Emerging technologies are now giving us unprecedented access to manipulate brain circuits, shedding new light on treatments for amblyopia. This research is identifying key circuit elements that control brain plasticity and highlight potential therapeutic targets to promote rewiring in the visual system during and beyond early life. Here, we explore how such recent advancements may guide future pharmacological, genetic, and behavioral approaches to treat amblyopia. We will discuss how animal research, which allows us to probe and tap into the underlying circuit and synaptic mechanisms, should best be used to guide therapeutic strategies. Uncovering cellular and molecular pathways that can be safely targeted to promote recovery may pave the way for effective new amblyopia treatments across the lifespan.

Mayberry and Kluender (2017) offer a rich review of empirical research that contributes to the understanding of age-related effects on first and second language acquisition. Their keynote article compiles current, primarily linguistic and neurolinguistic, research on the notion of a critical period for language (CPL). The authors conclude “that the putative CPL applies to L1 learning, and that L2 effects are a consequence of this prior learning” (Mayberry & Kluender, 2017: p. 6). As they propose a clear role for CPL in L1 learning, and because their exact position on its role in L2 learning is, to my mind, not as clearly articulated, I will take the opportunity to argue the following: If a CPL exists at all, it should have identifiable implications for all kinds of language acquisition (cf. Gleitman & Newport, 1995). In the case of L2 acquisition what needs to be identified is how maturational constraints (implicated by a CPL) interact with other conditions that are at hand when the second language comes onto the scene.

Mayberry and Kluender (Mayberry & Kluender) adopt interesting positions on a wide range of issues. Due to space limitations, we will focus on just two where our views differ: (i) the robustness of maturational constraints on second language acquisition (L2A), and (ii) the implications of a role for language aptitudes within the boundaries defined by sensitive periods (SPs).

This commentary on Mayberry and Kluender (2017) considers the geometry of the function relating Age of Acquisition (AoA) to L2 attainment, the effects of multilingual exposure on one's native language(s) and, briefly, the role of education in language learning.

It has been shown that the visual acuity loss experienced by the deprived eye of kittens following an early period of monocular deprivation (MD) can be alleviated rapidly following 10 days of complete darkness when imposed even as late as 14 weeks of age. To examine whether 10 days of darkness conferred benefits at any age, we measured the extent of recovery of the visual acuity of the deprived eye following the darkness imposed on adult cats that had received the same early period of MD as used in prior experiments conducted on kittens. Parallel studies conducted on different animals examined the extent to which darkness changed the magnitude of the MD-induced laminar differences of the cell soma size and immunoreactivity for the neurofilament (NF) protein in the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus (dLGN). The results indicated that 10 days of darkness imposed at one year of age neither alleviated the acuity loss of the deprived eye induced by an earlier period of MD nor did it decrease the concurrent lamina differences of the soma size or NF loss in the dLGN.

Organic vegetable farmers execute weed management using many overall philosophies, including focusing management during the early-season critical period, managing the weed seedbank with a ‘zero seed rain’ strategy, or physically suppressing weeds with plastic or natural mulches. While these strategies vary in their ecological and economic implications, farmers’ reasons for adopting specific weed management approaches, and the related practical implications of each approach remain unclear. To better understand farmer motivations and ecological impacts of broad weed management philosophies, we conducted case studies of four successful organic vegetable farmers with specialization in different management approaches. The farmers were interviewed about their experiences and soil samples were collected for weed community and soil organic matter (SOM) analysis. The farmer who controls weed seedlings primarily during the critical period has appreciated the associated weeding labor savings, but late-season weeds have contributed to a large weed seedbank (38,482 seeds m−2), which is necessitating a change in his management. Conversely, the zero seed rain strategy of another farmer required a large amount of labor in the initial years, but weeding labor requirements have lessened every year due to decreased weed emergence from his diminishing weed seedbank (3065 seeds m−2). Another farmer utilizes plastic mulch in many crops in order to reduce weeding labor during the busy spring planting season. Finally, the farmer that uses natural mulches has high labor costs, but they are offset by the benefits of weed suppression, soil moisture conservation and increases to SOM. The two farmers utilizing mulch had the greatest portion of monocotyledonous weeds, perhaps relating to their morphology allowing them to emerge through the mulch. In ranking management criteria based on their importance, the case study farmers generally valued the criteria that are benefited by their strategy, indicating a strong relationship between their priorities and their management. Overall, there was no ‘best’ weed management strategy, but farmers may benefit from the consideration of how their management priorities match the practical tradeoffs of each strategy.

Weed management strategies differ in their ability to control weeds, and often have unique agroecological implications. To provide growers with an improved sense of trade-offs between weed control and ecological effects, we implemented several prominent organic weed management strategies in yellow onion in 2014 and 2015. Strategies included cultivation of weed seedlings during the early, weed-sensitive “critical period” of the crop; frequent cultivation events to ensure “zero seed rain”; and weed suppression with polyethylene or natural mulches. As expected, end-of-season weed biomass and weed seed production were greatest in the critical period system and nearly zero for the zero seed rain system. Weeds were also well controlled in natural mulch systems. Average onion yield per treatment was 50.7 Mg ha−1. In 2014, the critical period system and the polyethylene mulch systems demonstrated yield loss, likely due to weed competition and excessive soil temperature, respectively. Onion soluble solids content was also diminished in these systems in 2014, but bulb firmness was greatest in unmulched systems. Carabid beetles, earthworms, soil compaction, soil nitrate, and microbial biomass were affected by weed management strategy, with natural-mulched systems generally performing most favorably. However, these effects were not substantial enough to affect yield of a subsequent sweet corn crop grown in weed-free conditions. In contrast, sweet corn managed with only early-season cultivations demonstrated yield loss (P=0.004) in plots where the critical period treatment was implemented the prior year, indicating that weed competition resulting from abundant weed seed production in that system was the most influential legacy effect of the weed management strategies.

Critical period experiments were conducted in 1997 near Milton, WI, and in 1998 near Edgerton, WI, in which Eriochloa villosa (Thunb.) Kunth emergence was characterized and related to Zea mays L. yield loss and weed seed production. At Milton, 2.7% of the spring seedbank emerged, and at Edgerton, 14.5% of the spring seedbank emerged. Peak time of E. villosa emergence occurred early in the season at both locations, accounting for 84% of the total season emergence at Milton by 37 d after planting and 90% of the total season emergence at Edgerton by 27 d after planting. A secondary peak in emergence occurred at each site, accounting for 14% of the total season emergence at Milton between 38 and 52 d after planting and 8% of the total season emergence at Edgerton between 28 and 43 d after planting. Following the secondary peak in emergence at each site, approximately 2% of the total season emergence occurred. Zea mays grain yield was reduced when E. villosa interfered with Z. mays past the V11 stage at Milton and the V3 stage at Edgerton. Zea mays yield reductions at Edgerton were greater, occurred under shorter periods of weed interference, and were associated with greater E. villosa biomass than yield reductions at Milton. Eriochloa villosa that emerged after the V2 Z. mays stage at Milton and the V3 stage at Edgerton did not cause crop yield loss; however, these plants produced seed at 143 and 63% of the initial spring seedbanks, respectively.

Barnyardgrass, large crabgrass, and Texas panicum were evaluated in field experiments over 3 yr to measure their duration of interference and density on grain sorghum yield. When grain yield data were converted to a percentage of the weed-free control, linear regression predicted a 3.6% yield loss for each week of weed interference regardless of year or grass species. Grain sorghum grown in a narrow (61-cm) row spacing was affected little by full-season interference; however, in wide (91-cm) rows, interference increased as grass density increased. Data from the wide-row spacing were described by linear regression following conversion of grain yield to percentages and weed density to log10. A separate nonlinear model also was derived which could predict the effect of weed density on grain sorghum yield.

Studies were conducted in Florida to evaluate interference of common cocklebur with peanut. Peanut yield reduction ranged from 0 to 88% for common cocklebur densities of 0–32 plants 8 m−1 of peanut row, and predicted loss was similar under normal moisture conditions. When moisture levels were above normal, the impact on yield was 9–24% less than when soil moisture was normal. Common cocklebur caused peanut yield loss if allowed to interfere for more than the first 2 wk after crop emergence, and peanut had to be common cocklebur free for at least 12 wk to prevent a yield reduction. These results show common cocklebur to be more competitive with peanut than other weeds evaluated previously.

Temperature, soil moisture, green foxtail density, relative emergence dates, and soil fertility effects on green foxtail and spring wheat competition were evaluated in controlled environments. Green foxtail competition was highest at 30 C and without moisture stress. Early green foxtail emergence increased competition with wheat more than changes in temperature, soil moisture, or green foxtail density. At 30 C, wheat fresh weight was reduced 50% by green foxtail seeded 4 d before wheat, but only 13% by foxtail seeded 4 d after wheat. Doubling the nitrogen and total nutrient concentration did not increase wheat growth, but increased foxtail weight 41 and 75%, respectively.

Two field experiments were carried out from 1993 to 1995 to evaluate the critical period of weed control and to develop suitable weed management practices for jungle rice, horse purslane, and cockscomb in soybean. Horse purslane was more competitive during early growth stages (up to 45 days after sowing [DAS]) and cockscomb was more competitive during later growth stages, whereas jungle rice was competitive throughout the growing season. The critical period of weed control was found to be 30 to 45 DAS. Weed-free maintenance up to 45 DAS resulted in a 74% increase in grain yield of soybean over the unweeded control. Keeping soybean weed free for 45 d or allowing weeds to remain in the crop for less than 30 d resulted in no significant yield loss. Sequential application of a reduced rate of soil-applied trifluralin 1.0 kg ha–1 (0.67 ×) with postemergence fluazifop 0.75 kg ha–1 (0.75 ×) or a reduced rate of soil-applied trifluralin or pendimethalin at 1.0 kg ha–1 (0.67 ×) followed by hand hoeing 35 DAS provided better control of a broad spectrum of weeds than a single application of a postemergence herbicide applied at reduced or recommended rates. Integration of reduced rates of soil-applied herbicides with post-emergence herbicides or hand hoeing 35 DAS produced soybean yields similar to the hand-weeded treatment. Compared to the weed-free or integrated weed control, a single application of soil-applied or postemergence herbicide did not control a broad spectrum of weeds and reduced soybean yield.