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

Could digital imaging be an alternative for digital colorimeters?

This study evaluated the colour parameters of composite and ceramic shade guides determined using a colorimeter and digital imaging method with illuminants at different colour temperatures. Two different resin composite shade guides, namely Charisma (Heraeus Kulzer) and Premise (Kerr Corporation), and two different ceramic shade guides, Vita Lumin Vacuum (VITA Zahnfabrik) and Noritake (Noritake Co.), were evaluated at three different colour temperatures (2,700 K, 2,700-6,500 K, and 6500 K) of illuminants. Ten shade tabs were selected (A1, A2, A3, A3,5, A4, B1, B2, B3, C2 and C3) from each shade guide. CIE Lab values were obtained using digital imaging and a colorimeter (ShadeEye NCC Dental Chroma Meter, Shofu Inc.). The data were analysed using two-way ANOVA, and Pearson's correlation. While mean L* values of both composite and ceramic shade guides were not affected from the colour temperature, L* values obtained with the colorimeter showed significantly lower values than those of the digital imaging (p 0.05). For both composite and ceramic shade guides, L* and b* values obtained from colorimeter and digital imaging method presented a high level of correlation. High-level correlations were also acquired for a* values in all shade guides except for the Charisma composite shade guide. Digital imaging method could be an alternative for the colorimeters unless the proper object-camera distance, digital camera settings and suitable illumination conditions could be supplied. However, variations in shade guides, especially for composites, may affect the correlation