Breaking Seed Dormancy in Three Poaceae Species

Seed dormancy is a major impediment to germination testing in seed testing laboratories. Dormant seeds are alive but do not germinate under conditions favorable for germination of non-dormant seeds of the same species. Dormancy in many pant species can be broken using a single ·treatment or a combination of treatments. Treatments commonly used are light or dark, various temperature regimes, prolonged exposure to cold treatments (pre-chilling), and the use of growth hormones or other chemicals. Three Poaceae species, winter wheat (Triticum aestiivum), prairie drop seed V (Sporobolus heterolepis), and prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), were the subject of this research. Winter wheat seed dormancy can be a problem because of the short turn around from harvest to planting in the upper Midwest. New crop wheat seeds need to be planted and exposed to cold temperatures (5°C) for five days to often break dormancy. The other two species, prairie dropseed and prairie cordgrass, do not have any standardized or published testing methods. To break dormancy in winter wheat, different exposure times (3-day and 5-day) to cold temperatures and growth hormones or chemicals were evaluated for seed crops produced during 2000 and 2001. Chemical treatments used were 1000 ppm and 5000 ppm gibberellic acid, potassium nitrate (first year only), and ethephbn (first year only), and de-ionized water as a control. The 3-day pre-chill (95.8% mean germination) worked as well as the 5-day pre-chill (95.8% mean germination). Gibberellic acid at 5000 ppm had the highest mean percent germination (94.2%) of the chemical treatments. With prairie cordgrass, light and dark, use of growth hormones or chemicals, and various temperature regimes were evaluated to start developing optimum methods for germination testing or reducing dormancy. Results indicated that there appears to be no difference between light and dark treatments. The most promising temperature is an alternating 20-30°C. The chemical of choice would be 0.2% potassium nitrate. Gibberellic acid at 5000 ppm caused abnormalities resulting in stunted root growth. Prairie dropseed was exposed to a pre-chill treatment, varying germination temperature regimes, and growth hormones or chemicals to break dormancy. The seeds were exposed to a pre-chill {5°C) for two weeks and then planted at various temperature regimes with different growth hormones ·or chemicals. A set of each sample for each treatment and temperature was placed straight into the germinators to examine the effect of the pre-chill. The chemicals used were potassium nitrate, 500 ppm, 1000 ppm, and 5000 ppm gibberellic acid, 1.0 mM ethephon, and de-ionized water control. The temperature that appears to break dormancy and maintain viability is either 20-30°C or 25°C. The chemical treatment that yielded the lowest dormancy and maintained viability was potassium nitrate or de-ionized water

Vaccine mandates, public trust, and vaccine confidence: understanding perceptions is important.

The experience in Australia with penalizing parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated demonstrates the need to study and understand resistance to vaccination as a global phenomenon with particular local manifestations

Vaccines and the Social Amplification of Risk

In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) named “Vaccine Hesitancy” one of the top 10 threats to global health. Shortly afterward, the COVID-19 pandemic emerged as the world\u27s predominant health concern. COVID-19 vaccines of several types have been developed, tested, and partially deployed with remarkable speed; vaccines are now the primary control measure and hope for a return to normalcy. However, hesitancy concerning these vaccines, along with resistance to masking and other control measures, remains a substantial obstacle. The previous waves of vaccine hesitancy that led to the WHO threat designation, together with recent COVID-19 experience, provide a window for viewing new forms of social amplification of risk (SAR). Not surprisingly, vaccines provide fertile ground for questions, anxieties, concerns, and rumors. These appear in new globalized hyperconnected communications landscapes and in the context of complex human (social, economic, and political) systems that exhibit evolving concerns about vaccines and authorities. We look at drivers, impacts, and implications for vaccine initiatives in several recent historical examples and in the current efforts with COVID-19 vaccination. Findings and insights were drawn from the Vaccine Confidence Project\u27s decade long monitoring of media and social media and its related research efforts. The trends in vaccine confidence and resistance have implications for updating the social amplification of risk framework (SARF); in turn, SARF has practical implications for guiding efforts to alleviate vaccine hesitancy and to mitigate harms from intentional and unintentional vaccine scares

The globalization of risk and risk perception: why we need a new model of risk communication for vaccines.

Risk communication and vaccines is complex and the nature of risk perception is changing, with perceptions converging, evolving and having impacts well beyond specific geographic localities and points in time, especially when amplified through the Internet and other modes of global communication. This article examines the globalization of risk perceptions and their impacts, including the example of measles and the globalization of measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine risk perceptions, and calls for a new, more holistic model of risk assessment, risk communication and risk mitigation, embedded in an ongoing process of risk management for vaccines and immunization programmes. It envisions risk communication as an ongoing process that includes trust-building strategies hand-in-hand with operational and policy strategies needed to mitigate and manage vaccine-related risks, as well as perceptions of risk

Reasons for non-vaccination: Parental vaccine hesitancy and the childhood influenza vaccination school pilot programme in England.

INTRODUCTION: In 2013, the annual influenza immunisation programme in England was extended to children to reduce the burden of influenza, but uptake was sub-optimal at 53.2%. AIM: To explore the reasons some parents decided not to vaccinate their child against influenza as part of the pilot programme offered in schools. METHODS: Cross-sectional qualitative study conducted between February and July 2015. 913 parents whose children were not vaccinated against influenza in the school pilots in West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester, England, were asked to comment on their reasons for non-vaccination and invited to take part in a semi-structured interview. 138 parents returned response forms, of which 38 were eligible and interested in participating and 25 were interviewed. Interview transcripts were coded by theme in NVivo. RESULTS: A third of parents who returned response forms had either vaccinated their child elsewhere, intended to have them vaccinated, or had not vaccinated them due to medical reasons (valid or perceived). Most interviewees were not convinced of the need to vaccinate their child against influenza. Parents expressed concerns about influenza vaccine effectiveness and vaccine side effects. Several parents interviewed declined the vaccine for faith reasons due to the presence of porcine gelatine in the vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: To significantly decrease the burden of influenza in England, influenza vaccination coverage in children needs to be >60%. Hence, it is important to understand the reasons why parents are not vaccinating their children, and to tailor the communication and immunisation programme accordingly. Our finding that a third of parents, who did not consent to their child being vaccinated as part of the school programme, had actually vaccinated their child elsewhere, intended to have their child vaccinated, or had not vaccinated them due to medical reasons, illustrates the importance of including additional questions or data sources when investigating under-vaccination

The benefit of the doubt or doubts over benefits? A systematic literature review of perceived risks of vaccines in European populations.

OBJECTIVES: The success of vaccination strategies depends in part on population perceptions of benefits and risks of vaccines and related confidence in vaccination. Better knowledge of public concerns about vaccines and what is driving them is needed to inform vaccination strategies and communications. This literature reviewer examined studies on vaccine and vaccination risk perceptions and concerns across European populations. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies published between 2004 and 2014 in Europe. A descriptive analysis was performed. FINDINGS: A total of 145 articles were selected, most of which were conducted in the UK, the Netherlands and France and studied seasonal influenza, HPV and pandemic influenza vaccination. Across all countries and vaccines, the primary area of concern was vaccine safety, followed by perceptions of low likelihood of contracting vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs), perceived low severity of VPDs, beliefs that vaccines do not work, and overall lack of information. Concerns were found to be vaccine-, country- and population-specific. CONCLUSION: In addition to identifying concerns about vaccination in Europe, this study confirmed the notion that individuals have many safety concerns about vaccination and often believe that the risks of vaccination outweigh their benefits. More research needs to be conducted to explore the impact of different types of communication strategies, which would frame the benefits of vaccination as well as risks of not vaccinating. Strategies to better inform public perceptions of vaccines should include the provision of unbiased, comprehensive information tailored to population information needs, and delivered using multiple and new communication technologies such as social media

Freshman Connection Mentorship Program

This workshop will present the Freshman Connection mentorship program and its impact on freshman students at Eastern Illinois University. The program focuses on building inclusivity at EIU and supporting students from all backgrounds, like commuters and first generation students. The data will also highlight leadership opportunities and benefits of the program

Mandating COVID-19 Vaccines

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines hold promise to control the pandemic, and help restore normal social and economic life. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for 2 mRNA vaccines and will likely issue full biologics licenses in the coming months. Anticipating vaccine scarcity, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP) published guidance on vaccine priorities.Data show 95% efficacy for vaccines granted an EUA, but even highly effective vaccines cannot curb the pandemic without high population coverage and maintenance of other mitigation strategies. Recent data from 1,676 adults surveyed November 30-December 8, 2020 found that when a COVID-19 vaccine is approved and widely available: 34% would get it as soon as possible; 39% would wait; 9% would only get it if required for work/school; 15% would definitely not get it. Black persons, at high risk of infection and hospitalization, are less likely to report vaccine intent with only 20% reporting they would get the vaccine soon and 52% intending to wait. Intent to vaccinate has changed substantially over time and is likely to evolve. In this JAMA Viewpoint, we examine whether vaccine mandates would be lawful and ethical, and whether they could boost vaccine uptake