Performance of carrot and onion seed primed with beneficial microorganisms in glasshouse and field trials

Beneficial microorganisms (Clonostachys rosea IK726, Pseudomonas chlororaphis MA342, Pseudomonas fluorescens CHA0, Trichoderma harzianum T22 and Trichoderma viride S17a) were successfully applied to carrot and onion seed during a commercial drum priming process. Applied microorganisms were recovered above the target of at least 1 × 105 cfu g−1 seed following subsequent application of pesticides to the seed according to standard commercial practices of film-coating carrot and pelletting onion seed. Two glasshouse experiments consistently showed that priming improved emergence of carrot seed and that C. rosea IK726 further improved emergence time. Priming improved emergence of onion seed in one glasshouse experiment, but had an unexpected negative effect on emergence in the second experiment, possibly due to the proliferation of an unidentified indigenous microorganism during priming, becoming deleterious in high numbers. In this experiment, the application of beneficial microorganisms during priming negated this effect and significantly improved emergence. For each crop, a series of field trials was also carried out over three years, at two different sites each year. Although some positive effects of different seed treatments were seen on emergence or yield in individual field trials, no consistent effects were found for primed or microorganism-treated seed across all sites and years. However, a combined analysis of data for all years and sites indicated that pesticide application did consistently improve emergence and yield for both carrot and onion. This is the first comprehensive study assessing glasshouse and field performance of carrot and onion seed primed with beneficial microorganisms during a commercial process of drum priming in the UK

UC-26 Pose Extraction for Real-time Workout Assist_Capstone Group_W01_Spring Semester

Motion Intelligence Research Project We installed and tested many existing pose extraction technologies in many situations. We provided reports on the different software solutions and decided on a single solution that performed the best. We will extract key-points and track the movements across multiple dimensions. We will demonstrate the X and Y movements of everyone for our chosen software solution in a Business Intelligent tool (PowerBI). Given the current epidemic, we are not going to be able to compare against the professional KinaTrax software on campus. Although, Dr. Xie has given us other software packages to compare our given software solution against. We will compare the accuracy, speed, and performance of these solutions against ours and demonstrate the differences in our Business Intelligent tool (powerBI). We will them compile all our findings in a PowerPoint presentation and Final Project Package. We hope our findings will assist in Motion intelligence and body tracking research and development.Advisors(s): Dr. Ying Xie & Dr. Linh Le Dr. John Johnson – Exercise ScienceTopic(s): Artificial IntelligenceIT498

Distance models as a tool for modelling detection probability and density of native bumblebees

Effective monitoring of native bee populations requires accurate estimates of population size and relative abundance among habitats. Current bee survey methods, such as netting or pan trapping, may be adequate for a variety of study objectives but are limited by a failure to account for imperfect detection. Biases due to imperfect detection could result in inaccurate abundance estimates or erroneous insights about the response of bees to different environments. To gauge the potential biases of currently employed survey methods, we compared abundance estimates of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) derived from hierarchical distance sampling models (HDS) to bumblebee counts collected from fixed‐area net surveys (“net counts”) and fixed‐width transect counts (“transect counts”) at 47 early‐successional forest patches in Pennsylvania. Our HDS models indicated that detection probabilities of Bombus spp. were imperfect and varied with survey‐ and site‐covariates. Despite being conspicuous, Bombus spp. were not reliably detected beyond 5 m. Habitat associations of Bombus spp. density were similar across methods, but the strength of association with shrub cover differed between HDS and net counts. Additionally, net counts suggested sites with more grass hosted higher Bombus spp. densities whereas HDS suggested that grass cover was associated with higher detection probability but not Bombus spp. density. Density estimates generated from net counts and transect counts were 80%–89% lower than estimates generated from distance sampling. Our findings suggest that distance modelling provides a reliable method to assess Bombus spp. density and habitat associations, while accounting for imperfect detection caused by distance from observer, vegetation structure, and survey covariates. However, detection/ non‐detection data collected via point‐counts, line‐transects and distance sampling for Bombus spp. are unlikely to yield species‐specific density estimates unless individuals can be identified by sight, without capture. Our results will be useful for informing the design of monitoring programs for Bombus spp. and other pollinators

The role of volunteer support in the community for adults with hearing loss and hearing aids

Objectives: To explore interactions between audiology patients and volunteers, to describe encounters and define the role of volunteers. Methods: Qualitative ethnographic and interview study of volunteer-patient interactions. Ten volunteer participants from two volunteer schemes in South West England were observed and interviewed. Three patient participants were interviewed. Results: Analysis of observational data showed that volunteers provided support relating to local services and hearing aids, but did not engage in discussions about hearing loss. Interviews with volunteers identified gaps in audiology provision, including accessible services and clear information and highlighted a need for more support from audiology services to enable them to fulfil their role. Volunteer interactions with patients mimicked a clinician-patient encounter and volunteers employed strategies and behaviours used by professional audiologists. Conclusions: Audiology volunteers could provide an accessible bridge between health services and the community but their care is limited to focus on hearing aids. Practice implications: Volunteers enable patients to use hearing aids appropriately and are a core element of current care arrangements. However, volunteers express a need for adequate support from audiology services. Volunteers have the potential to increase service capacity and to bridge the gaps between community and audiology healthcare services

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for stroke recovery

BACKGROUND: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) might theoretically reduce post‐stroke disability by direct effects on the brain. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2012 and last updated in 2019. OBJECTIVES: To determine if SSRIs are more effective than placebo or usual care at improving outcomes in people less than 12 months post‐stroke, and to determine whether treatment with SSRIs is associated with adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 7 January 2021), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 7 January 2021), MEDLINE (1946 to 7 January 2021), Embase (1974 to 7 January 2021), CINAHL (1982 to 7 January 2021), PsycINFO (1985 to 7 January 2021), and AMED (1985 to 7 January 2021). PsycBITE had previously been searched (16 July 2018). We searched clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting stroke survivors within the first year. The intervention was any SSRI, at any dose, for any period, and for any indication. The comparator was usual care or placebo. Studies reporting at least one of our primary (disability score or independence) or secondary outcomes (impairments, depression, anxiety, quality of life, fatigue, cognition, healthcare cost, death, adverse events and leaving the study early) were included in the meta‐analysis. The primary analysis included studies at low risk of bias. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on demographics, stroke type and, our pre‐specified outcomes, and bias sources. Two review authors independently extracted data. We used mean difference (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables, and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous variables, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed bias risks and applied GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 76 eligible studies (13,029 participants); 75 provided data at end of treatment, and of these two provided data at follow‐up. Thirty‐eight required participants to have depression to enter. The duration, drug, and dose varied. Six studies were at low risk of bias across all domains; all six studies did not need participants to have depression to enter, and all used fluoxetine. Of these six studies, there was little to no difference in disability between groups SMD ‐0.0; 95% CI ‐0.05 to 0.05; 5 studies, 5436 participants, high‐quality evidence) or in independence (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03; 5 studies, 5926 participants; high‐quality evidence) at the end of treatment. In the studies at low risk of bias across all domains, SSRIs slightly reduced the average depression score (SMD 0.14 lower, 95% CI 0.19 lower to 0.08 lower; 4 studies; 5356 participants, high‐quality evidence) and there was a slight reduction in the proportion with depression (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.86; 3 studies, 5907 participants, high‐quality evidence). Cognition was slightly better in the control group (MD ‐1.22, 95% CI ‐2.37 to ‐0.07; 4 studies, 5373 participants, moderate‐quality evidence). Only one study (n = 30) reported neurological deficit score (SMD ‐0.39, 95% CI ‐1.12 to 0.33; low‐quality evidence). SSRIs resulted in little to no difference in motor deficit (SMD 0.03, ‐0.02 to 0.08; 6 studies, 5518 participants, moderate‐quality evidence). SSRIs slightly increased the proportion leaving the study early (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.40; 6 studies, 6090 participants, high‐quality evidence). SSRIs slightly increased the outcome of a seizure (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.98; 6 studies, 6080 participants, moderate‐quality evidence) and a bone fracture (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.62 to 3.41; 6 studies, 6080 participants, high‐quality evidence). One study at low risk of bias across all domains reported gastrointestinal side effects (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.33, to 8.83; 1 study, 30 participants). There was no difference in the total number of deaths between SSRI and placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.24; 6 studies, 6090 participants, moderate quality evidence). SSRIs probably result in little to no difference in fatigue (MD ‐0.06; 95% CI ‐1.24 to 1.11; 4 studies, 5524 participants, moderate‐quality of evidence), nor in quality of life (MD 0.00; 95% CI ‐0.02 to 0.02, 3 studies, 5482 participants, high‐quality evidence). When all studies, irrespective of risk of bias, were included, SSRIs reduced disability scores but not the proportion independent. There was insufficient data to perform a meta‐analysis of outcomes at end of follow‐up. Several small ongoing studies are unlikely to alter conclusions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high‐quality evidence that SSRIs do not make a difference to disability or independence after stroke compared to placebo or usual care, reduced the risk of future depression, increased bone fractures and probably increased seizure risk