The role that vitamin D plays in pulmonary function remains uncertain. Epidemiological studies reported mixed findings for serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D)–pulmonary function association. We conducted the largest cross-sectional meta-analysis of the 25(OH)D–pulmonary function association to date, based on nine European ancestry (EA) cohorts (n 22 838) and five African ancestry (AA) cohorts (n 4290) in the Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology Consortium. Data were analysed using linear models by cohort and ancestry. Effect modification by smoking status (current/former/never) was tested. Results were combined using fixed-effects meta-analysis. Mean serum 25(OH)D was 68 (sd 29) nmol/l for EA and 49 (sd 21) nmol/l for AA. For each 1 nmol/l higher 25(OH)D, forced expiratory volume in the 1st second (FEV1) was higher by 1·1 ml in EA (95 % CI 0·9, 1·3; P<0·0001) and 1·8 ml (95 % CI 1·1, 2·5; P<0·0001) in AA (Prace difference=0·06), and forced vital capacity (FVC) was higher by 1·3 ml in EA (95 % CI 1·0, 1·6; P<0·0001) and 1·5 ml (95 % CI 0·8, 2·3; P=0·0001) in AA (Prace difference=0·56). Among EA, the 25(OH)D–FVC association was stronger in smokers: per 1 nmol/l higher 25(OH)D, FVC was higher by 1·7 ml (95 % CI 1·1, 2·3) for current smokers and 1·7 ml (95 % CI 1·2, 2·1) for former smokers, compared with 0·8 ml (95 % CI 0·4, 1·2) for never smokers. In summary, the 25(OH)D associations with FEV1 and FVC were positive in both ancestries. In EA, a stronger association was observed for smokers compared with never smokers, which supports the importance of vitamin D in vulnerable populations.

Effectiveness of the common soil fungus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum as a biological control for spotted knapweed and its effect on competitive interactions between spotted knapweed and bluebunch wheatgrass were evaluated in a growth chamber study using addition series methods. Total seeding densities ranged from 2000 to 60 000 seeds/m2. Mean bluebunch wheatgrass plant weight was 3.5 times greater than spotted knapweed weight per plant, respectively. Coefficient ratios estimating species interaction showed bluebunch wheatgrass density had a greater influence than spotted knapweed density on both bluebunch wheatgrass and spotted knapweed weights (2.11 and 0.51, respectively) when not under the influence of S. sclerotiorum. Niche differentiation ratios indicated a lack of resource partitioning between species (1.11). S. sclerotiorum reduced spotted knapweed density by 68 to 80% without reducing bluebunch wheatgrass density. Spotted knapweed weight per plant also was reduced by the addition of 5. sclerotiorum (1.4 to 1.2 mg) but there was not a corresponding increase in bluebunch wheatgrass weight. S. sclerotiorum decreased competition between spotted knapweed and bluebunch wheatgrass. This study provides evidence that establishment of bluebunch wheatgrass on spotted knapweed infested rangeland may be improved by combining S. sclerotiorum with high grass seeding rates.

Two broad aims drive weed science research: improved management and improved understanding of weed biology and ecology. In recent years, agricultural weed research addressing these two aims has effectively split into separate subdisciplines despite repeated calls for greater integration. Although some excellent work is being done, agricultural weed research has developed a very high level of repetitiveness, a preponderance of purely descriptive studies, and has failed to clearly articulate novel hypotheses linked to established bodies of ecological and evolutionary theory. In contrast, invasive plant research attracts a diverse cadre of nonweed scientists using invasions to explore broader and more integrated biological questions grounded in theory. We propose that although studies focused on weed management remain vitally important, agricultural weed research would benefit from deeper theoretical justification, a broader vision, and increased collaboration across diverse disciplines. To initiate change in this direction, we call for more emphasis on interdisciplinary training for weed scientists, and for focused workshops and working groups to develop specific areas of research and promote interactions among weed scientists and with the wider scientific community.

There are two distinct types of creativity: the flash out of the blue (inspiration? genius?), and the process of incremental revisions (hard work). Not only are we years away from modelling the former, we do not even begin to understand it. The latter is algorithmic in nature and has been modelled in many systems both musical and non-musical. Algorithmic composition is as old as music composition. It is often considered a cheat, a way out when the composer needs material and/or inspiration. It can also be thought of as a compositional tool that simply makes the composer’s work go faster. This article makes a case for algorithmic composition as such a tool. The ‘hard work’ type of creativity often involves trying many different combinations and choosing one over the others. It seems natural to express this iterative task as a computer algorithm. The implementation issues can be reduced to two components: how to understand one’s own creative process well enough to reproduce it as an algorithm, and how to program a computer to differentiate between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ music. The philosophical issues reduce to the question who or what is responsible for the music produced?