Herbicide resistance is ‘wicked’ in nature; therefore, results of the many educational efforts to encourage diversification of weed control practices in the United States have been mixed. It is clear that we do not sufficiently understand the totality of the grassroots obstacles, concerns, challenges, and specific solutions needed for varied crop production systems. Weed management issues and solutions vary with such variables as management styles, regions, cropping systems, and available or affordable technologies. Therefore, to help the weed science community better understand the needs and ideas of those directly dealing with herbicide resistance, seven half-day regional listening sessions were held across the United States between December 2016 and April 2017 with groups of diverse stakeholders on the issues and potential solutions for herbicide resistance management. The major goals of the sessions were to gain an understanding of stakeholders and their goals and concerns related to herbicide resistance management, to become familiar with regional differences, and to identify decision maker needs to address herbicide resistance. The messages shared by listening-session participants could be summarized by six themes: we need new herbicides; there is no need for more regulation; there is a need for more education, especially for others who were not present; diversity is hard; the agricultural economy makes it difficult to make changes; and we are aware of herbicide resistance but are managing it. The authors concluded that more work is needed to bring a community-wide, interdisciplinary approach to understanding the complexity of managing weeds within the context of the whole farm operation and for communicating the need to address herbicide resistance.

Seven half-day regional listening sessions were held between December 2016 and April 2017 with groups of diverse stakeholders on the issues and potential solutions for herbicide-resistance management. The objective of the listening sessions was to connect with stakeholders and hear their challenges and recommendations for addressing herbicide resistance. The coordinating team hired Strategic Conservation Solutions, LLC, to facilitate all the sessions. They and the coordinating team used in-person meetings, teleconferences, and email to communicate and coordinate the activities leading up to each regional listening session. The agenda was the same across all sessions and included small-group discussions followed by reporting to the full group for discussion. The planning process was the same across all the sessions, although the selection of venue, time of day, and stakeholder participants differed to accommodate the differences among regions. The listening-session format required a great deal of work and flexibility on the part of the coordinating team and regional coordinators. Overall, the participant evaluations from the sessions were positive, with participants expressing appreciation that they were asked for their thoughts on the subject of herbicide resistance. This paper details the methods and processes used to conduct these regional listening sessions and provides an assessment of the strengths and limitations of those processes.

Background: The gold standard for determining the left ventricular ejection fraction is cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Other parameters for determining the ejection fraction such as M-mode echocardiography are operator-dependant and often inaccurate. Assessment of the displacement of the mitral valve annulus using two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography may provide an accurate and simple method of determining the left ventricular ejection fraction in children. Method: We retrospectively studied 70 healthy 9-year-old children with no history of cardiovascular disease who had been assessed using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography. Mitral displacement was determined using the tissue motion annular displacement (TMAD) feature of Philips QLAB version 9. The midpoint displacement of the mitral valve was calculated, and the predicted left ventricular ejection fraction was compared with magnetic resonance imaging-derived and M-mode-derived ejection fractions. Results: The mean ejection fraction derived from magnetic resonance imaging (64.5 (4.6)) was similar to that derived from the TMAD midpoint (60.9 (2.7), p = 0.001) and the M-mode (61.9 (7), p = 0.012). The TMAD midpoint correlated strongly with the magnetic resonance imaging-derived ejection fraction (r = 0.69, p < 0.001), as did the predicted fraction (r = 0.67, p < 0.001). The M-mode ejection fraction showed a poor linear correlation with both magnetic resonance imaging-derived and TMAD-derived fractions (r = 0.33 and 0.04, respectively). Conclusion: TMAD of the mitral valve is a simple, effective, and highly reproducible method of assessing the ejection fraction in normal children. It shows a strong linear correlation with magnetic resonance imaging-derived ejection fraction and is superior to M-mode-derived ejection fractions.