4-Hydroxyphenylpyruvate Dioxygenase (HPPD)-Inhibiting Herbicides: Past, Present, and Future

The 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)-inhibiting herbicides are primarily used for weed control in corn, barley, oat, rice, sorghum, sugarcane, and wheat production fields in the United States. The objectives of this review were to summarize (1) the history of HPPD-inhibitor and their use in the United States, (2) HPPD-inhibitor resistant weeds, their mechanism of resistance, and management, (3) interaction of HPPD-inhibitor with other herbicides, and (4) the future of HPPD-inhibitor-resistant crops. As of 2022, three broadleaf weeds (Palmer amaranth, waterhemp, and wild radish) have evolved resistance to the HPPD-inhibitor. The predominance of metabolic resistance to HPPD-inhibitor was found in aforementioned three weed species. Management of HPPD-inhibitor-resistant weeds can be accomplished using alternate herbicides such as glyphosate, glufosinate, 2,4-D, or dicamba; however, metabolic resistance poses a serious challenge, as the weeds may be cross-resistant to other herbicide sites of action, leading to limited herbicide options. The HPPD-inhibitor is commonly applied with photosystem II (PS II)-inhibitor to increase efficacy and weed control spectrum. The synergism with HPPD-inhibitor arises from depletion of plastoquinones, which allows increased binding of PS II-inhibitor to the D1 protein. New HPPD-inhibitor from azole carboxamides class is in development and expected to be available in the near future. The HPPD-inhibitor-resistant crops have been developed through overexpression of a resistant bacterial HPPD enzyme in plants and the overexpression of transgenes for HPPD and a microbial gene that enhances the production of HPPD substrate. Isoxaflutole-resistant soybean is commercially available, and it is expected that soybean resistant to other HPPD-inhibitor such as mesotrione, stacked with resistance to other herbicides, will be available in the near future

A global experiment on motivating social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic

Finding communication strategies that effectively motivate social distancing continues to be a global public health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. This cross-country, preregistered experiment (n = 25,718 from 89 countries) tested hypotheses concerning generalizable positive and negative outcomes of social distancing messages that promoted personal agency and reflective choices (i.e., an autonomy-supportive message) or were restrictive and shaming (i.e., a controlling message) compared with no message at all. Results partially supported experimental hypotheses in that the controlling message increased controlled motivation (a poorly internalized form of motivation relying on shame, guilt, and fear of social consequences) relative to no message. On the other hand, the autonomy-supportive message lowered feelings of defiance compared with the controlling message, but the controlling message did not differ from receiving no message at all. Unexpectedly, messages did not influence autonomous motivation (a highly internalized form of motivation relying on one’s core values) or behavioral intentions. Results supported hypothesized associations between people’s existing autonomous and controlled motivations and self-reported behavioral intentions to engage in social distancing. Controlled motivation was associated with more defiance and less long-term behavioral intention to engage in social distancing, whereas autonomous motivation was associated with less defiance and more short- and long-term intentions to social distance. Overall, this work highlights the potential harm of using shaming and pressuring language in public health communication, with implications for the current and future global health challenges

Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2015: advancing efficient methodologies through community partnerships and team science

It is well documented that the majority of adults, children and families in need of evidence-based behavioral health interventionsi do not receive them [1, 2] and that few robust empirically supported methods for implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) exist. The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) represents a burgeoning effort to advance the innovation and rigor of implementation research and is uniquely focused on bringing together researchers and stakeholders committed to evaluating the implementation of complex evidence-based behavioral health interventions. Through its diverse activities and membership, SIRC aims to foster the promise of implementation research to better serve the behavioral health needs of the population by identifying rigorous, relevant, and efficient strategies that successfully transfer scientific evidence to clinical knowledge for use in real world settings [3]. SIRC began as a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded conference series in 2010 (previously titled the “Seattle Implementation Research Conference”; $150,000 USD for 3 conferences in 2011, 2013, and 2015) with the recognition that there were multiple researchers and stakeholdersi working in parallel on innovative implementation science projects in behavioral health, but that formal channels for communicating and collaborating with one another were relatively unavailable. There was a significant need for a forum within which implementation researchers and stakeholders could learn from one another, refine approaches to science and practice, and develop an implementation research agenda using common measures, methods, and research principles to improve both the frequency and quality with which behavioral health treatment implementation is evaluated. SIRC’s membership growth is a testament to this identified need with more than 1000 members from 2011 to the present.ii SIRC’s primary objectives are to: (1) foster communication and collaboration across diverse groups, including implementation researchers, intermediariesi, as well as community stakeholders (SIRC uses the term “EBP champions” for these groups) – and to do so across multiple career levels (e.g., students, early career faculty, established investigators); and (2) enhance and disseminate rigorous measures and methodologies for implementing EBPs and evaluating EBP implementation efforts. These objectives are well aligned with Glasgow and colleagues’ [4] five core tenets deemed critical for advancing implementation science: collaboration, efficiency and speed, rigor and relevance, improved capacity, and cumulative knowledge. SIRC advances these objectives and tenets through in-person conferences, which bring together multidisciplinary implementation researchers and those implementing evidence-based behavioral health interventions in the community to share their work and create professional connections and collaborations

No Evidence Sowing Date Influences Optimum Plant Density of Sweet Corn Grown in the Midwestern United States

Sweet corn (Zea mays L.var. rugosa or saccharata) is sown across a wide range of dates to provide a steady supply of marketable ears for fresh market and processing. There is a perception in the sweet corn industry that plant density tolerance declines in late-season plantings in the midwestern United States; however, publicly available data to support this perception cannot be found. Using field experiments, the objectives of this research were to quantify the effect of the sowing date on growth responses to plant density and determine the extent to which the sowing date influences the optimum plant density and maximum yield/profit. There were few main effects or interactions of the sowing date on crop growth. More importantly, there was no effect of the sowing date on the economically optimum plant density or plant density that optimized yield. Although variations exist in sweet corn optimum plant densities in the midwestern United States, these variations are likely driven by several factors other than the sowing date that have not yet been fully characterized