Induction of root-resistance by leaf-herbivory follows a vertical gradient

Leaf-herbivory can lead to systemic changes in root metabolism and resistance. As yet, it is unknown if these changes affect the whole root system, or if they are more pronounced in the upper root parts, which are closer to the actual site of attack. As this spatial aspect may be an important determinant of the interactions that can be expected to occur within the rhizosphere, we investigated if leaf-herbivore induced root resistance differs between upper and lower roots of maize. We also tested if the density of leaf-herbivores correlates with intensity of the root response. The systemic increase in resistance was found to be more pronounced in the upper than the lower roots and was independent of leaf herbivore density. The results suggest that there is a vertical gradient in the strength of the root response following leaf-herbivory, and that soil organisms living closer to the surface may be more affected by leaf-attack than the ones living in deeper soil layers.

A Vertical Asymmetry in Saccades

Visual exploration of natural scenes imposes demands that differ between the upper and the lower visual hemifield. Yet little is known about how ocular motor performance is affected by the location of visual stimuli or the direction of a behavioural response. We compared saccadic latencies between upper and lower hemifield in a variety of conditions, including short-latency prosaccades, long-latency prosaccades, antisaccades, memory-guided sac- cades and saccades with increased attentional and selection demand. All saccade types, except memory guided saccades, had shorter latencies when saccades were directed to- wards the upper field as compared to downward saccades (p<0.05). This upper field reaction time advantage probably arises in ocular motor rather than visual processing. It may originate in structures involved in motor preparation rather than execution.

Humanitarian intervention and the issue of state sovereignty in the discourse of legal experts between the 1830s and the First World War

This article discusses the tensions between the principle of state sovereignty and the idea of a "humanitarian intervention" (or a intervention on humanitarian grounds) as they resulted from the debate of leading legal scholars in the 19th and early 20th century. While prominent scholars such as Johann Caspar Bluntschli, Gustave Rolin Jaequemyns or Aegidius Arntz spoke out in favour of a form of "humanitarian interventions", others such as August Wilhelm Heffter or Pasquale Fiore were much more critical and in many cases spoke out in favour of absolute state sovereignty.

Placing Strategy Discourse in Context : Sociomateriality, Sensemaking, and Power

There has been increasing interest in the discursive aspects of strategy over the last two decades. In this editorial we review the existing literature, focusing on six major bodies of discursive scholarship: post-structural, critical discourse analysis, narrative, rhetoric, conversation analysis and metaphor. Our review reveals the significant contributions of research on strategy and discourse, but also the potential to advance research in this area by bringing together research on discursive practices and research on other practices we know to be important in strategy work. We explore the potential of discursive scholarship in integrating between significant theoretical domains (sensemaking, power and sociomateriality), and realms of analysis (institutional, organizational and the episodic), relevant to strategy scholarship. This allows us to place the papers published in the special issue Strategy as Discourse: Its Significance, Challenges and Future Directions among the body of knowledge accumulated thus far, and to suggest a way forward for future scholarship.