Defects in Chiral Columnar Phases: Tilt Grain Boundaries and Iterated Moire Maps

Biomolecules are often very long with a definite chirality. DNA, xanthan and poly-gamma-benzyl-glutamate (PBLG) can all form columnar crystalline phases. The chirality, however, competes with the tendency for crystalline order. For chiral polymers, there are two sorts of chirality: the first describes the usual cholesteric-like twist of the local director around a pitch axis, while the second favors the rotation of the local bond-orientational order and leads to a braiding of the polymers along an average direction. In the former case chirality can be manifested in a tilt grain boundary phase (TGB) analogous to the Renn-Lubensky phase of smectic-A liquid crystals. In the latter case we are led to a new "moire" state with twisted bond order. In the moire state polymers are simultaneously entangled, crystalline, and aligned, on average, in a common direction. In the moire state polymers are simultaneously entangled, crystalline, and aligned, on average, in a common direction. In this case the polymer trajectories in the plane perpendicular to their average direction are described by iterated moire maps of remarkable complexity, reminiscent of dynamical systems.Comment: plain TeX, (33 pages), 17 figures, some uufiled and included, the remaining available at ftp://ftp.sns.ias.edu/pub/kamien/ or by request to [email protected]

Pesticide And Transformation Product Detections And Age-Dating Relations From Till And Sand Deposits

Pesticide and transformation product concentrations and frequencies in ground water from areas of similar crop and pesticide applications may vary substantially with differing lithologies. Pesticide analysis data for atrazine, metolachlor, alachlor, acetochlor, and cyanazine and their pesticide transformation products were collected at 69 monitoring wells in Illinois and northern Indiana to document occurrence of pesticides and their transformation products in two agricultural areas of differing lithologies, till, and sand. The till is primarily tile drained and has preferential fractured flow, whereas the sand primarily has surface water drainage and primary porosity flow. Transformation products represent most of the agricultural pesticides in ground water regardless of aquifer material – till or sand. Transformation products were detected more frequently than parent pesticides in both the till and sand, with metolachlor ethane sulfonic acid being most frequently detected. Estimated ground-water recharge dates for the sand were based on chlorofluorocarbon analyses. These age-dating data indicate that ground water recharged prior to 1990 is more likely to have a detection of a pesticide or pesticide transformation product. Detections were twice as frequent in ground water recharged prior to 1990 (82%) than in ground water recharged on or after 1990 (33%). The highest concentrations of atrazine, alachlor, metolachlor, and their transformation products, also were detected in samples from ground water recharged prior to 1990. These age ⁄ pesticide detection relations are opposite of what would normally be expected, and may be the result of preferential flow and ⁄ or ground-water mixing between aquifers and aquitards as evident by the detection of acetochlor transformation products in samples with estimated ground-water ages predating initial pesticide application

Herbicide-Resistant Crops: Utilities and Limitations for Herbicide-Resistant Weed Management

Since 1996, genetically modified herbicide-resistant (HR) crops, particularly glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops, have transformed the tactics that corn, soybean, and cotton growers use to manage weeds. The use of GR crops continues to grow, but weeds are adapting to the common practice of using only glyphosate to control weeds. Growers using only a single mode of action to manage weeds need to change to a more diverse array of herbicidal, mechanical, and cultural practices to maintain the effectiveness of glyphosate. Unfortunately, the introduction of GR crops and the high initial efficacy of glyphosate often lead to a decline in the use of other herbicide options and less investment by industry to discover new herbicide active ingredients. With some exceptions, most growers can still manage their weed problems with currently available selective and HR crop-enabled herbicides. However, current crop management systems are in jeopardy given the pace at which weed populations are evolving glyphosate resistance. New HR crop technologies will expand the utility of currently available herbicides and enable new interim solutions for growers to manage HR weeds, but will not replace the long-term need to diversify weed management tactics and discover herbicides with new modes of action. This paper reviews the strengths and weaknesses of anticipated weed management options and the best management practices that growers need to implement in HR crops to maximize the long-term benefits of current technologies and reduce weed shifts to difficult-to-control and HR weeds

An ecological future for weed science to sustain crop production and the environment. A review

Sustainable strategies for managing weeds are critical to meeting agriculture's potential to feed the world's population while conserving the ecosystems and biodiversity on which we depend. The dominant paradigm of weed management in developed countries is currently founded on the two principal tools of herbicides and tillage to remove weeds. However, evidence of negative environmental impacts from both tools is growing, and herbicide resistance is increasingly prevalent. These challenges emerge from a lack of attention to how weeds interact with and are regulated by the agroecosystem as a whole. Novel technological tools proposed for weed control, such as new herbicides, gene editing, and seed destructors, do not address these systemic challenges and thus are unlikely to provide truly sustainable solutions. Combining multiple tools and techniques in an Integrated Weed Management strategy is a step forward, but many integrated strategies still remain overly reliant on too few tools. In contrast, advances in weed ecology are revealing a wealth of options to manage weedsat the agroecosystem levelthat, rather than aiming to eradicate weeds, act to regulate populations to limit their negative impacts while conserving diversity. Here, we review the current state of knowledge in weed ecology and identify how this can be translated into practical weed management. The major points are the following: (1) the diversity and type of crops, management actions and limiting resources can be manipulated to limit weed competitiveness while promoting weed diversity; (2) in contrast to technological tools, ecological approaches to weed management tend to be synergistic with other agroecosystem functions; and (3) there are many existing practices compatible with this approach that could be integrated into current systems, alongside new options to explore. Overall, this review demonstrates that integrating systems-level ecological thinking into agronomic decision-making offers the best route to achieving sustainable weed management

The Present and Future Role of Insect-Resistant Genetically Modified Maize in IPM

Commercial, genetically-modified (GM) maize was first planted in the United States (USA, 1996) and Canada (1997) but now is grown in 13 countries on a total of over 35 million hectares (\u3e24% of area worldwide). The first GM maize plants produced a Cry protein derived from the soil bacteriumBacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which made them resistant to European corn borer and other lepidopteran maize pests. New GM maize hybrids not only have resistance to lepidopteran pests but some have resistance to coleopteran pests and tolerance to specific herbicides. Growers are attracted to the Btmaize hybrids for their convenience and because of yield protection, reduced need for chemical insecticides, and improved grain quality. Yet, most growers worldwide still rely on traditional integrated pest management (IPM) methods to control maize pests. They must weigh the appeal of buying insect protection “in the bag” against questions regarding economics, environmental safety, and insect resistance management (IRM). Traditional management of maize insects and the opportunities and challenges presented by GM maize are considered as they relate to current and future insect-resistant products. Four countries, two that currently have commercialize Bt maize (USA and Spain) and two that do not (China and Kenya), are highlighted. As with other insect management tactics (e.g., insecticide use or tillage), GM maize should not be considered inherently compatible or incompatible with IPM. Rather, the effect of GM insect-resistance on maize IPM likely depends on how the technology is developed and used