Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) perform key soil ecosystem services and, because of their symbiotic relationship with plant roots, may be exposed to the plant protection products (PPPs) applied to soils and crops. In 2017, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) released a scientific opinion addressing the state of the science on risk assessment of PPPs for in‐soil organisms, recommending the inclusion of AMF ecotoxicological testing in the PPP regulatory process. However, it is not clear how this can be implemented in a tiered, robust, and ecologically relevant manner. Through a critical review of current literature, we examine the recommendations made within the EFSA report and the methodologies available to integrate AMF into the PPP risk assessment and provide perspective and commentary on their agronomic and ecological relevance. We conclude that considerable research questions remain to be addressed prior to the inclusion of AMF into the in‐soil organism risk assessment, many of which stem from the unique challenges associated with including an obligate symbiont within the PPP risk assessment. Finally, we highlight critical knowledge gaps and the further research required to enable development of relevant, reliable, and robust scientific tests alongside pragmatic and scientifically sound guidance to ensure that any future risk‐assessment paradigm is adequately protective of the ecosystem services it aims to preserve. Environ Toxicol Chem 2022;41:1808–1823. © 2022 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.
ITower Hamlets School Suiport Team, describe their five-point' procedure for reducing the disruptive behaviour of a six-yearold boy in a London primary school. The Tower Hamlets School Support Team, set up in 1979 as part of the Inner London Education Authority's response to disruptive behaviour, consists of 12 teachers, a teacher in charge, an educational psychologist, a senior education welfare officer and a clerical officer. The team uses a theoretical analysis and model of work based on those developed by David Lane and his colleagues at the Islington Educational Guidance Centre.1 Referral Jason, a lively but aggressive six-year-old, was referred to the Tower Hamlets School Support Team in November last year. His teacher described him as extremely disruptive. H e did not get on well with other children in his class, often preferring to kick or punch them, let loose a flow of invective or to make off with their toys. AssessmentAs usual when primary or secondary schools refer pupils to the Tower Hamlets team, the peripatetic support teacher assigned to the school makes an assessment of the child, together with the class teacher. Part of the assessment procedure that the Tower Hamlets School Support Team uses includes Stott's Bristol Social Adjustment Guide (BSAG) and a behaviour checklist developed by the team. The checklist enables the class teacher to be very specific about behaviour and consists of 90 items which can be scored on a three-point scale (eg turns round in seat; moves furniture; makes non-verbal noises; writes on furniture; verbally abuses another pupil; pokes another pupil).While the teacher filled in the BSAG and the checklist, giving specific details about the boy's behaviour, the support teacher began to make a systematic observation of Jason's behaviour and also of his friend Paul, who had been referred to the team at the same time for disruptiveness. She watched Jason and his friend in a variety of activities, in and out of class.On the BSAG, a questionnaire which covers five aspects of school life -interaction with teacher, school work, games and play, attitudes to other children and personal ways, physique and school achievement -Jason's score for aggressive behaviour was higher than average. At the same time the BSAG also indicated that he responded to praise. On the team's checklist his problem behaviour related to interfering with other children. He abused them verbally, kicked them, poked and punched them. The class teacher estimated that each of these behaviours occurred three to five times a day.Discussion with the class teacher followed. The teacher, a probationer, was obviously concerned about her handling of the class as a whole and felt that the general problems of organisation and management of the group were exacerbating the disruptive behaviour of Jason and Paul. FormulationThe next step in the team's five-point procedure was to try to identify the child's pattern of behaviour in order to plan ways of altering it. The formulation was, as always, done with the class teacher. J...
The supervisory relationship is complex and multi‐layered, given the multiple sources of unconscious dynamics between patient, supervisee and supervisor. The concept of the parallel process has brought greater depth and understanding to the supervisor's countertransference as reflective of the dynamics within the analytic relationship. The tendency, however, is to consider the parallel process as occurring in one direction only: from the analytic relationship into the supervisory one. In this paper, I consider the multidirectional movement of transference and countertransference between both relationships, including where the supervisor might be the point of origin, rather than the recipient. Clinical material from two patients brought to supervision is analysed from four different vertices: the parallel process; the developmental aspects of the supervisory relationship and of the supervisee; my own potential transferences onto the supervisee and/or the patient; and the potential effect of my transference onto the supervisee, the patient and their interaction. I also refer to some paintings by Richard Diebenkorn, as these offer a powerful metaphor for understanding the challenges in supervision of creating a secure frame, while also allowing for a more ‘translucent’ space, within which the multi‐layered dimensions can be imagined and become capable of continual transformation.
This article aims to support healthcare professionals from all care sectors when making prescribing decisions in patients with kidney disease. The authors discuss which renal dosing equation to use on a case-by-case basis and provide some background to common medicines prescribed for kidney patients. When discussing patients with chronic kidney disease, acute kidney injury and kidney transplants, commonplace prescribing issues that can be avoided are highlighted. It is hoped that raising awareness of prescribing in kidney patients can ensure these patients have a better experience and outcome from their treatment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.