To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Herbicides are an important tool in managing weeds in turf and agricultural production. One of the earliest selective herbicides, 2,4-D, is a weak acid herbicide used to control broadleaf weeds. Water-quality parameters, such as pH and hardness, influence the efficacy of weak acid herbicides. Greenhouse experiments were conducted to evaluate how varying water hardness level, spray solution storage time, and adjuvant inclusion affected broadleaf weed control by 2,4-D dimethylamine. The first experiment evaluated a range of water-hardness levels (from 0 to 600 mg calcium carbonate [CaCO3] L−1) on efficacy of 2,4-D dimethylamine applied at 1.60 kg ae ha−1 for dandelion and horseweed control. A second experiment evaluated dandelion control from spray solutions prepared 0, 1, 4, 24, and 72 h before application. Dandelion and horseweed control by 2,4-D dimethylamine was reduced when the CaCO3 level in water was at least 422 or at least 390 mg L−1, respectively. Hard-water antagonism was overcome by the addition of 20 g L−1 ammonium sulfate (AMS) into the mixture. When AMS was included in spray mixtures, no differences were observed at 600 mg CaCO3 L−1, compared with distilled water. Spray solution storage time did not influence dandelion control, regardless of water-hardness level or adjuvant inclusion. To prevent antagonism, applicators should use a water-conditioning agent such as AMS when applying 2,4-D dimethylamine in hard water.
Southern pine beetles (Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmermann) and symbiotic fungi are associated with mass mortality in stands of Caribbean pine (Pinus caribaea Morelet). This study provides a 12.7-year assessment of semiochemical mediation between southern pine beetle and Caribbean pine in relation to concentrations of 4-allylanisole (estragole, methyl chavicol) and monoterpenes measured by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry in different seasons in premontane and coastal pine stands of Belize and Guatemala. Individual trees and stands with >2.5% (relative mass %) of 4-allylanisole in the xylem oleoresin exhibited significantly less beetle-induced mortality than those with <2.5%. Changes in relative levels of 4-allylanisole and monoterpenes during this study are consistent with seasonal temperature and cumulative water deficit effects and suggest bark beetle attack of P. caribaea may intensify in the future.
Continued reliance on chemical methods for controlling annual bluegrass has resulted in many populations evolving resistance to PRE and POST herbicides, particularly in warm-season turfgrass species such as zoysiagrass. Soil seedbank management is critically important when managing herbicide-resistant weeds. Fraise mowing (also spelled fraze, frase, and fraize) is a new turfgrass cultivation practice designed to remove aboveground biomass while allowing turf to regrow vegetatively. We hypothesized that this process would remove annual bluegrass seed and therefore be a mechanical means of controlling annual bluegrass in turfgrass. Zoysiagrass field plots were fraise-mowed in June 2015 only, June 2016 only, June 2015 and June 2016, or left untreated. The fraise mower was configured to remove the uppermost 25 mm of plot surface (i.e., 15-mm verdure and 10-mm soil). Annual bluegrass infestation was quantified in April following fraise mowing via grid count. Soil cores (10.8 cm diameter) were extracted from each plot after grid count data were collected to assess effects of fraise mowing on the soil seedbank. Moreover, replicated subsamples (7.6 L) of debris generated during fraise mowing were collected to better understand weed seed content removed during the fraise mowing process. Fraise mowing in June offered a slight reduction (24%) in annual bluegrass cover the following April. Whereas 28% of the seed in fraise-mowing debris consisted of annual bluegrass, there was no difference in the quantity of annual bluegrass seed remaining in the soil seedbank among fraise-mowed and non–fraise-mowed plots. Although fraise mowing may help to temporarily reduce existing annual bluegrass infestations via mechanical removal, the frequency and depth we studied did not effectively reduce the seedbank. Fraise mowing is a useful tool for providing mechanical suppression of annual bluegrass but it is not a replacement for properly timed herbicide applications.
The majority of traumatic hemothoraces can be managed successfully with a chest tube placement.
Retained hemothorax is defined as residual pleural blood >300–500 mL after initial thoracostomy tube evacuation.
The gold standard for diagnosing retained hemothorax is a noncontrast CT scan of the chest. A chest X-ray is not reliable in the accurate diagnosis of retained hemothorax.
VATS is usually contraindicated in patients with previous thoracic operations and in patients with respiratory failure or significant contralateral lung injury, such as contusion, atelectasis, or pneumonia, because single-lung ventilation may not be tolerated.
Ideally, VATS should be done within the first 3–5 days. Early VATS (within 72 hours of admission) for evacuation of retained hemothorax reduces hospital length of stay, number of procedures, and cost. VATS is more difficult and less effective if performed more than 7–10 days after the injury, due to clot organization and dense adhesions.
Stellarator configurations with reactor relevant energetic particle losses are constructed by simultaneously optimizing for quasisymmetry and an analytically derived metric (
), which attempts to align contours of the second adiabatic invariant,
with magnetic surfaces. Results show that with this optimization scheme it is possible to generate quasihelically symmetric equilibria on the scale of ARIES-CS which completely eliminate all collisionless alpha particle losses within normalized radius
. We show that the best performance is obtained by reducing losses at the trapped–passing boundary. Energetic particle transport can be improved even when neoclassical transport, as calculated using the metric
, is degraded. Several quasihelically symmetric equilibria with different aspect ratios are presented, all with excellent energetic particle confinement.
Research participants want to receive results from studies in which they participate. However, health researchers rarely share the results of their studies beyond scientific publication. Little is known about the barriers researchers face in returning study results to participants.
Using a mixed-methods design, health researchers (N = 414) from more than 40 US universities were asked about barriers to providing results to participants. Respondents were recruited from universities with Clinical and Translational Science Award programs and Prevention Research Centers.
Respondents reported the percent of their research where they experienced each of the four barriers to disseminating results to participants: logistical/methodological, financial, systems, and regulatory. A fifth barrier, investigator capacity, emerged from data analysis. Training for research faculty and staff, promotion and tenure incentives, and funding agencies supporting dissemination of results to participants were solutions offered to overcoming barriers.
Study findings add to literature on research dissemination by documenting health researchers’ perceived barriers to sharing study results with participants. Implications for policy and practice suggest that additional resources and training could help reduce dissemination barriers and increase the return of results to participants.
Scientific endeavors are increasingly carried out by teams of scientists. While there is growing literature on factors associated with effective science teams, little is known about processes that facilitate the success of dissemination and implementation (D&I) teams studying the uptake of healthcare innovations. This study aimed to identify strategies used by D&I scientists to promote team science.
Using a nominal group technique, a sample of 27 D&I scholars responded to the question, “What strategies have you or others used to promote team science?” Participants were asked to individually respond and then discuss within a small group to determine the group’s top three strategies. Through a facilitated consensus discussion with the full sample, a rank-ordered list of three strategies was determined.
A total of 126 individual responses (M = 9; SD = 4.88) were submitted. Through small group discussion, six groups ranked their top three strategies to promote team science. The final ranked list of strategies determined by the full sample included: (1) developing and maintaining clear expectations, (2) promoting and modeling effective communication, and (3) establishing shared goals and a mission of the work to be accomplished.
Because of its goal of translating knowledge to practice, D&I research necessitates the use of team science. The top strategies are in line with those found to be effective for teams in other fields and hold promise for improving D&I team cohesion and innovation, which may ultimately accelerate the translation of health innovations and the improvement of care quality and outcomes.
Single-crystalline gallium arsenide (GaAs) grown by various techniques can exhibit hillock defects on the surface when sub-optimal growth conditions are employed. The defects act as nonradiative recombination centers and limit solar cell performance. In this paper, we applied near-field transport imaging to study hillock defects in a GaAs thin film. On the same defects, we also performed near-field cathodoluminescence, standard cathodoluminescence, electron-backscattered diffraction, transmission electron microscopy, and energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry. We found that the luminescence intensity around the hillock area is two orders of magnitude lower than on the area without hillock defects in the millimeter region, and the excess carrier diffusion length is degraded by at least a factor of five with significant local variation. The optical and transport properties are affected over a significantly larger region than the observed topography and crystallographic and chemical compositions associated with the defect.
The constitution of the canon, moreover, remains unsettled: some of the Latin compositions attributed to Ælfric are probably not his; others have only recently joined the list, while still others – perhaps a considerable number – await discovery or will remain forever unidentified because they bear no obvious relation to his known and frequently read works.
As our above study of his chronology suggests, Ælfric's corpus is nothing if not complex. So is the history of his corpus in print. Ælfric himself habitually revised, reissued, and repurposed his own writings. For centuries after – against his express wishes – others included Ælfrician selections in heterogeneous collections or incorporated extracts into anonymous composite works. From Elizabethan England to the present age, moreover, scholars have published editions of his material – much of which is out of print, languishes in dissertations, overlooks manuscript witnesses, fails to recognize multiple authorial originals, or dismisses as illegitimate compilations only possibly assembled by Ælfric or only partially written by him at all. Building on the overviews of Clemoes and Pope, the following seeks to capture our current understanding of Ælfric's canon and to untangle the dizzying array of editions that preserve it.
One caution: it should come as no surprise given the complexity of the evidence that when speaking of authorship there are gradations of doubt. Was Ælfric completely responsible for a given form of a text? Even taking differences between medieval and modern notions of ‘originality’ as a given, previous scholarship has (understandably) tended to seek a binary answer to this question. Take, for example, the controversy around De sancta uirginitate [188.8.131.52.2; UK 7], a text made up entirely of material composed by Ælfric: if Ælfric did not himself assemble the component passages, the assumption goes, the text should not be counted in his canon. Arguably, however, even anonymous composite homilies drawing on Ælfric and other authors are important witnesses to Ælfrician textual history. Future accounts of canon contents may well include such compositions. For the present, our list is more conservative, being restricted to items that were at least possibly composed by Ælfric. Even so, it calls us to reconsider and perhaps redefine what makes a text ‘Ælfrician’, for the boundaries are anything but clear-cut.
A millennium and more ago, a simple monk of Winchester embarked on studies that would make him the most erudite, prolific, and influential author writing in English before Chaucer. Ælfric was his name, and Ælfric of Eynsham he would come to be called. During his life, his works would be sought by bishops and archbishops; for centuries thereafter, they would be copied even as knowledge of Old English began to fade. What drove Ælfric was no desire to leave his mark on the literary landscape, however, but an acute belief in the need of his nation for Christian doctrine. At a time when Vikings were ravaging the coastlines, the millennium was drawing nigh, and unorthodox writers to his mind were leading the uneducated into error, Ælfric found himself possessed of a rich theological education and a keen burden to share it for the salvation of others’ souls.
For over twenty years, driven by his demanding pedagogical vision, Ælfric produced a complex array of writings that were exceptional both in scope and quality. He composed aids for learning Latin, translated books of the Old Testament, instructed clergy in liturgical practice, provided overviews of world history, authored treatises on cosmology and astronomical time, recounted tales of saintly behaviour, and above all commented on Scripture and on doctrine – all with the practical view of teaching clergy and laity how to think and live as Christians. He further stood out from his contemporaries, moreover, by his discriminating emphasis on orthodox sources, his exegetical analysis of Scripture, his memorably clear rhythmical style, and his remarkable authorial transparency, which – strikingly for a medieval author – revealed a self-conscious, vulnerable human being at work who cared genuinely for his readers.
A half-century and more ago, the myriad contents of Ælfric's canon were comprehensively set forth in a 1959 study by Peter Clemoes called ‘The Chronology of Ælfric's Works’. Since that time, much water has passed under the scholarly bridge: Pope updated the contents somewhat in 1967, Godden explicated the compositional process behind Ælfric's Second Series of Catholic Homilies in 1979, Godden published Clemoes’ exposition of Ælfric's First Series dissemination in 1997, and numerous scholars besides have attributed new items to Ælfric, questioned items’ authorship or dating, edited items afresh, and otherwise challenged parts of Clemoes’ original vision.
If one study may be said to have defined modern conceptions of Ælfric's career, it might well be Peter Clemoes’ exposition of ‘The Chronology of Ælfric's Works’. Originally published in 1959, reprinted as an Old English Newsletter Subsidia volume in 1980, and published again as part of Paul Szarmach's 2000 collection of readings on Old English Prose, the ‘Chronology’ draws on Clemoes’ extensive analysis of Ælfrician manuscripts to achieve two watersheds in Anglo-Saxon scholarship: defining the contents of Ælfric's canon and placing them in broad chronological order. Remarkably, despite the decades that have passed since its appearance, this monolithic study as a whole remains largely unchallenged, continuing to influence students and editors of Ælfric's work. As Joyce Hill states:
Clemoes’ 1959 study remains an essential point of reference, since the systematic presentation of Ælfric's corpus and the establishment of a relative and to some extent datable chronology provides the foundation for the ‘identification’ of Ælfric in terms of the sense of his own oeuvre, the evolution of his interests, his responses to local and personal circumstances, his working practices, and his position vis-à-vis the Benedictine Reform, of which he was so self-consciously both product and proponent.
Over the years, however, like sharks worrying a vast carcass, scholars have questioned Clemoes’ conclusions regarding authorship and dates piecemeal, with little effort being made either to account for all challenges proposed or to assess their implications for Clemoes’ theory as a whole. Here, we will consider controversies surrounding a series of key dates that have consequence for major portions of Ælfric's corpus, map those dates onto the development of the Catholic Homilies in detail, and then set forth a comprehensive list of Ælfric's works in updated chronological order, paving the way for a detailed discussion of each of Ælfric's works and an examination of the manuscripts in which various versions of them are preserved. While the data still permit nothing near certainty, and disagreement and doubt remain, scholarship since Clemoes offers us nonetheless a remarkably coherent portrait of Ælfric's endeavours.
While for certain questions the above treatment of the Ælfrician Canon may serve well, identifying, for example, in which manuscripts copies of a text may be found, at other times it is the manuscript context one wants in view. How might the contents of D2 have coloured, say, the reading of Ælfric's First Series homily for Rogationtide (CH I.18) in twelfth-century Rochester? How might Ælfric's exegesis of Christ's calming of the storm and healing of the Gadarene demoniac (CH II.23.127–97 / SH II.17.203–76) have been heard if preached on the Third Sunday after Pentecost (as in K) as opposed to the Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost (as in H)? If items were read sequentially for lectio diuina, for example, what difference might it have made for the Interrogationes Sigewulfi to follow Ælfric's account of Thomas’ passion (LS 32 [Skeat II.36]) in W, but to follow the Hexameron in S? Or for Ælfric's Second Old English Letter for Wulfstan in full to precede his Latin De septiformi spiritu in B, but for only an independent portion to precede De duodecim abusiuis in G? Or for De auaritia to appear independently between De uaniloquio neglegentium and a version of SH II.21 in R1, but embedded in a copy of CH II.19 in fb?
For all that Ker's Catalogue is indispensable when considering the contents of manuscripts in full, identifying Ælfrician elements therein is sometimes a labour of love. The following therefore offers a handy reference for those working specifically with an Ælfrician lens. It lists all witnesses to Ælfrician works; assigns sigla to manuscripts and transcriptions lacking a reference common to Clemoes, Godden, and Pope; delineates subdivisions within sigla to facilitate precision and limit confusion; furnishes dates, origin, and provenance according to Ker, Gneuss, and another authorities; offers explanatory notes; lists references to printed manuscript descriptions; details Ælfrician contents; and sets forth manuscript subdivisions where present in Budny, Clemoes, Godden, and Ker.
Manuscripts Referenced by Clemoes, Godden, and/or Pope
London, British Library, Royal 7 C. xii, fols 4r–218r (January–June 990, Cerne Abbas1)
Notes: The base manuscript for Clemoes’ edition, A constitutes the unique witness to the earliest known stage of Ælfric's First Series of Catholic Homilies, with notes in Ælfric's own hand.