The recommended method of control for glyphosate-resistant (GR) Italian ryegrass in Mississippi is to apply residual herbicides in the fall; however, these treatments may negatively affect rice performance. This study was conducted to evaluate rice performance following fall-applied treatments of residual herbicides + flumioxazin at different rates. Pooled over with and without flumioxazin and herbicide rates, clomazone and dimethenamid-P caused <10% injury 28 d after emergence. Acetochlor delayed rice maturity by 2 d to clomazone, dimethenamid-P, and flumioxazin. Rice density was reduced ≥4 plants m−2 following fall-applied acetochlor and dimethenamid-P compared to nontreated plants. Rough rice yields were reduced by ≥670 kg ha−1 with fall-applied acetochlor alone and dimethenamid-P compared to nontreated plants. Acetochlor should not be used as a fall-applied treatment in areas where rice is scheduled to grow the following season. Given current label restrictions and rice injury caused by acetochlor and dimethenamid-P, clomazone remains the only viable option for controlling GR Italian ryegrass where rice is scheduled to be planted the following spring.

Paleontology provides insights into the history of the planet, from the origins of life billions of years ago to the biotic changes of the Recent. The scope of paleontological research is as vast as it is varied, and the field is constantly evolving. In an effort to identify “Big Questions” in paleontology, experts from around the world came together to build a list of priority questions the field can address in the years ahead. The 89 questions presented herein (grouped within 11 themes) represent contributions from nearly 200 international scientists. These questions touch on common themes including biodiversity drivers and patterns, integrating data types across spatiotemporal scales, applying paleontological data to contemporary biodiversity and climate issues, and effectively utilizing innovative methods and technology for new paleontological insights. In addition to these theoretical questions, discussions touch upon structural concerns within the field, advocating for an increased valuation of specimen-based research, protection of natural heritage sites, and the importance of collections infrastructure, along with a stronger emphasis on human diversity, equity, and inclusion. These questions offer a starting point—an initial nucleus of consensus that paleontologists can expand on—for engaging in discussions, securing funding, advocating for museums, and fostering continued growth in shared research directions.

Florpyrauxifen-benzyl is a postemergence rice herbicide that has reduced rice yield in some situations, and producers are concerned that the impact could be even greater with low rice seeding densities. Therefore, research was conducted in Stoneville, MS, from 2019 to 2021, to evaluate the effect of florpyrauxifen-benzyl on rice yield when a hybrid was seeded at reduced densities. Rice cultivar FullPage RT 7521 FP was seeded at 10, 17, 24, 30, and 37 kg ha−1. At the 4-leaf to 1-tiller growth stage, florpyrauxifen-benzyl was applied at 0 or 58 g ai ha−1. Rice injury following application of florpyrauxifen-benzyl was ≤8% across all seeding rates and evaluation intervals. Application of florpyrauxifen-benzyl reduced plant heights by 14% to all seeding rates but did not result in delayed rice maturity. When florpyrauxifen-benzyl was not applied to rice that was seeded at 10 and 17 kg ha−1 seeding rates, rice matured slower than when it was seeded at 24, 30, and 37 kg ha−1. When florpyrauxifen-benzyl was applied, rough rice grain yields were reduced by at the 17 and 37 kg ha−1 seeding rates, but not at any other seeding rate. In conclusion, application of florpyrauxifen-benzyl at a 2× rate can cause a loss of yield resulting from variation in rice densities.

Florpyrauxifen-benzyl was commercialized in 2018 to target barnyardgrass and aquatic or broadleaf weeds. Field studies were conducted from 2019 to 2021 in Stoneville, MS, to evaluate barnyardgrass control following a simulated failure of florpyrauxifen-benzyl or other common postemergence rice herbicides. In the first field study, florpyrauxifen-benzyl was applied at 0 and 15 g ai ha–1 to rice at the two- to three-leaf stage to simulate a failed application targeting barnyardgrass. Sequential herbicide treatments included no herbicide and full rates of imazethapyr, quinclorac, bispyribac-Na, and cyhalofop applied 7 or 14 d after florpyrauxifen-benzyl treatment. The second field study was designed to evaluate barnyardgrass control with florpyrauxifen-benzyl following simulated failure of postemergence rice herbicides. Initial herbicide treatments included no herbicide and half rates of imazethapyr, quinclorac, bispyribac-Na, and propanil. Sequential applications at 7 or 14 d after the initial herbicide treatments included florpyrauxifen-benzyl at 0 and 30 g ai ha–1. Results from the first study indicated barnyardgrass control 21 d after final treatment (DAFT) was greater with sequential treatments at 7 compared with 14 d after initial treatment (DA-I) with no initial application of florpyrauxifen-benzyl. Therefore, delaying sequential treatments until 14 d after initial florpyrauxifen-benzyl at 15 g ha–1 allowed barnyardgrass to become too large to control with other rice herbicides. Rough rice yield was reduced in plots where quinclorac application was delayed from 7 to 14 DA-I with no initial application of florpyrauxifen-benzyl. The second study suggested that florpyrauxifen-benzyl application should be delayed 14 d after a herbicide failure. Although no differences in barnyardgrass control 21 DAFT were detected whether florpyrauxifen-benzyl was applied 7 or 14 DA-I of any herbicide utilized, >85% control was only achieved when florpyrauxifen-benzyl application was delayed 14 DA-I. These results demonstrate barnyardgrass control options following simulated failed applications of common rice herbicides.

Despite advances in cancer genomics and the increased use of genomic medicine, metastatic cancer is still mostly an incurable and fatal disease. With diminishing returns from traditional drug discovery strategies, and high clinical failure rates, more emphasis is being placed on alternative drug discovery platforms, such as ex vivo approaches. Ex vivo approaches aim to embed biological relevance and inter-patient variability at an earlier stage of drug discovery, and to offer more precise treatment stratification for patients. However, these techniques also have a high potential to offer personalised therapies to patients, complementing and enhancing genomic medicine. Although an array of approaches are available to researchers, only a minority of techniques have made it through to direct patient treatment within robust clinical trials. Within this review, we discuss the current challenges to ex vivo approaches within clinical practice and summarise the contemporary literature which has directed patient treatment. Finally, we map out how ex vivo approaches could transition from a small-scale, predominantly research based technology to a robust and validated predictive tool. In future, these pre-clinical approaches may be integrated into clinical cancer pathways to assist in the personalisation of therapy choices and to hopefully improve patient experiences and outcomes.

Information on performance of sequential treatments of quizalofop-P-ethyl with florpyrauxifen-benzyl on rice is lacking. Field studies were conducted in 2017 and 2018 in Stoneville, MS, to evaluate sequential timings of quizalofop-P-ethyl with florpyrauxifen-benzyl included in preflood treatments of rice. Quizalofop-P-ethyl treatments were no quizalofop-P-ethyl; sequential applications of quizalofop-P-ethyl at 120 g ha−1 followed by (fb) 120 g ai ha−1 applied to rice in the 2- to 3-leaf (EPOST) fb the 4-leaf to 1-tiller (LPOST) growth stages or LPOST fb 10 d after flooding (PTFLD); quizalofop-P-ethyl at 100 g ha−1 fb 139 g ha−1 EPOST fb LPOST or LPOST fb PTFLD; quizalofop-P-ethyl at 139 g ha−1 fb 100 g ha−1 EPOST fb LPOST and LPOST fb PTFLD; and quizalofop-P-ethyl at 85 g ha−1 fb 77 g ha−1 fb 77 g ha−1 EPOST fb LPOST fb PTFLD. Quizalofop-P-ethyl was applied alone and in mixture with florpyrauxifen-benzyl at 29 g ai ha−1 LPOST. Visible rice injury 14 d after PTFLD (DA-PTFLD) was no more than 3%. Visible control of volunteer rice (‘CL151’ and ‘Rex’) 7 DA-PTFLD was similar and at least 95% for each quizalofop-P-ethyl treatment. Barnyardgrass control with quizalofop-P-ethyl at 120 fb 120 g ha−1 LPOST fb PTFLD was greater (88%) in mixture with florpyrauxifen-benzyl. The addition of florpyrauxifen-benzyl to quizalofop-P-ethyl increased rough rice yield when quizalofop-P-ethyl was applied at 100 g ha−1 fb 139 g ha−1 EPOST fb LPOST. Sequential applications of quizalofop-P-ethyl at 120 g ha−1 fb 120 g ha−1 EPOST fb LPOST, 100 g ha−1 fb 139 g ha−1 EPOST fb LPOST, or 139 g ha−1 fb 100 g ha−1 EPOST fb LPOST controlled grass weed species. The addition of florpyrauxifen-benzyl was not beneficial for grass weed control. However, because quizalofop-P-ethyl does not control broadleaf weeds, florpyrauxifen-benzyl could provide broad-spectrum weed control in acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase–resistant rice.

Florpyrauxifen-benzyl and quizalofop were available for POST applications in 2018; however, little is known about the response of acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACCase)–resistant rice cultivars and advanced lines to POST herbicides. A field study was conducted in 2017 and 2018 at Stoneville, MS, to characterize the response of ACCase-resistant rice cultivars and advanced lines to POST applications of florpyrauxifen-benzyl. The imidazolinone-resistant (IR) rice cultivars ‘CL163’ and ‘CLXL 745’, and ACCase-resistant rice cultivars ‘PVL01’, ‘PVL013’, ‘PVL024-B’, ‘PVL038’, ‘PVL080’, and ‘PVL081’were treated with florpyrauxifen-benzyl at 0 (nontreated control for each cultivar) and 58 g ai ha–1 at the four-leaf to one-tiller (LPOST) growth stage. At 14 d after treatment (DAT), PVL01 was injured 5% to 6% greater than CLXL 745, PVL013, and PVL081; however, injury was ≤10% at that evaluation for all cultivars. Similarly, injury was ≤13% for all cultivars 28 DAT. Mature heights were reduced for all cultivars except PVL013 and PVL081. Rough rice yield was ≥100% of the control for all cultivars except PVL081, PVL013, and CL163. Results suggest that florpyrauxifen-benzyl can safely be applied POST to rice cultivars grown in Mississippi as well as ACCase-resistant cultivars that are currently under development.

Off-target paraquat movement to rice has become a major problem in recent years for rice producers in the midsouthern United States. Nitrogen (N) fertilizer is applied to rice in greater quantity and frequency than all other nutrients to optimize rice yield. Two separate field studies were conducted from 2015 to 2018 in Stoneville, MS, to assess whether starter N fertilizer can aid rice recovery from exposure to a sub-lethal concentration of paraquat and to evaluate rice response to different N fertilizer management strategies following exposure to a sub-lethal concentration of paraquat. In both studies, paraquat treatments consisted of paraquat at 0 and 84 g ai ha–1 applied to rice in the two- to three-leaf (EPOST) growth stage. In the starter fertilizer study, N fertilizer at 24 kg ha–1 as ammonium sulfate (AMS) was applied to rice at spiking- to one-leaf (VEPOST), two- to three-leaf (EPOST), or three- to four-leaf (MPOST) growth stages before and after paraquat treatment. In the N fertilizer timing study, N fertilizer at 168 kg N ha–1 was applied in a single four-leaf to one-tiller (LPOST) application or two-, three-, and two four-way split applications. Despite starter N fertilizer applications, paraquat injured rice ≥41%, reduced height 57%, reduced dry weight prior to flooding 77%, delayed maturity 10 d, reduced dry weight at maturity 33%, and reduced rough rice yield 35% in the starter fertilizer study. Similarly, in the N fertilizer timing study, paraquat injured rice ≥45%, reduced height 14%, delayed maturity 10 d, reduced dry weight at maturity 44%, and reduced rough rice yield 50% for all N fertilizer management strategies. Both studies indicate that severe complications in growth and development can occur from rice exposure to a sub-lethal concentration of paraquat. In both studies, manipulation of N fertilizer management did not facilitate rice recovery from early-season exposure to paraquat.

In glyphosate-resistant (GR) cropping systems, paraquat applied in mixtures with residual herbicides prior to crop emergence offers an alternative herbicide mode of action (MOA) to aid in GR weed management. Rice is sensitive to off-target herbicide movement; however, severity of injury can vary with herbicide, rate, and formulation. Therefore, research was conducted from 2015 to 2017 in Stoneville, MS, to characterize rice response to a sublethal concentration of paraquat applied at 84 g ai ha–1 in combination with common residual herbicides. Paraquat plus metribuzin injured rice 68% to 69% 14 and 28 d after treatment (DAT), which was 10% to 13% greater than injury following paraquat alone or paraquat plus fomesafen. Pooled across metribuzin and fomesafen treatments, paraquat reduced rough rice yields 23%. Paraquat plus 10 different residual herbicides injured rice ≥51% 28 DAT and reduced rough rice yields ≥21%. These studies indicate a severe negative impact on rice growth and development following exposure to a sublethal concentration of paraquat alone or in mixture with common residual herbicides. Therefore, applications of paraquat plus residual herbicides to fields in proximity to rice should be avoided if conditions are conducive for off-target movement.

Rice with enhanced tolerance to herbicides that inhibit acetyl coA carboxylase (ACCase) allows POST application of quizalofop, an ACCase-inhibiting herbicide. Two concurrent field studies were conducted in 2017 and 2018 near Stoneville, MS, to evaluate control of grass (Grass Study) and broadleaf (Broadleaf Study) weeds with sequential applications of quizalofop alone and in mixtures with auxinic herbicides applied in the first or second application. Sequential treatments of quizalofop were applied at 119 g ai ha−1 alone and in mixtures with labeled rates of auxinic herbicides to rice at the two- to three-leaf (EPOST) or four-leaf to one-tiller (LPOST) growth stages. In the Grass Study, no differences in rice injury or control of volunteer rice (‘CL151’ and ‘Rex’) were detected 14 and 28 d after last application (DA-LPOST). Barnyardgrass control at 14 and 28 DA-LPOST with quizalofop applied alone or with auxinic herbicides EPOST was ≥93% for all auxinic herbicide treatments except penoxsulam plus triclopyr. Barnyardgrass control was ≥96% with quizalofop applied alone and with auxinic herbicides LPOST. In the Broadleaf Study, quizalofop plus florpyrauxifen-benzyl controlled more Palmer amaranth 14 DA-LPOST than other mixtures with auxinic herbicides, and control with this treatment was greater EPOST compared with LPOST. Hemp sesbania control 14 DA-LPOST was ≤90% with quizalofop plus quinclorac LPOST, orthosulfamuron plus quinclorac LPOST, and triclopyr EPOST or LPOST. All mixtures except quinclorac and orthosulfamuron plus quinclorac LPOST controlled ivyleaf morningglory ≥91% 14 DA-LPOST. Florpyrauxifen-benzyl or triclopyr were required for volunteer soybean control >63% 14 DA-LPOST. To optimize barnyardgrass control and rice yield, penoxsulam plus triclopyr and orthosulfamuron plus quinclorac should not be mixed with quizalofop. Quizalofop mixtures with auxinic herbicides are safe and effective for controlling barnyardgrass, volunteer rice, and broadleaf weeds in ACCase-resistant rice, and the choice of herbicide mixture could be adjusted based on weed spectrum in the treated field.

The development of laser wakefield accelerators (LWFA) over the past several years has led to an interest in very compact sources of X-ray radiation – such as “table-top” free electron lasers. However, the use of conventional undulators using permanent magnets also implies system sizes which are large. In this work, we assess the possibilities for the use of novel mini-undulators in conjunction with a LWFA so that the dimensions of the undulator become comparable with the acceleration distances for LWFA experiments (i.e., centimeters). The use of a prototype undulator using laser machining of permanent magnets for this application is described and the emission characteristics and limitations of such a system are determined. Preliminary electron propagation and X-ray emission measurements are taken with a LWFA electron beam at the University of Michigan.

We report the discovery in the Greenland ice sheet of a discrete layer of free nanodiamonds (NDs) in very high abundances, implying most likely either an unprecedented influx of extraterrestrial (ET) material or a cosmic impact event that occurred after the last glacial episode. From that layer, we extracted n-diamonds and hexagonal diamonds (lonsdaleite), an accepted ET impact indicator, at abundances of up to about 5×106 times background levels in adjacent younger and older ice. The NDs in the concentrated layer are rounded, suggesting they most likely formed during a cosmic impact through some process similar to carbon-vapor deposition or high-explosive detonation. This morphology has not been reported previously in cosmic material, but has been observed in terrestrial impact material. This is the first highly enriched, discrete layer of NDs observed in glacial ice anywhere, and its presence indicates that ice caps are important archives of ET events of varying magnitudes. Using a preliminary ice chronology based on oxygen isotopes and dust stratigraphy, the ND-rich layer appears to be coeval with ND abundance peaks reported at numerous North American sites in a sedimentary layer, the Younger Dryas boundary layer (YDB), dating to 12.9 ± 0.1 ka. However, more investigation is needed to confirm this association.

Four field studies were conducted in 2004 to evaluate corn tolerance, weed control, grain yield, and net returns in glufosinate-resistant (GUR), glyphosate-resistant (GYR), imidazolinone-tolerant (IT), and nontransgenic (NT) corn with various herbicide systems. No significant differences between hybrid systems were observed for weed control. Limited corn injury (< 5%) was observed for all herbicide treatments. A single early POST (EPOST) system without S-metolachlor and sequential POST over the top (POT) herbicide systems, averaged over corn hybrids and PRE and late POST-directed (LAYBY) herbicide options, provide 93 and 99% control of goosegrass, respectively, and at least 83 and 97% control of Texas panicum, respectively. A single EPOST system without S-metolachlor, averaged over corn hybrids and LAYBY treatment options, provided at least 88% control of large crabgrass. When averaged over corn hybrid and PRE herbicide options, a sequential POT herbicide system alone provided at least 98, 99, 98, and 100 control of large crabgrass, morningglory species, Palmer amaranth, and common lambsquarters, respectively. The addition of ametryn at LAYBY to a single EPOST system without S-metolachlor was beneficial for improving control of morningglory species, common lambsquarters, and Palmer amaranth, depending on location. However, the observed increases (7 percentage points or less) are likely of limited biological significance. Grain yield was variable between hybrids and locations because of environmental differences. Consequently, net returns for each hybrid system within a location were also variable. Any POT system with or without ametryn at LAYBY, averaged over corn hybrid and PRE herbicide options, provided at least 101, 97, 92, and 92% yield protection at Clayton, Kinston, Lewiston, and Rocky Mount, NC, respectively. Net returns were maximized with treatments that provided excellent weed control with minimal inputs.

Experiments were conducted at three North Carolina research stations in 2003 to evaluate weed control and corn yield in glyphosate-resistant, glufosinate-resistant, imidazolinone-tolerant, and conventional corn weed management systems. Late-season control of common lambsquarters, large crabgrass, and yellow nutsedge increased with metolachlor PRE compared with no PRE herbicide treatment. Common lambsquarters, pitted morningglory, entireleaf morningglory, spurred anoda, and tropic croton control was improved by a single early POST (EPOST) application regardless of herbicide system. Control of common lambsquarters, pitted morningglory, entireleaf morningglory, and spurred anoda was similar for glyphosate and glufosinate systems for each POST over-the-top (POT) herbicide system. A single EPOST application of imazethapyr plus imazapyr to imidazolinone-tolerant corn controlled common lambsquarters, pitted morningglory, entireleaf morningglory, and spurred anoda and was better than a single EPOST application of glyphosate, glufosinate, or nicosulfuron. Tropic croton was controlled ≥ 95% with glufosinate or glyphosate, applied once or twice, or in mixture with metolachlor. A single EPOST application of imazethapyr plus imazapyr or nicosulfuron did not control tropic croton. Common lambsquarters, entireleaf morningglory, large crabgrass, Palmer amaranth, and yellow nutsedge control was greater with a late-POST–directed (LAYBY) of ametryn than no LAYBY. Systems that did not include a POT herbicide system had the lowest percentage in the weed-free yield and the lowest yield. Treatments that included a POT system with or without a PRE treatment of metolachlor yielded within 5% of the weed-free treatment, regardless of herbicide system.

This paper brings together the work of the GI Solvency II Technical Provisions working party. The working party was formed in 2009 for the primary purpose of raising awareness of Solvency II and the impact it would have on the work that reserving actuaries do. Over the years, the working party’s focus has shifted to exploring and promoting discussion of the many practical issues raised by the requirements and to promoting best practice. To this end, we have developed, presented and discussed many of the ideas contained in this paper at events and forums. However, the size of the subject means that at no one event have we managed to cover all of the areas that the reserving actuary needs to be aware of. This paper brings together our thinking in one place for the first time. We hope experienced practitioners will find it thought provoking, and a useful reference tool. For new practitioners, we hope it helps to get you up-to-speed quickly. Good luck!