To save 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 saving content to .
To save 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 saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.
The objectives of this study were to determine if the level and consistency of glyphosate-resistant (GR) horseweed control prior to soybean planting can be improved by (i) adding halauxifen-methyl, 2,4-D ester, saflufenacil, metribuzin, or dicamba to glufosinate, (ii) increasing the rate of glufosinate from 500 to 1,000 g ai ha–1, and (iii) adding 28% urea ammonium nitrate (UAN) as the carrier solution. During a 2-yr period (2020–2021), four field trials were conducted on commercial farms located in southwestern Ontario, Canada, with confirmed GR horseweed. Glufosinate controlled GR horseweed 65%, 66%, and 63% at 2, 4, and 8 wk after application (WAA), respectively, and reduced density and biomass 46% and 33% at 8 WAA, respectively. There was no improvement in GR horseweed control from the addition of halauxifen-methyl, 2,4-D ester or saflufenacil to glufosinate and no decrease in density and biomass, with the exception that the addition of saflufenacil to glufosinate reduced density 30% compared to glufosinate alone. The addition of metribuzin to glufosinate improved GR horseweed control by 22%, 22%, and 28% at 2, 4, and 8 WAA, respectively, and further reduced density and biomass 50% and 47%, respectively, at 8 WAA, respectively. The addition of dicamba to glufosinate improved GR horseweed control by 19%, 26%, and 30% at 2, 4, and 8 WAA, respectively, and further reduced density and biomass 54% and 60%, respectively, at 8 WAA. There was no improvement in GR horseweed control by increasing the rate of glufosinate from 500 to 1,000 g ai ha–1 or when using 28% UAN as the carrier solution. The addition of all herbicides to glufosinate, increasing the rate of glufosinate, or using 28% UAN as the carrier solution improved the consistency of GR horseweed control.
Glyphosate-resistant (GR) horseweed interference in soybean can reduce soybean yield up to 93%. Glyphosate plus dicamba, 2,4-D ester, halauxifen-methyl or pyraflufen-ethyl/2,4-D applied preplant (PP) provide variable GR horseweed control in soybean. The objective of this study was to determine if the addition of saflufenacil or metribuzin to glyphosate plus dicamba, 2,4-D ester, halauxifen-methyl, or pyraflufen-ethyl/2,4-D will improve the level and consistency of GR horseweed control. Four trials were conducted over the 2020 and 2021 field seasons in fields with GR horseweed populations. Glyphosate plus dicamba, 2,4-D ester, halauxifen-methyl, or pyraflufen-ethyl/2,4-D controlled GR horseweed 96%, 77%, 71%, and 52%, respectively, at 8 wk after application (WAA). When saflufenacil or metribuzin was added to glyphosate plus dicamba or 2,4-D ester, GR horseweed control was not improved at 8 WAA. When saflufenacil or metribuzin was added to glyphosate plus halauxifen-methyl, GR horseweed control improved by 27% and 25%, respectively, at 8 WAA. When saflufenacil or metribuzin was added to glyphosate plus pyraflufen-ethyl/2,4-D, GR horseweed control was improved by 47% and 37%, respectively, at 8 WAA. The consistency of GR horseweed control was improved when saflufenacil or metribuzin was added to glyphosate plus dicamba, 2,4-D ester, halauxifen-methyl, or pyraflufen-ethyl/2,4-D compared to each herbicide applied alone. Synergism was observed when metribuzin was added to glyphosate plus halauxifen-methyl and when saflufenacil or metribuzin was added to glyphosate plus pyraflufen-ethyl/2,4-D at 8 WAA. Though GR horseweed control was improved with the addition of saflufenacil or metribuzin to glyphosate plus halauxifen-methyl or pyraflufen-ethyl/2,4-D, all treatments including saflufenacil resulted in the highest level and most consistent control.
Recent research reported synergism between glufosinate plus very low rates of protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)–inhibiting herbicides on select broadleaf weeds. Two field studies, each consisting of four trials, were conducted in 2020 and 2021 in commercial fields with glyphosate-resistant (GR) horseweed in Ontario, Canada. Study 1 evaluated GR horseweed control with glufosinate plus five PPO inhibitors at 5% of the label rate; study 2 evaluated what dose of saflufenacil is needed when co-applied with glufosinate to improve GR horseweed control. In study 1, glufosinate plus very low rates of PPO-inhibiting herbicides provided low GR horseweed control. At site 1, despite the synergistic increase in GR horseweed control with saflufenacil (1.25 g ai ha–1) plus glufosinate (300 g ai ha–1), the level of control did not exceed 42% at 2 and 4 wk after application (WAA); the interaction was additive at 8 WAA. The co-application of glufosinate (300 g ai ha–1) with pyraflufen-ethyl (0.34 g ai ha–1), pyraflufen-ethyl/2,4-D (26.4 g ai ha–1), flumioxazin (5.35 g ai ha–1), fomesafen (12 g ai ha–1), or sulfentrazone (7 g ai ha–1) resulted in an additive interaction for GR horseweed control at 2, 4, and 8 WAA. However, glufosinate plus pyraflufen-ethyl or sulfentrazone was antagonistic at 8 WAA. In study 2, similar doses of saflufenacil were required for 50%, 80%, and 95% GR horseweed control whether glufosinate was included in the mixture or not. Interactions between glufosinate (300 g ai ha–1) plus saflufenacil at 1.56, 3.13, 6.25, and 12.5 g ai ha–1 were antagonistic at 2, 4, and 8 WAA at sites 1, 2, and 3; all other interactions were additive. The results of this research indicate there was little to no benefit of adding very low rates of PPO-inhibiting herbicides to glufosinate to improve GR horseweed control under field conditions.
OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Explore perceptions of Flint stakeholders on the water crisis regarding trust and the capacity of faith and community-based organizations providing public health services to address community needs. Analyze the community’s voice shared at (1) 17 key community communications (community/congressional meetings and events), and (2) during 9 focus group sessions, in which residents, faith-based leadership and other stakeholders discuss issues and concerns on the Flint Water Crisis, and recommend ways to address them. Develop a framework that defines core theories, concepts and strategies recommended by the community to help rebuild trust and the quality of life in Flint, Michigan, and support other communities experiencing environmental stress. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Study population: faith-based leaders, seniors, youth, Hispanic/Latino and African American stakeholders, and others experiencing inequities in the city of Flint. Convene 9 focus group sessions (recorded and transcribed) to learn community perceptions on trust and ways to address it. Validate accuracy of the transcriptions with community consultants to reconcile any inaccurate information. Through a community engaged research (CEnR) process, review and analyze qualitative data from the 9 focus group sessions, and quantitative data from 2 surveys documenting (1) demographic backgrounds of focus group participants, and (2) their perceptions on trust and mistrust. Prepare a codebook to qualitatively analyze the focus group data summarizing community input on trust, mistrust, changes in service delivery among community and faith-based organizations, and ways to re-build trust in the city of Flint. Transcribe the community’s voice shared during 17 key events, identified by a team of community-academic stakeholders (i.e., UM Flint water course, congressional and community events, etc.), in which residents and other stakeholders discuss issues and concerns on the Flint Water Crisis, and recommend ways to address it. Qualitatively analyze the transcriptions, using a CEnR process to prepare a codebook on key themes from the community’s voice shared at these events, and recommendations on ways to address it. Compare and contrast findings between the two codebooks developed from (1) the focus group data and (2) qualitative analysis of community voice during public meetings and events. Synthesize this information into a framework of core theories, concepts and rebuilding strategies for Flint, Michigan. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: It is important to note many undocumented immigrant populations in Flint fear deportation and other consequences, hampering their ability to obtain service and provide community voice. Through our purposive sampling approach, we will hear from community voices not often included in narratives (i.e., seniors, youth, Hispanic/Latino residents). The presentation will present findings documenting levels of trust and mistrust in the city of Flint; and a framework of recommendations, core theories and concepts on ways to reduce, rebuild and eliminate stress that will be helpful to other communities experiencing distress. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: To our knowledge, levels of trust and mistrust in Flint have not been documented thus far. We will compare and contrast common themes presented by the community at public meetings and events with themes presented in our focus group effort on trust. Faith and community-based providers were among the first responders to the Flint Water Crisis. The effort will also share perceptions on changes in public health service delivery, and observations on preparedness for these roles that occurred among community and faith-based providers. Finally, the effort will (1) support the design of a research agenda, (2) define a framework of core theories, concepts and recommendations developed by the community to help rebuild trust in Flint, Michigan; and (3) support other communities addressing environmental distress.
Objectives: This study investigated the relationship between close proximity to detonated blast munitions and cognitive functioning in OEF/OIF/OND Veterans. Methods: A total of 333 participants completed a comprehensive evaluation that included assessment of neuropsychological functions, psychiatric diagnoses and history of military and non-military brain injury. Participants were assigned to a Close-Range Blast Exposure (CBE) or Non-Close-Range Blast Exposure (nonCBE) group based on whether they had reported being exposed to at least one blast within 10 meters. Results: Groups were compared on principal component scores representing the domains of memory, verbal fluency, and complex attention (empirically derived from a battery of standardized cognitive tests), after adjusting for age, education, PTSD diagnosis, sleep quality, substance abuse disorder, and pain. The CBE group showed poorer performance on the memory component. Rates of clinical impairment were significantly higher in the CBE group on select CVLT-II indices. Exploratory analyses examined the effects of concussion and multiple blasts on test performance and revealed that number of lifetime concussions did not contribute to memory performance. However, accumulating blast exposures at distances greater than 10 meters did contribute to poorer performance. Conclusions: Close proximity to detonated blast munitions may impact memory, and Veterans exposed to close-range blast are more likely to demonstrate clinically meaningful deficits. These findings were observed after statistically adjusting for comorbid factors. Results suggest that proximity to blast should be considered when assessing for memory deficits in returning Veterans. Comorbid psychiatric factors may not entirely account for cognitive difficulties. (JINS, 2018, 24, 466–475)
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.