Foliar applied postemergence herbicides are a critical component of corn and soybean weed management programs in North America. Rainfall and air temperature around the time of application may affect the efficacy of herbicides applied postemergence in corn or soybean production fields. However, previous research utilized a limited number of site-years and may not capture the range of rainfall and air temperatures that these herbicides are exposed to throughout North America. The objective of this research was to model the probability of achieving successful weed control (≥85%) with commonly applied postemergence herbicides across a broad range of environments. A large database of over 10,000 individual herbicide evaluation field trials conducted throughout North America was used in this study. The database was filtered to include only trials with a single postemergence application of fomesafen, glyphosate, mesotrione, or fomesafen + glyphosate. Waterhemp (Amaranthus tuburculatus (Moq.) J. D. Sauer), morningglory species (Ipomoea spp.), and giant foxtail (Setaria faberi Herrm.) were the weeds of focus. Separate random forest models were created for each weed species by herbicide combination. The probability of successful weed control deteriorated when the average air temperature within the first ten d after application was <19 or >25 C for most of the herbicide by weed species models. Additionally, dryer conditions prior to postemergence herbicide application reduced the probability of successful control for several of the herbicide by weed species models. As air temperatures increase and rainfall becomes more variable, weed control with many of the commonly used postemergence herbicides is likely to become less reliable.

Mixing ammonium sulfate (AMS) can increase dicamba volatility. Therefore, AMS cannot be used with dicamba products in dicamba-resistant soybean. However, most dicamba products applied in corn are labeled to mix with AMS. The objectives of this study were to evaluate broadleaf weed control with dicamba (DiFlexx®) and dicamba/tembotrione (DiFlexx® DUO) applied alone or with AMS or AMS substitute and their effect on broadleaf weed density and biomass. Field experiments were conducted in Illinois, Missouri, and Nebraska in 2018 and 2019. In Illinois and Nebraska, mixing AMS + crop oil concentrate (COC) with dicamba applied at 1,120 g ae ha−1 increased the control of Palmer amaranth and waterhemp (Amaranthus species) from 78% to 92% and velvetleaf from 73% to 96% compared with dicamba applied alone 14 d after application (DAA); however, Missouri data showed no difference. Mixing AMS + COC with dicamba/tembotrione at 597 and 746 g ai ha−1 did not improve broadleaf weed control 14 DAA at any site compared with dicamba/tembotrione applied alone. Control of Amaranthus species was increased from 82% with dicamba applied at 840 g ae ha−1 to 96% when mixed with AMS + COC 28 DAA in Illinois; however, control was similar to dicamba applied at 1,120 g ae ha−1. Broadleaf weed control did not differ among dicamba or dicamba/tembotrione 28 and 56 DAA in Missouri and Nebraska. Broadleaf weed density decreased from 64 plants m−2 to 24 plants m−2 with dicamba at 1,120 g ae ha−1 with AMS + COC 14 DAA in Nebraska; however, no differences were observed in broadleaf weed density or biomass 56 DAA in any state. The results suggest that dicamba or dicamba/tembotrione can be applied without AMS or AMS substitute, especially at higher rates, without losing broadleaf weed control efficacy.

Paul opens his First Epistle to the Corinthians with the exhortation “Now I appeal to you, brothers [and sisters], … that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose” (1:10). This plea is strikingly similar to a passage in Sifre Deuteronomy 96, where the words lo titgodedu are interpreted as “Do not be made into gatherings/factions [ʾagudot]; rather, be all of you one gathering [ʾagudah].” Analyzing these sources in depth, this article argues that Paul was familiar with this early rabbinic midrash in an oral form. It also explores the possibility that Paul used another early rabbinic tradition on unity, which is found in the Mekhilta de-miluʾim section of the Sifra. If Paul indeed knew certain rabbinic oral traditions, then he was an independent interpreter of Scripture, who read Scripture in the original Hebrew. Further, even if Paul's audience consisted primarily of gentiles, the legal norms he sought to institute among them were based on Jewish traditions. Finally, Paul follows his exhortation against schismata with the names of specific groups in Corinth, which demonstrates that he understood the tannaitic tradition as a normative principle, meant to be applied to specific disagreements. If so, other first-century Jews also likely understood lo titgodedu as a concrete halakhic prohibition.

Contemporary scholarship no longer seeks to identify what was once termed “the historical kernel” of stories in the Bavli. According to scholarly consensus these longer narratives in the Bavli were formulated more or less while the Bavli as a whole was being redacted and, as Jeffrey Rubenstein has argued, reflect later Babylonian rabbinic culture. Regarding the building blocks of these stories, literary analysis at times indicates that what the historian once believed to be primitive exaggeration is in fact the earliest element of the story. With this in mind, Shamma Friedman coined the term “literary kernel” to replace the former “historical kernel.” The advantage of the term “literary kernel” is that it can be defined in a fairly objective way as the common storyline that can be identified by comparing the Bavli narrative with the story as it appears in aggadic sources in the Yerushalmi or other Palestinian traditions.