Herbicides have been placed in global Herbicide Resistance Action Committee (HRAC) herbicide groups based on their sites of action (e.g., acetolactate synthase–inhibiting herbicides are grouped in HRAC Group 2). A major driving force for this classification system is that growers have been encouraged to rotate or mix herbicides from different HRAC groups to delay the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds, because in theory, all active ingredients within a herbicide group physiologically affect weeds similarly. Although herbicide resistance in weeds has been studied for decades, recent research on the biochemical and molecular basis for resistance has demonstrated that patterns of cross-resistance are usually quite complicated and much more complex than merely stating, for example, a certain weed population is Group 2-resistant. The objective of this review article is to highlight and describe the intricacies associated with the magnitude of herbicide resistance and cross-resistance patterns that have resulted from myriad target-site and non–target site resistance mechanisms in weeds, as well as environmental and application timing influences. Our hope is this review will provide opportunities for students, growers, agronomists, ag retailers, regulatory personnel, and research scientists to better understand and realize that herbicide resistance in weeds is far more complicated than previously considered when based solely on HRAC groups. Furthermore, a comprehensive understanding of cross-resistance patterns among weed species and populations may assist in managing herbicide-resistant biotypes in the short term by providing growers with previously unconsidered effective control options. This knowledge may also inform agrochemical company efforts aimed at developing new resistance-breaking chemistries and herbicide mixtures. However, in the long term, nonchemical management strategies, including cultural, mechanical, and biological weed management tactics, must also be implemented to prevent or delay increasingly problematic issues with weed resistance to current and future herbicides.

Advanced imaging techniques are enhancing research capacity focussed on the developmental origins of adult health and disease (DOHaD) hypothesis, and consequently increasing awareness of future health risks across various subareas of DOHaD research themes. Understanding how these advanced imaging techniques in animal models and human population studies can be both additively and synergistically used alongside traditional techniques in DOHaD-focussed laboratories is therefore of great interest. Global experts in advanced imaging techniques congregated at the advanced imaging workshop at the 2019 DOHaD World Congress in Melbourne, Australia. This review summarizes the presentations of new imaging modalities and novel applications to DOHaD research and discussions had by DOHaD researchers that are currently utilizing advanced imaging techniques including MRI, hyperpolarized MRI, ultrasound, and synchrotron-based techniques to aid their DOHaD research focus.

With more long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics available for treating schizophrenia, each with variable durations of action (2 weeks to 3 months), it is important to have clear management strategies for patients developing breakthrough psychotic symptoms or experiencing symptomatic worsening on LAIs. However, no treatment guidelines or clinical practice pathways exist; health-care providers must rely on their own clinical judgment to manage these patients. This article provides practical recommendations—based on a framework of clinical, pharmacokinetic, and dosing considerations—to guide clinicians’ decisions regarding management of breakthrough psychotic symptoms. Management options include ruling out/addressing medical illness or substance abuse/misuse as a contributing factor, addressing stressors, optimizing nonpharmacologic treatments, treating medical/psychiatric comorbidities, ensuring proper LAI administration technique, addressing missed LAI doses or lack of steady-state attainment, and increasing LAI dose directly or indirectly by shortening the injection interval (off-label). If these strategies do not work sufficiently with frequent monitoring, the LAI could be supplemented with a low dose of the corresponding oral formulation for fast symptom control (off-label). However, caution should be exercised with this strategy, because data on the safety of concomitant use of LAI and oral antipsychotics (OAPs) are limited, especially over extended periods. If symptoms abate, therapy optimization could be continued and slow discontinuation of the OAP could be considered. For persistent/worsening symptoms, the OAP should be increased to optimum effective dose while intensifying the initial steps used before it was added. If this fails, switching the OAP or LAI could be considered. We believe that these strategies will help clinicians manage breakthrough psychotic symptoms during LAI treatment and improve overall outcomes among those who can benefit from LAIs.

Weed science has contributed much to agriculture, forestry and natural resource management during its history. However, if it is to remain relevant as a scientific discipline, it is long past time for weed scientists to move beyond a dominating focus on herbicide efficacy testing and address the basic science underlying complex issues in vegetation management at many levels of biological organization currently being solved by others, such as invasion ecologists and molecular biologists. Weed science must not be circumscribed by a narrowly-defined set of tools but rather be seen as an integrating discipline. As a means of assessing current and future research interests and funding trends among weed scientists, the Weed Science Society of America conducted an online survey of its members in summer of 2007. There were 304 respondents out of a membership of 1330 at the time of the survey, a response rate of 23%. The largest group of respondents (41%) reported working on research problems primarily focused on herbicide efficacy and maintenance, funded mainly by private industry sources. Another smaller group of respondents (22%) reported focusing on research topics with a complex systems focus (such as invasion biology, ecosystem restoration, ecological weed management, and the genetics, molecular biology, and physiology of weedy traits), funded primarily by public sources. Increased cooperation between these complementary groups of scientists will be an essential step in making weed science increasingly relevant to the complex vegetation management issues of the 21st century.