Awards: Strategic Seed Grants for Facilities & Equipment (2022)

The AES funded 8 requests for equipment or infrastructure to advance research and research capacity for for existing Hatch/Multistate Projects.

Selected For Support
Title Depts. Award Amount PI and Team Associated Hatch/Multistate Project(s)
Oxygen quantification in food and beverages FSHN $6,185 Nicolas Delchier, Aude Watrelot, Greg Curtzwiler IOW04202, NE2220, NC1023, S294
Perennial Fruit Upgrades for the Research Station HORT, FSHN $25,862 Suzanne Slack, Aude Watrelot NE2220
EchoMRI with Capability to Determine Composition of Organs, Tissues, and Live ANimals, ranging from 7gr to 900gr FSHN  $39,500 Kevin Schalinske, Matthew Rowling IOW04002
Optimizing sterol composition in maize roots AGRON, GDCB $45,000 Walter Suza, Dior Kelley, and Marshall McDaniel IOW04714, IOW03649
Improving biomass sampling capabilities at Iowa State University AGRON $55,500 Nicholas Boersma, Andy VanLoocke, Marshall McDaniel, Brian Hornbuckle IOW05663
Computer vision for animal monitoring and phenotyping ANSCI $71,600 Juan Steibel, James Koltes, Anna Johnson, Dawn Koltes, Nicholas Gabler, Ken Stalder, Brett Ramirez, and Richard Gates IOW04100, IOW05483, NC1211, IOW05637, IOW03921, NE1942, IOW05562
Microfluidic Sorter for Animal & Plant Research ANSCI, AGRON $120,000 Karl Kerns, Elizabeth Bobeck, Thomas Lubberstedt, Aileen Keating IOW03921, IOW04100, IOW04714, IOW05513 (NE1727), IOW05520 (NC007), IOW05670 (W4112)
Breeding and phenomics program for emerging crops AGRON, PPEM $150,000 Arti Singh, Asheesh K. Singh, Daren Mueller, Matt O'Neal, and Mark Licht IOW04717

Total funded: $513,647

Request for Proposals & Selection Process


Available Funds $500,000
Number of Applications 28
Total Funds Requested $1,957,647
Lead PI Department, All Applications 8
Average (mean) Request Amount $69,915
Number of Proposals with Matching Funds 14
Average Matching Funds (Where Included) $32,925

Primary Reviewer Selection

  • 9 were asked to serve across 8 departments.  All agreed to serve as reviewers.
  • Proposals randomly assigned to reviewers with no COI (per COI list submitted by PI and reviewer agreement of no COI).

Review Process

  • One proposal was not reviewed due to the the fact that the PI group did not have a fully up-to-date and compliant Hatch/Multistate Project in place.
  • 27 proposals were classed into 9 sets based on request amount, with 3 proposals in each set.  
  • Each set of three was reviewed by a primary reviewer.  These three were ranked relative to each other based on potential to expand the scope of existing projects, alignment to strategic initiatives, potential to facilitate team-based initiatives, and potential use for developing or enabling future requests for funding.
  • Secondary reviewers considered 2 or 3 sets. Each secondary reviewer ranked their 6-9 proposals comparatively.  Secondary reviewers met to discuss their rankings.
  • CALS Associate Deans Lawrence-Dill and MacDonald compared rankings with available funds. Highly ranked proposals were selected for funding.  Some proposals were only partially funded to arrive at a figure near the figure for funding that was allocated for this opportunity. 
  • One proposal from last year's competition was included in awards due to the fact that the PI was encouraged to apply for a CoSPRT based on the last year's reviews. That PI applied for CoSPRT and received funding from the VPR.  The CALS match for CoSPRT came from this funding allocation. That project (Schalinske and Rowling) is one of the 8 projects listed as funded in this round.
Primary Reviewers 9
Primary Reviewer Departments 7
Secondary Reviewers 4
Secondary Reviewer Units VPR, CALS

Selected Applications

Full Funding 7
Partial Funding 1
Lead PI Departments 4
Included Matching Funds 4
Average Matching Funds $69,483
Total Funds Awarded (including match) $791,132