In response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the State of Maryland established a 250-bed emergency response field hospital at the Baltimore Convention Center to support the existing health care infrastructure. To operationalize this hospital with 65 full-time equivalent clinicians in less than 4 weeks, more than 300 applications were reviewed, 186 candidates were interviewed, and 159 clinicians were credentialed and onboarded. The key steps to achieve this undertaking involved employing multidisciplinary teams with experienced personnel, mass outreach, streamlined candidate tracking, pre-interview screening, utilizing all available expertise, expedited credentialing, and focused onboarding. To ensure staff preparedness, the leadership developed innovative team models, applied principles of effective team building, and provided “just in time” training on COVID-19 and non-COVID-19-related topics to the staff. The leadership focused on staff safety and well-being, offered appropriate financial remuneration, and provided leadership opportunities that allowed retention of staff.

Chest radiography compares left ventricular decompression in the same patient supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with atrial septal fenestration and subsequently supported with left ventricular assist device with apical cannulation.

This article captures the webinar narrative on March 31, 2020 of four expert panelists addressing three questions on the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Each panelist was selected for their unique personal expertise, ranging from front-line emergency physicians from multiple countries, an international media personality, former director of the US Strategic National Stockpile, and one of the foremost international experts in disaster medicine and public policy. The forum was moderated by one of the most widely recognized disaster medical experts in the world. The four panelists were asked three questions regarding the current pandemic as follows:

1. 1. What do you see as a particular issue of concern during the current pandemic?

2. 2. What do you see as a particular strength during the current pandemic?

3. 3. If you could change one thing about the way that the pandemic response is occurring, what would you change?

Open science has recently gained traction as establishment institutions have come on-side and thrown their weight behind the movement and initiatives aimed at creation of information commons. At the same time, the movement's traditional insistence on unrestricted dissemination and reuse of all information of scientific value has been challenged by the movement to strengthen protection of personal data. This article assesses tensions between open science and data protection, with a focus on the GDPR.

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.

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.

Field studies at six locations over 3 yr in Kansas compared pyroxsulam at two application timings to competitive standards for winter annual weed control in winter wheat. Pyroxsulam applied fall-POST (FP) controlled downy brome 84 to 99% and was similar to or greater than sulfosulfuron, propoxycarbazone, or propoxycarbazone plus mesosulfuron. Downy brome control was lower when application timing was delayed until spring (SP), such that no herbicide provided more than 90% downy brome control. Cheat control was 97% or more with almost all herbicides applied FP, and greater than 90% in most locations when herbicides were applied SP. Sulfosulfuron was the exception with only 30 to 81% cheat control. All FP-applied herbicides, except sulfosulfuron at Manhattan, KS, controlled blue mustard 95% or more. Pyroxsulam and propoxycarbazone plus mesosulfuron FP completely controlled henbit at Hesston, KS, in 2009, but no herbicide treatment provided more than 60% control when applied SP. Averaged over application timings, pyroxsulam provided the greatest henbit control (76 and 78%) at Manhattan and Hays, respectively, in 2009, and FP treatments were 33 and 28 percentage points more effective than SP treatments at those locations. Averaged over application timing, wheat yields did not differ between herbicide treatments in five of six locations. Averaged over herbicide treatment, FP-treated wheat yielded more grain than SP-treated wheat at three of the six locations.

The selection of herbicide-resistant weeds in grain sorghum production has prompted researchers to explore alternative herbicides to prevent, delay, and manage herbicide-resistant weed biotypes. Greenhouse and field experiments were conducted to evaluate the differential response of sorghum hybrids to POST application of mesotrione. In a greenhouse experiment, 85 sorghum hybrids were treated with 0, 52, 105, 210, and 315 g ai/ha mesotrione when plants were at the three- to four-leaf collar stage. Sorghum response ranged from susceptible to tolerant sorghum hybrids. ‘Pioneer 84G62’, ‘Pioneer 85G01’, and ‘Triumph TR 438’ were the three most susceptible, whereas ‘Dekalb DKS35-70’, ‘Frontier F222E’, and ‘Asgrow Seneca’ were the three most tolerant hybrids. One week after treatment (WAT), the mesotrione rate causing 50% visible injury ranged from 121 to 184 and 64 to 91 g/ha in the most tolerant and susceptible hybrids, respectively. Mesotrione dose–response studies were conducted under field conditions on four sorghum hybrids. One WAT, injury symptoms were greater (up to 23%) in Pioneer 85G01 than in Asgrow Seneca (< 14%). However, all plants appeared normal by the end of the growing season. In addition, sorghum yields were not reduced by mesotrione treatments as verified by correlation coefficient analysis.

Field experiments were conducted at Belleville, Colby, Hays, Hesston, Garden City, and Manhattan, KS, to determine grain sorghum response to POST application of mesotrione at three application timings. Mesotrione was applied at 52, 105, 157, and 210 g ai/ha in combination with 280 g ai/ha atrazine to grain sorghum at heights of 5 to 8, 15 to 20, and 30 cm, which correspond to early POST (EPOST), mid-POST (MPOST), and late POST (LPOST), respectively. All mesotrione rates caused injury at all application timings. Overall, grain sorghum injury from mesotrione was greatest at 1 wk after treatment (WAT); plants partially recovered from injury by 4 WAT. Mesotrione applied EPOST injured grain sorghum more than when applied at MPOST and LPOST timings. The EPOST application injured grain sorghum 19 to 88%, whereas injury from MPOST and LPOST application was 1 to 66% and 0 to 69%, respectively, depending on rate. Mesotrione injury was least at Belleville and most at the Hesston and Garden City (irrigated) sites regardless of growth stage. Correlation coefficient analyses indicated that observed mesotrione injury symptoms were not well correlated with grain sorghum yield; thus, mesotrione injury to grain sorghum did not influence grain yield. However, initial grain sorghum injury was severe, and this will likely be a major concern to producers.

Field experiments were conducted at four locations in Kansas in 1999 and 2000 to evaluate grain sorghum response to simulated drift rates of four herbicides. Imazethapyr, glufosinate, glyphosate, and sethoxydim were applied at 1/3, 1/10, 1/33, and 1/100 of the use rate when plants were 10 to 20 cm tall. Visible crop injury increased as rates of each herbicide increased. Glyphosate and imazethapyr caused the most injury and glufosinate the least. Data show that some plants that were significantly injured 2 wk after treatment (WAT) recovered 8 WAT. However, some plants that received the highest rate of imazethapyr or glyphosate died. Grain sorghum yields were reduced only when injury was severe. This research showed that the potential for sorghum injury from off-target herbicide drift is greater from imazethapyr and glyphosate than from sethoxydim or glufosinate.

A proposed Yield Reserve Program designed to compensate farmers for any reduced yields resulting from nitrogen (N) application rates reduced to below recommended rates is evaluated. Assuming that farmers currently follow Extension recommendations for applying N, Yield Reserve Program participation reduces expected net revenue by $10 to $13/ha. The Yield Reserve Program reduces expected net revenue by $17 to $20/ha for farmers who apply N to maximize expected net revenue. Farmers' costs of participation increase with lower probabilities of inadequate rainfall and higher corn prices and decline with higher N prices. The Yield Reserve Program can significantly reduce N applications to cropland, which may reduce N content of surface waters, but the costs to taxpayers and farmers will depend on how the program is implemented.