Commercial targeted sprayer systems allow producers to reduce herbicide inputs but risks the possibility of not treating emerging weeds. Currently, targeted applications with the John Deere system have five spray sensitivity settings, and no published literature discusses the effects of these settings on detecting and spraying weeds of varying species, sizes, and positions in crops. Research was conducted in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, and North Carolina on plantings of corn, cotton, and soybean to determine how various factors might influence the ability of targeted applications to treat weeds. These data included 21 weed species aggregated to six classes with height, width, and densities ranging from 25 to 0.25 cm, 25 to 0.25 cm, and 14.3 to 0.04 plants m−2, respectively. Crop and weed density did not influence the likelihood of treating the weeds. As expected, the sensitivity setting alters the ability to treat weeds. Targeted applications (across sensitivity settings, median weed height and width, and density of 2.4 plants m−2) resulted in a treatment success of 99.6% to 84.4% for Convolvulaceae, 99.1% to 68.8% for decumbent broadleaf weeds, 98.9% to 62.9% for Malvaceae, 99.1% to 70.3% for Poaceae, 98.0% to 48.3% for Amaranthaceae, and 98.5% to 55.8% for yellow nutsedge. Reducing the sensitivity setting reduced the ability to treat weeds. The size of weeds aided targeted application success, with larger weeds being more readily treated through easier detection. Based on these findings, various conditions can affect the outcome of targeted multinozzle applications. Additionally, the analyses highlight some of the parameters to consider when using these technologies.

New machine-vision technologies like the John Deere See & Spray™ could provide the opportunity to reduce herbicide use by detecting weeds and target-spraying herbicides simultaneously. Experiments were conducted for 2 yr in Keiser, AR, and Greenville, MS, to compare residual herbicide timings and targeted spray applications versus traditional broadcast herbicide programs in glyphosate/glufosinate/dicamba-resistant soybean. Treatments utilized consistent herbicides and rates with a preemergence (PRE) application followed by an early postemergence (EPOST) dicamba application followed by a mid-postemergence (MPOST) glufosinate application. All treatments included a residual at PRE and excluded or included a residual EPOST and MPOST. Additionally, the herbicide application method was considered, with traditional broadcast applications, broadcasted residual + targeted applications of postemergence herbicides (dual tank), or targeted applications of all herbicides (single tank). Targeted applications provided comparable control to broadcast applications with a ≤1% decrease in efficacy and overall control ≥93% for Palmer amaranth, broadleaf signalgrass, morningglory species, and purslane species. Additionally, targeted sprays slightly reduced soybean injury by at most 5 percentage points across all evaluations, and these effects did not translate to a yield increase at harvest. The relationship between weed area and targeted sprayed area also indicates that nozzle angle can influence potential herbicide savings, with narrower nozzle angles spraying less area. On average, targeted sprays saved a range of 28.4% to 62.4% on postemergence herbicides. On the basis of these results, with specific machine settings, targeted application programs could reduce the amount of herbicide applied while providing weed control comparable to that of traditional broadcast applications.

Philosophers often claim that doing philosophy makes people better thinkers. But what evidence is there for this empirical claim? This paper reviews extant evidence and presents some novel findings. We discuss standardized testing scores, review research on Philosophy for Children and critical thinking skills among college students, and present new empirical findings. On average, philosophers are better at logical reasoning, more reflective, and more open-minded than non-philosophers. However, there is an absence of evidence for the claim that studying philosophy led to these differences. We present some preliminary and suggestive evidence that although some of these differences may be attributable to philosophical training, others appear to be selection effects. The key takeaway is that more data are needed. We conclude by urging philosophers and interdisciplinary collaborators to gather more data to test the claim that studying philosophy makes people better thinkers.