2 results
Chapter 17 - The Future of QAnon
- from Part V - The Future of QAnon
- Edited by Monica K. Miller, University of Nevada, Reno
-
- Book:
- The Social Science of QAnon
- Published online:
- 14 September 2023
- Print publication:
- 28 September 2023, pp 291-307
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Drawing on the themes of the previous chapters, this chapter considers the future of QAnon. It examines evidence of new and ongoing developments in the QAnon movement following the electoral loss of President Trump. QAnon has shown a particular ability to re-invent itself in the face of failed predictions, “frame bridging” or brokering ties with existing social networks and movements including lifestyle and wellness communities, anti-vaxxers, deep state conspiracists, radical religious right factions, Patriot and militia movement actors, and other conspiracy-minded groups. As such, QAnon has evolved and become a movement with a life of its own, independent of Trump. While Trump embraced conspiracy theories promulgated by QAnon such as the existence of a “deep state” intent on sabotaging the president’s policies, the range of conspiratorial ideas expand well beyond his administration. Herein, we explore indications of post-Trump era trajectories of QAnon from a social movement perspective, examining preliminary evidence of movement adaptation and change to shifting political conditions. These conditions include the political pressure exerted on major social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to tamp down on misinformation freely circulated by QAnon followers, the election of Joe Biden and the transition to a new administration in the White House, the emergence of a QAnon religion, and the spreading influence of QAnon abroad, adapted and revised for different political environments.
Cotton Stage of Growth Determines Sensitivity to 2,4-D
- Seth A. Byrd, Guy D. Collins, A. Stanley Culpepper, Darrin M. Dodds, Keith L. Edmisten, David L. Wright, Gaylon D. Morgan, Paul A. Baumann, Peter A. Dotray, Misha R. Manuchehri, Andrea Jones, Timothy L. Grey, Theodore M. Webster, Jerry W. Davis, Jared R. Whitaker, Phillip M. Roberts, John L. Snider, Wesley M. Porter
-
- Journal:
- Weed Technology / Volume 30 / Issue 3 / September 2016
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 January 2017, pp. 601-610
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
The anticipated release of EnlistTM cotton, corn, and soybean cultivars likely will increase the use of 2,4-D, raising concerns over potential injury to susceptible cotton. An experiment was conducted at 12 locations over 2013 and 2014 to determine the impact of 2,4-D at rates simulating drift (2 g ae ha−1) and tank contamination (40 g ae ha−1) on cotton during six different growth stages. Growth stages at application included four leaf (4-lf), nine leaf (9-lf), first bloom (FB), FB + 2 wk, FB + 4 wk, and FB + 6 wk. Locations were grouped according to percent yield loss compared to the nontreated check (NTC), with group I having the least yield loss and group III having the most. Epinasty from 2,4-D was more pronounced with applications during vegetative growth stages. Importantly, yield loss did not correlate with visual symptomology, but more closely followed effects on boll number. The contamination rate at 9-lf, FB, or FB + 2 wk had the greatest effect across locations, reducing the number of bolls per plant when compared to the NTC, with no effect when applied at FB + 4 wk or later. A reduction of boll number was not detectable with the drift rate except in group III when applied at the FB stage. Yield was influenced by 2,4-D rate and stage of cotton growth. Over all locations, loss in yield of greater than 20% occurred at 5 of 12 locations when the drift rate was applied between 4-lf and FB + 2 wk (highest impact at FB). For the contamination rate, yield loss was observed at all 12 locations; averaged over these locations yield loss ranged from 7 to 66% across all growth stages. Results suggest the greatest yield impact from 2,4-D occurs between 9-lf and FB + 2 wk, and the level of impact is influenced by 2,4-D rate, crop growth stage, and environmental conditions.
![](/core/cambridge-core/public/images/lazy-loader.gif)