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.

Synaptic development and elimination are normal neurodevelopmental processes, which if altered could contribute to various neuropsychiatric disorders. 31P-1H magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) and structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) exams were conducted on 105 healthy children ages 6–18 years old to identify neuromolecular indices of synaptic development and elimination. Over the age range studied, age-related changes in high-energy phosphate (phosphocreatine), membrane phospholipid metabolism (precursors and breakdown products), and percent gray matter volume were found. These neuromolecular and structural indices of synaptic development and elimination are associated with development of several cognitive domains. Monitoring of these molecular markers is essential for devising treatment strategies for neurodevelopmental disorders. (JINS, 2009, 15, 671–683.)

The classically defined receptive fields of V4 cells are confined almost entirely to the contralateral visual field. However, these receptive fields are often surrounded by large, silent suppressive regions, and stimulating the surrounds can cause a complete suppression of response to a simultaneously presented stimulus within the receptive field. We investigated whether the suppressive surrounds might extend across the midline into the ipsilateral visual field and, if so, whether the surrounds were dependent on the corpus callosum, which has a widespread distribution in V4. We found that the surrounds of more than half of the cells tested in the central visual field representation of V4 crossed into the ipsilateral visual field, with some extending up to at least 16 deg from the vertical meridian. Much of this suppression from the ipsilateral field was mediated by the corpus callosum, as section of the callosum dramatically reduced both the strength and extent of the surrounds. There remained, however, some residual suppression that was not further reduced by addition of an anterior commissure lesion. Because the residual ipsilateral suppression was similar in magnitude and extent to that found following section of the optic tract contralateral to the V4 recording, we concluded that it was retinal in origin. Using the same techniques employed in V4, we also mapped the ipsilateral extent of surrounds in the foveal representation of VI in an intact monkey. Results were very similar to those in V4 following commissural or contralateral tract sections. The findings suggest that V4 is a central site for long-range interactions both within and across the two visual hemifields. Taken with previous work, the results are consistent with the notion that the large suppressive surrounds of V4 neurons contribute to the neural mechanisms of color constancy and figure-ground separation.