Summary of experimental results.

Volume x Rates x Chemicals, for broad leaved weed control. 81GE25. Results of Experiment testing herbicides at different rates and volumes of water for control of broadleaved weeds in cereals. 81GE26, Results of experiment testing herbicides at different rates and different volumes for control of broadleaved weeds in cereals. 81ME42, Results of experiment testing herbicides at different rates and volumes for control of broadleaved weeds in cereals. 81WH33, Water volumes and rates of herbicides for broadleaved weed control in cereals. Volume x Rates x Wetting Agent. Hoegrass for ryegrass control. 81LG51, Results of experiment testing Hoegrass rates and volumes of application for control of ryegrass in cereals. 81ME41, Results of experiment testing Hoegrass at different rates and volumes of water for control of ryegrass in cereals. Volume x Rates x Sprayseed for Minimum Tillage. 81WH64, Effect of Volume of water and rate of application of sprayseed for weed control when establishing a crop using minimum tillage. Effect of several herbicide treatments and time of establishing a crop on yield. 81WH61. Volume x Rates x Sprayseed for Minimum Tillage. 81Nr1, Effect of volumes of water and rates of application of sprayseed for grass and broadleaved weed control. 81KA4, Results of experiment testing herbicides for control of soursob and other weeds in cereals. 81GE28, Results of experiments testing chemicals for control of soursob in cereals. 81N056, Results of experiments testing chemicals for control of soursob in cereals. 81N04, Chemicals for Soursob Control. 81N047, Results experiment chemical control of soursob in cereals. Combinations of Chemicals with Glean for Soursob Control. 81GE22, Results of experiment testing chemicals for soursob control in cereals. 81NO57, Results of experiments testing chemicals for control of soursob in cereals

Capeweed, Radish, Wild oats, Sarsaparilla, Four O\u27clock, Saffron thistle, Onion weed, Carnation weed

85WH59, Capeweed time of spraying. Demonstration, capeweed, oil additions. 85N080, radish, nozzle angles x volumes. 85N081, radish, nozzle angles x rates. 85N082, wild oats, nozzle angles x volumes. 85N083, wild oats, nozzle angles x Rates. 85ME1, sarsaparilla, chemicals. 85N075, sarsaparilla, chemicals. 85TS26, 85ME48, 85ME104, 85GE29, saffron thistle, control with ear spraying in pasture. 85TS41, 85GE29a, saffron thistle, chemical control of seed set, 85TS27, saffron thistle, grazing trial. 85GE36, onion weed, chemicals in pasture. 85GE35, carnation weed, chemicals in pasture

Do Patients Use a Headline Section in a Leaflet to Find Key Information About Their Medicines? Findings From a User-Test Study

Background: In the European Union (EU), all medicines are mandated to be provided with a patient information leaflet (PIL). Many patients express concerns about the length and complexity of some PILs, and this can be a disincentive for patients to read the PILS. In order to address this, the UK’s regulatory body (Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency [MHRA]) suggested leaflets might include a headline section—information presented prominently at the beginning of a leaflet that summarizes key safety messages about a drug. Objective: To explore the extent to which readers used a headline section in a PIL, using a form of diagnostic testing called user-testing, which examines how readers find and understand key information. Methods: The study used a cross-sectional design to user-test a PIL with a headline section in a target sample of 20 participants. Participants were provided with an exemplar PIL, and the performance of the PIL was evaluated by a questionnaire and semistructured interview. Results: The results showed that a headline section was used just over one-third of the time (39%); 90% of participants used the headline section to find information when they initially began the user-test. The qualitative findings suggested that the participants valued the presence of the headline section. Conclusion: The research suggests there does not appear to be any negative impact from including a headline section in a PIL, and it is a technique that is highly valued by the consumers of medicines information

Bison foraging responds to fire frequency in nutritionally heterogeneous grassland

Citation: Raynor, E. J., Joern, A., & Briggs, J. M. (2015). Bison foraging responds to fire frequency in nutritionally heterogeneous grassland. Ecology, 96(6), 1586-1597. doi:10.1890/14-2027.1Foraging decisions by native grazers in fire-dependent landscapes modulate the fire-grazing interaction. Uncovering the behavioral mechanisms associated with the attraction of grazers to recently burned areas requires understanding at multiple spatial scales in the ecological foraging hierarchy. This study focused on feeding in the area between steps in a foraging bout, the feeding station, as forage chemistry and vegetation architecture play central roles in these fine-scale, feeding-station decisions. The forage maturation hypothesis (FMH) uses the temporal dynamics of forage quality and quantity in grasslands to explain the distribution of large herbivores, but does not address herbivore responses to inter-patch variation caused by fire-induced nutrient increases of forage quality. Using an experimental setting with contrasting fire treatments we describe the effects of variable burn history on foraging kinetics by bison at Konza Prairie Biological Station (KPBS). We assessed the potential to link the FMH in a complementary fashion to the transient maxima hypothesis (TMH) to explain temporal variation in bison responses to grassland forage quality and quantity in response to burning at different temporal frequencies. Forage attributes met predictions of the TMH that allowed us to investigate how forage maturation affects feeding station foraging behavior across watersheds with varying burn frequency. At sites burned in the spring after several years without burning, both bite mass and intake rate increased with increasing biomass at a greater rate during the growing season than during the transitional midsummer seasonal period. In these infrequently burned watersheds, early growing season bite mass (0.6 +/- 0.05 g; mean +/- SE), bite rate (38 +/- 1.5 bites/ min), and intake rate (21 +/- 2.3 g/min) was reduced by similar to 15%, 13%, and 29% during the midsummer transitional period. A behavioral response in foraging kinetics at the feeding station occurred where a nonequilibrial pulse of high-quality resource was made available and then retained by repeated grazing over the growing season. Our results provide the first experimental evidence for demonstrating the fine-scale behavioral response of a large grazer to fire-induced changes in forage attributes, while linking two prominent hypotheses proposed to explain spatial variation in forage quality and quantity at local and landscape scales

Patients’ use of information about medicine side effects in relation to experiences of suspected adverse drug reactions

Background Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are common, and information about medicines is increasingly widely available to the public. However, relatively little work has explored how people use medicines information to help them assess symptoms that may be suspected ADRs. Objective Our objective was to determine how patients use patient information leaflets (PILs) or other medicines information sources and whether information use differs depending on experiences of suspected ADRs. Method This was a cross-sectional survey conducted in six National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in North West England involving medical in-patients taking at least two regular medicines prior to admission. The survey was administered via a questionnaire and covered use of the PIL and other medicines information sources, perceived knowledge about medicines risks/ADRs, experiences of suspected ADRs, plus demographic information. Results Of the 1,218 respondents to the survey, 18.8 % never read the PIL, whilst 6.5 % only do so if something unexpected happens. Educational level was related to perceived knowledge about medicines risks, but not to reading the PIL or seeking further information about medicines risks. Over half the respondents (56.0 %) never sought more information about possible side effects of medicines. A total of 57.2 % claimed they had experienced a suspected ADR. Of these 85.9 % were either very sure or fairly sure this was a reaction to a medicine. Over half of those experiencing a suspected ADR (53.8 %) had read the PIL, of whom 36.2 % did so before the suspected ADR occurred, the remainder afterwards. Reading the PIL helped 84.8 % of these respondents to decide they had experienced an ADR. Educational level, general knowledge of medicines risks and number of regular medicines used all increased the likelihood of experiencing an ADR. Conclusion More patients should be encouraged to read the PIL supplied with medicines. The results support the view that most patients feel knowledgeable about medicines risks and suspected ADRs and value information about side effects, but that reading about side effects in PILs or other medicines information sources does not lead to experiences of suspected ADRs