know what genes are in current varieties so after pathotyping they release a newsletter outlining which varieties are at risk.

Denmark and Sweden (Global Rust Reference Centre, GRRC, https://agro.au.dk/en/research/research-areas/global-rust-reference-center)

• Farmer levy pays for rust surveillance.
• They release trial results fortnightly without breeder agreement.
• They don’t know which resistance genes are in current varieties.
• The release of results from pathotyping follows a similar timeframe to the UK.
• UK recommended varieties could be sent to the GRRC to be tested on exotic strains.
• UK isolates could be sent to the GRRC for testing on a differential set.

France

• Their main objective is to understand the make-up of the pathogen population and frequency of isolates, their secondary objective is to identify new pathotypes.
• They receive 100-300 samples a year and try to multiply them all up (but don’t always manage this). They prioritise the most important samples (those that are meant to be resistant to everything at the seedling stage but have got yellow rust), but make sure they test samples from a range of cultivars and regions.
• Once multiplied they put them in the freezer so they can pathotype them whenever (e.g. might delay the start of pathotyping if they are still bulking lots up).
• They then pathotype 100 isolates of yellow rust, but sometimes up to 200.
• They use a differential set of 16 varieties (2 or 3 reps) which they know can differentiate their 6 pathotypes. This is the minimum number of differentials they need to get the basic information. They will replace a differential line if a new interesting pathotype is found so that the differential set can continue to differentiate between the pathotypes. They acknowledge using this differential set might mean they miss a new pathotype.
• If there is a new pathotype they work this out from lots of different sources e.g. being seen in the field rather than just from their differential test, then would test these samples against a longer list of differential varieties.
• Their genotyping is the same as in Denmark using SSR. This is to prioritise samples for testing. However this can only discriminate between the 2 genotypic groups they have in France at the moment, one of which isn’t that common (mostly PstS10, but some PstS7). One of the genetic groups has four pathotypes. It would be able to detect a new genetic group so is useful ‘just in case’.
• They genotype 96 samples a year, sometimes 2x96. They can test old/dead samples so it’s useful to use when they haven’t got round to bulking up all their samples.

Pakistan

• In Europe it’s possible to use SSR genotyping to identify pathotypes, but this is not possible in Pakistan.
• Rather than performing differential tests with each variety in a pot, it’s possible to put all the varieties in a tray which reduces the workload, spores required, and growth room space.
• If bulking up isolates is a limitation it’s possible to select multiple pustules from a sample if the population is clonal.
• It’s good to include new lines in the differential set but the older lines are helpful to tell you what race it is, and to differentiate between known races.
• They can grow UK varieties in the Himalayan region and score to see their reaction to the diverse population.

Communications

There are opportunities for greater connection between the AHDB RL and UKCPVS results to provide further insights and conclusions on findings, for example, highlighting changes in resistance at the annual AHDB agronomy conference.

In 2024 and 2025 the UKCPVS stakeholder meeting has been moved earlier to January so that results were available before winter agronomy meetings.

The 2024/25 extension to the UKCPVS

Some changes were made to the 2024/25 extension of the UKCPVS, reflecting outcomes of the evaluation at the time of extension. These changes were:

• Pathotype four isolates of barley powdery mildew on Recommended List spring barley varieties (not candidates), following unusual observations in Recommended Lists trials in 2022 and 2023.
• Adult plant trials are not being carried out as it is thought RL data provide similar information.
• Genotyping of isolates is not being carried out, as this does not easily relate to pathotype. In addition, the rate of evolution in pathogenicity is faster than genetic evolution.
• The method piloted in 2023, of performing seedling tests on RL and candidate varieties immediately after the season, will be done again for yellow rust of wheat. The whole RL and candidate set of varieties will be tested rather than a subset of varieties. In addition, a reduced differential set will be tested. The aim will be to do this for between 10 and 25 isolates. The team will also pilot testing a mix of isolates and see how this compares to the single isolate tests. The results are to be available in time for the wheat recommendation meeting in November 2024. This will not necessarily be the work plan going forwards.
• The number of brown rust isolates tested will be reduced to a maximum of 10 to allow more yellow rust isolates to be tested. Again, this will not necessarily be the work plan going forwards.
• Improvement of methods has changed from ‘to allow more isolates to be tested’ to ‘enable the programme to become more relevant for levy payer decision-making’.

 

Appendix 2: A possible workflow to achieve work package 1.

 

Appendix 3: Scoring sheet and guidelines to be used by assessors.

FULL PROJECT PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT FORM

For Contracts £50,000 and over

 

Project Title:
Applicant:
SECTION 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW (Not assessed)
SECTION 2: PROJECT OUTCOMES Beneficiaries appropriately identified. Approach to deliver industry KE and links to existing AHDB KE activities. Appropriateness and clarity of industry engagement. Timeframe qualified to deliver impact. Clarification over additional activities/resource required to deliver impact. Environmental benefits appropriately identified and any negative impacts detailed. Key Performance Indicators identified. Clear IP exploitation plan where relevant. 0-10 score; weighting of 3
			Score:        x3 =
SECTION 3: TECHNICAL APPROACH AND WORK PLAN Evaluation of current knowledge (appropriate references used) and awareness of other work. Clarity of aims, objectives, work packages and milestone schedule. Originality & innovation. Effective collaboration with commercial companies. Is the approach statistically robust? Feasibility and risk management. 0-10 score; weighting of 4
			Score:        x4 =
SECTION 4: RELEVANT EXPERTISE Knowledge and expertise. Quality of past contributions to, and impact on, the topic. Potential to bring added value through current and/or past contributions. Complementarities of expertise of the team. 0-10 score; weighting of 1
		Score:        x1 =
SECTION 5: PROJECT COSTS Are costs reasonable and necessary? Will the total budget be adequate to carry out the proposed activities? For a cross-Sector proposal, is the shared budget appropriate & clearly defined? Added value of co-funding? 0-10 score; weighting of 2
		Score:        x2 =
Total Score            out of 100   (Threshold = 50)	Recommend for Funding           Yes / No

Weightings are set to reflect the importance of specific criteria, any proposal failing to achieve a specified threshold may be rejected. They have been set to ensure appropriate standards are met.

 

AHDB R&KE Scoring Guidelines

 

9-10 Excellent	Exceptional quality; cutting-edge; highly likely to produce benefits/impact of great importance to the industry; highly innovative; impactful KE activities proposed; applicant is widely recognized in the field with an outstanding record of accomplishment; consortium is strong across all technical areas needed to accomplish the proposed outcomes. Strongly recommend support
7-8 Very good	High quality; potential to make an important contribution; innovative; likely to produce significant benefits/ impact for the industry; impactful KE activities proposed; applicant has a good reputation in the field; consortium appears to have more than adequate expertise across all technical areas required to deliver the proposed outcomes. Strongly recommend support
5-6 Good	Interesting; innovative; likely to produce good benefits/impact; good grasp of appropriate KE activities; applicant has a solid reputation in the field; consortium appears to have adequate expertise across all technical areas required to deliver the proposed outcomes. Should be supported
3-4 Fair	Interesting but little originality; likelihood of making significant impact is small; may require significant additional investment to deliver benefits; applicant/team lacks experience, has not established leadership in the field or demonstrated the potential to make impactful contributions. Support may be considered if strong in other areas
1-2 Poor	Poor quality; not well planned; lacking expertise; not feasible; unlikely to make an important contribution to fundamental or applied knowledge; unlikely to produce benefits/impact; lacking convincing evidence that the proposing team has sufficient and appropriate expertise to accomplish all of the tasks as outlined in the proposal. Should not be supported
0 Very poor	Very poor quality; duplicative of other work; fails to address the issues; no evidence for demand; cannot be judged against the criterion due to missing or incomplete information. Should not be supported

 

Appendix 4: The milestones in the 2024-25 UKCPVS project extension.

This is for information only.

No.	Milestones	Start Date (dd/mm/yy)	End Date (dd/mm/yy)
1	Characterisation of yellow rust at the seedling level	01/04/24	31/03/25
1.1	Samples received from growers, agronomists, breeders, trial operators	01/04/24	31/03/25
1.2	Isolates produced from all samples (quality permitting)	01/04/24	31/03/25
1.3	Characterisation of 10-25 isolates of yellow rust on RL and candidate varieties	01/04/24	15/11/24
1.4	Characterisation of 10-25 isolates of yellow rust on a reduced differential set	01/04/24	15/01/25
2	Characterisation of brown rust at the seedling level
1.1	Samples received from growers, agronomists, breeders, trial operators	01/04/24	31/03/25
1.2	Isolates produced from all samples (quality permitting)	01/04/24	31/03/25
1.3	Characterisation of 5 isolates of brown rust on RL and candidate varieties	01/04/24	31/03/25
1.4	Up to 10 isolates tested on differential set	01/04/24	31/12/25
4	Improvement of methods to enable the programme to become more relevant for levy payer decision-making	01/04/24	31/03/25
4.1	Methods developed	01/04/24	31/03/25
5	Knowledge Transfer	01/04/24	31/03/25
5.1	Results immediately reported via press releases and social media alerting growers to unexpected sightings	01/04/24	31/03/25
5.2	Results summarised and circulated via an Annual Report and final report at the end of the project	01/09/24	31/10/25
5.3	Presentation of results at annual Stakeholders’ Meeting	01/04/24	31/03/25

 

 

 Appendix 5: The 2024 protocol for the spring sown winter wheat trial pilot.

AHDB PROTOCOL

SPRING SOWN WINTER WHEAT PILOT TRIALS

Title:	Pilot trials: yellow rust on spring sown winter wheat
Trial period:	April 2024-August 2024
Date:	23/4/24

 

1. Introduction

AHDB are considering cost-effective alternatives to obtaining the data normally provided from the UK Cereal Pathogen Virulence Survey (UKCPVS). Specifically, the data on Recommended Lists (RL) and RL candidate varieties’ reaction to yellow rust at the seedling (young plant) stage. Since 2022 this information has been included as a line in the RL.

2. Background/aims

An alternative way varieties’ susceptibility at the seedling stage might be able to be characterised is by assessing their reaction in field trials. RL trial operators have been asked to assess yellow rust infections as soon as the disease comes into RL trials, but it is not expected this will provide enough data to determine varieties’ susceptibility status. However, if winter wheat varieties are sown in the spring, they should be at the seedling stage when the main rust epidemic hits, exposing the seedlings to a natural mix of isolates and enabling their reaction to be assessed.

AHDB would like to validate this method using a subset of RL varieties before it is considered for wider adoption so will be running 3 pilot trials in spring/summer 2024. One will be at March, Cambridgeshire, operated by ADAS Boxworth and co-located with the RL yellow rust inoculated trial WWBX825U; one will be at NIAB Park Farm and will be inoculated with characterised yellow rust isolates from the UKCPVS; and one will be at Boghall Farm run by SRUC.

3. Protocol

 

Number of varieties = 21

 

Number of reps = 3

 

Total number of plots = 63

 

Plot size = at least 1 m², although larger is better

 

A yellow rust susceptible spreader variety should be sown in a way that facilitates even infection.

 

Trial location

The locations have already been agreed. The uninoculated sites in Cambridgeshire and Scotland should get natural yellow rust infection.

 

Varieties

The following varieties are to be sown. The seed will either be sourced by the operator or AHDB though NIAB’s seed handling unit.

 

Variety name	Variety ID
This table has been removed

 

 

Sowing date

Since this is a pilot trial it is unknown when the best time for sowing is. The aim is for the plots to be at the 2-3 leaf stage around early/mid-June 2024 during the peak of the yellow rust epidemic. To achieve this reliably, sowing date will depend on local conditions and seedbed moisture. The operator should decide the best sowing date to achieve this.

 

Inoculation

Only the NIAB Park Farm trial will be inoculated. The best method will be up to the operator but should be based on that used by the RL/UKCPVS methods.

 

Assessing

 

The trial should be assessed as soon as infection is seen in the first variety, and then every 7-14 days depending on the development of the disease.

 

Please perform a 0-100% assessment on 10 individual plants in each plot and record mean % infection in the workbook. However, the assessment method is in development and we welcome feedback from trial operators as the season progresses on the best assessment method.

 

If you feel confident, please also perform an assessment according to the UKCPVS protocol for seedling tests (Table 1). This will enable us to compare the results and potentially create a comparable cut off for a susceptible classification. If you do this, please mark it clearly in the workbook.

 

Table 1: The UKCPVS seedling test assessment protocol. One leaf from 10 randomly selected plants in each plot are to be assessed separately.

Seedling Reaction Key
			AIT
	0	No observable reaction	0
	I	Very few pustules of low spore production with chlorosis/necrosis	1
	II	Pustules of low spore production with or without chlorosis/necrosis	2
	III	Pustules of high spore production with chlorosis	3
	IV	Pustules of high spore production without chlorosis	4
AIT (Average Infection Type)
2.7 and over is classed as susceptible
2.4-2.69 is classed as borderline/moderately susceptible
Under 2.4 is classed as resistant

It is unknown when assessments should stop, but as a guide it will be if/when the first variety goes into stem extension.

 

Please also assess other diseases which may occur in the plots, this will be used for validation purposes.

 

Data reporting

• Report data to AHDB within 1 week of assessment. AHDB will provide RL-style workbooks for this purpose. These workbooks will also contain the randomisation.

 

Other

• AHDB may like to visit this trial.