Hydromulches suppress weeds and maintain fruit production in organically managed strawberry systems

Polyethylene (PE) mulches are widely used in strawberry (Fragaria×ananassa Duch) production for weed suppression and crop growth optimization. However, PE mulches are not biodegradable and contribute to plastic pollution. Our objective was to develop and test biodegradable liquid-applied ‘hydromulches’ (HMs) as a sustainable alternative to PE mulch. HM weed suppression efficacy, strawberry plant growth, and yield were evaluated. HM formulations consisted of shredded newsprint paper (NP), water, and a tackifier, either guar gum (GG) or psyllium husk (PH) added at 2 or 6%. Experiments were conducted at two environmentally distinct locations: northwest Washington (WA) and eastern North Dakota (ND). Five HM formulations were compared to black PE mulch within a randomized complete block design with four replications. PE mulch suppressed weeds completely at peak weed emergence and peak weed vegetative growth at both locations. Formulations of HM containing GG provided superior weed suppression compared to other HM formulations at peak weed emergence (4–6 vs. 18–22 plants m-2, respectively). At peak vegetative growth, HM formulations containing GG had the lowest weed density compared to other HMs in ND (1 vs. 9–12 plants m-2), whereas these differences were not observed in WA. Total weed biomass did not differ among HMs across both locations. GG HM formulations deteriorated similarly to PE mulch (3–5% vs. 2%, respectively) in ND, whereas other HMs deteriorated more substantially. In WA, all HMs deteriorated more than PE mulch (6–12% vs. 1%, respectively). Fruit yield did not differ among treatments in weedy and weed-free subplots (194–254 g plant-1) in WA. In ND, yield was greater in all HM treatments compared to PE mulch in both weedy and weed-free subplots. Across both locations, strawberry canopy cover was greater in PE mulch (56.1% canopy cover) compared to 2%GG and NP (42.4 and 39.8% canopy cover). Strawberry plant biomass was similar among mulch treatments. However, strawberry leaf and crown biomass were slightly lower in 2%PH compared to other mulch treatments. Results demonstrate HMs with GG tackifier are a promising alternative to PE mulch in organic strawberry systems based on ability to suppress weeds, enhance strawberry growth, and maintain yield

American Cancer Society prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Prostate cancer survivors approach 2.8 million in number and represent 1 in 5 of all cancer survivors in the United States. While guidelines exist for timely treatment and surveillance for recurrent disease, there is limited availability of guidelines that facilitate the provision of posttreatment clinical follow‐up care to address the myriad of long‐term and late effects that survivors may face. Based on recommendations set forth by a National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center expert panel, the American Cancer Society developed clinical follow‐up care guidelines to facilitate the provision of posttreatment care by primary care clinicians. These guidelines were developed using a combined approach of evidence synthesis and expert consensus. Existing guidelines for health promotion, surveillance, and screening for second primary cancers were referenced when available. To promote comprehensive follow‐up care and optimal health and quality of life for the posttreatment survivor, the guidelines address health promotion, surveillance for prostate cancer recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, long‐term and late effects assessment and management, psychosocial issues, and care coordination among the oncology team, primary care clinicians, and nononcology specialists. A key challenge to the development of these guidelines was the limited availability of published evidence for management of prostate cancer survivors after treatment. Much of the evidence relies on studies with small sample sizes and retrospective analyses of facility‐specific and population databases. CA Cancer J Clin 2014;64:225–249. © 2014 American Cancer Society .Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/108098/1/caac21234.pd