
Università degli Studi della Tuscia
UniversityViterbo, Lazio, Italy
Research output, citation impact, and the most-cited recent papers from Università degli Studi della Tuscia (Italy). Aggregated across the NobleBlocks index of 300M+ scholarly works.
Top-cited papers from Università degli Studi della Tuscia
AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425, \nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981, \nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826, \nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376, \nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294, \nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198, \nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544, \nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107, \nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756, \nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6, \nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58, \nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007, \nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591, \nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930, \nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794, \nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727, \nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986, \nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409, \nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368, \nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884, \nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239, \nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997, \nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798, \nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909, \nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336, \nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419, \nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490, \nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401, \nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880, \nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913, \nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381, \nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112, \nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812, \nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287, \nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308, \nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901, \nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141, \nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374, \nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822, \nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480, \nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171, \nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789, \nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217, \nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24, \nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700, \nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983, \nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002, \nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318, \nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462, \nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884, \nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996, \nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628, \nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003, \nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434, \nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783, \nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514, \nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172, \nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113, \nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135, \nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702, \nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703, \nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308, \nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290, \nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105, \nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563, \nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936, \nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657, \nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254, \nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694, \nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781, \nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533, \nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829, \nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395, \nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566, \nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767, \nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301, \nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919, \nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576, \nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572, \nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940, \nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340, \nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254, \nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604, \nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182, \nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775, \nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,
Abstract This paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the different methods that separate net ecosystem exchange (NEE) into its major components, gross ecosystem carbon uptake (GEP) and ecosystem respiration ( R eco ). In particular, we analyse the effect of the extrapolation of night‐time values of ecosystem respiration into the daytime; this is usually done with a temperature response function that is derived from long‐term data sets. For this analysis, we used 16 one‐year‐long data sets of carbon dioxide exchange measurements from European and US‐American eddy covariance networks. These sites span from the boreal to Mediterranean climates, and include deciduous and evergreen forest, scrubland and crop ecosystems. We show that the temperature sensitivity of R eco , derived from long‐term (annual) data sets, does not reflect the short‐term temperature sensitivity that is effective when extrapolating from night‐ to daytime. Specifically, in summer active ecosystems the long‐term temperature sensitivity exceeds the short‐term sensitivity. Thus, in those ecosystems, the application of a long‐term temperature sensitivity to the extrapolation of respiration from night to day leads to a systematic overestimation of ecosystem respiration from half‐hourly to annual time‐scales, which can reach >25% for an annual budget and which consequently affects estimates of GEP. Conversely, in summer passive (Mediterranean) ecosystems, the long‐term temperature sensitivity is lower than the short‐term temperature sensitivity resulting in underestimation of annual sums of respiration. We introduce a new generic algorithm that derives a short‐term temperature sensitivity of R eco from eddy covariance data that applies this to the extrapolation from night‐ to daytime, and that further performs a filling of data gaps that exploits both, the covariance between fluxes and meteorological drivers and the temporal structure of the fluxes. While this algorithm should give less biased estimates of GEP and R eco , we discuss the remaining biases and recommend that eddy covariance measurements are still backed by ancillary flux measurements that can reduce the uncertainties inherent in the eddy covariance data.
Carbon Cycle and Climate Change As climate change accelerates, it is important to know the likely impact of climate change on the carbon cycle (see the Perspective by Reich ). Gross primary production (GPP) is a measure of the amount of CO 2 removed from the atmosphere every year to fuel photosynthesis. Beer et al. (p. 834 , published online 5 July) used a combination of observation and calculation to estimate that the total GPP by terrestrial plants is around 122 billion tons per year; in comparison, burning fossil fuels emits about 7 billion tons annually. Thirty-two percent of this uptake occurs in tropical forests, and precipitation controls carbon uptake in more than 40% of vegetated land. The temperature sensitivity (Q10) of ecosystem respiratory processes is a key determinant of the interaction between climate and the carbon cycle. Mahecha et al. (p. 838 , published online 5 July) now show that the Q10 of ecosystem respiration is invariant with respect to mean annual temperature, independent of the analyzed ecosystem type, with a global mean value for Q10 of 1.6. This level of temperature sensitivity suggests a less-pronounced climate sensitivity of the carbon cycle than assumed by recent climate models.
A new high-resolution regional climate change ensemble has been established for Europe within the World Climate Research Program Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment (EURO-CORDEX) initiative. The first set of simulations with a horizontal resolution of 12.5 km was completed for the new emission scenarios RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 with more simulations expected to follow. The aim of this paper is to present this data set to the different communities active in regional climate modelling, impact assessment and adaptation. The EURO-CORDEX ensemble results have been compared to the SRES A1B simulation results achieved within the ENSEMBLES project. The large-scale patterns of changes in mean temperature and precipitation are similar in all three scenarios, but they differ in regional details, which can partly be related to the higher resolution in EURO-CORDEX. The results strengthen those obtained in ENSEMBLES, but need further investigations. The analysis of impact indices shows that for RCP8.5, there is a substantially larger change projected for temperature-based indices than for RCP4.5. The difference is less pronounced for precipitation-based indices. Two effects of the increased resolution can be regarded as an added value of regional climate simulations. Regional climate model simulations provide higher daily precipitation intensities, which are completely missing in the global climate model simulations, and they provide a significantly different climate change of daily precipitation intensities resulting in a smoother shift from weak to moderate and high intensities.
autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.
, water, and energy exchange between the biosphere and the atmosphere, and other meteorological and biological measurements, from 212 sites around the globe (over 1500 site-years, up to and including year 2014). These sites, independently managed and operated, voluntarily contributed their data to create global datasets. Data were quality controlled and processed using uniform methods, to improve consistency and intercomparability across sites. The dataset is already being used in a number of applications, including ecophysiology studies, remote sensing studies, and development of ecosystem and Earth system models. FLUXNET2015 includes derived-data products, such as gap-filled time series, ecosystem respiration and photosynthetic uptake estimates, estimation of uncertainties, and metadata about the measurements, presented for the first time in this paper. In addition, 206 of these sites are for the first time distributed under a Creative Commons (CC-BY 4.0) license. This paper details this enhanced dataset and the processing methods, now made available as open-source codes, making the dataset more accessible, transparent, and reproducible.
Abstract. Eddy covariance technique to measure CO2, water and energy fluxes between biosphere and atmosphere is widely spread and used in various regional networks. Currently more than 250 eddy covariance sites are active around the world measuring carbon exchange at high temporal resolution for different biomes and climatic conditions. In this paper a new standardized set of corrections is introduced and the uncertainties associated with these corrections are assessed for eight different forest sites in Europe with a total of 12 yearly datasets. The uncertainties introduced on the two components GPP (Gross Primary Production) and TER (Terrestrial Ecosystem Respiration) are also discussed and a quantitative analysis presented. Through a factorial analysis we find that generally, uncertainties by different corrections are additive without interactions and that the heuristic u*-correction introduces the largest uncertainty. The results show that a standardized data processing is needed for an effective comparison across biomes and for underpinning inter-annual variability. The methodology presented in this paper has also been integrated in the European database of the eddy covariance measurements.
[1] We upscaled FLUXNET observations of carbon dioxide, water, and energy fluxes to the global scale using the machine learning technique, model tree ensembles (MTE). We trained MTE to predict site-level gross primary productivity (GPP), terrestrial ecosystem respiration (TER), net ecosystem exchange (NEE), latent energy (LE), and sensible heat (H) based on remote sensing indices, climate and meteorological data, and information on land use. We applied the trained MTEs to generate global flux fields at a 0.5° × 0.5° spatial resolution and a monthly temporal resolution from 1982 to 2008. Cross-validation analyses revealed good performance of MTE in predicting among-site flux variability with modeling efficiencies (MEf) between 0.64 and 0.84, except for NEE (MEf = 0.32). Performance was also good for predicting seasonal patterns (MEf between 0.84 and 0.89, except for NEE (0.64)). By comparison, predictions of monthly anomalies were not as strong (MEf between 0.29 and 0.52). Improved accounting of disturbance and lagged environmental effects, along with improved characterization of errors in the training data set, would contribute most to further reducing uncertainties. Our global estimates of LE (158 ± 7 J × 1018 yr−1), H (164 ± 15 J × 1018 yr−1), and GPP (119 ± 6 Pg C yr−1) were similar to independent estimates. Our global TER estimate (96 ± 6 Pg C yr−1) was likely underestimated by 5–10%. Hot spot regions of interannual variability in carbon fluxes occurred in semiarid to semihumid regions and were controlled by moisture supply. Overall, GPP was more important to interannual variability in NEE than TER. Our empirically derived fluxes may be used for calibration and evaluation of land surface process models and for exploratory and diagnostic assessments of the biosphere.
Abstract In order to better assess the role of agriculture within the global climate‐vegetation system, we present a model of the managed planetary land surface, Lund–Potsdam–Jena managed Land (LPJmL), which simulates biophysical and biogeochemical processes as well as productivity and yield of the most important crops worldwide, using a concept of crop functional types (CFTs). Based on the LPJ‐Dynamic Global Vegetation Model, LPJmL simulates the transient changes in carbon and water cycles due to land use, the specific phenology and seasonal CO 2 fluxes of agricultural‐dominated areas, and the production of crops and grazing land. It uses 13 CFTs (11 arable crops and two managed grass types), with specific parameterizations of phenology connected to leaf area development. Carbon is allocated daily towards four carbon pools, one being the yield‐bearing storage organs. Management (irrigation, treatment of residues, intercropping) can be considered in order to capture their effect on productivity, on soil organic carbon and on carbon extracted from the ecosystem. For transient simulations for the 20th century, a global historical land use data set was developed, providing the annual cover fraction of the 13 CFTs, rain‐fed and/or irrigated, within 0.5° grid cells for the period 1901–2000, using published data on land use, crop distributions and irrigated areas. Several key results are compared with observations. The simulated spatial distribution of sowing dates for temperate cereals is comparable with the reported crop calendars. The simulated seasonal canopy development agrees better with satellite observations when actual cropland distribution is taken into account. Simulated yields for temperate cereals and maize compare well with FAO statistics. Monthly carbon fluxes measured at three agricultural sites also compare well with simulations. Global simulations indicate a ∼24% (respectively ∼10%) reduction in global vegetation (respectively soil) carbon due to agriculture, and 6–9 Pg C of yearly harvested biomass in the 1990s. In contrast to simulations of the potential natural vegetation showing the land biosphere to be an increasing carbon sink during the 20th century, LPJmL simulates a net carbon source until the 1970s (due to land use), and a small sink (mostly due to changing climate and CO 2 ) after 1970. This is comparable with earlier LPJ simulations using a more simple land use scheme, and within the uncertainty range of estimates in the 1980s and 1990s. The fluxes attributed to land use change compare well with Houghton's estimates on the land use related fluxes until the 1970s, but then they begin to diverge, probably due to the different rates of deforestation considered. The simulated impacts of agriculture on the global water cycle for the 1990s are∼5% (respectively∼20%) reduction in transpiration (respectively interception), and∼44% increase in evaporation. Global runoff, which includes a simple irrigation scheme, is practically not affected.
Models of vegetation function are widely used to predict the effects of climate change on carbon, water and nutrient cycles of terrestrial ecosystems, and their feedbacks to climate. Stomatal conductance, the process that governs plant water use and carbon uptake, is fundamental to such models. In this paper, we reconcile two long-standing theories of stomatal conductance. The empirical approach, which is most commonly used in vegetation models, is phenomenological, based on experimental observations of stomatal behaviour in response to environmental conditions. The optimal approach is based on the theoretical argument that stomata should act to minimize the amount of water used per unit carbon gained. We reconcile these two approaches by showing that the theory of optimal stomatal conductance can be used to derive a model of stomatal conductance that is closely analogous to the empirical models. Consequently, we obtain a unified stomatal model which has a similar form to existing empirical models, but which now provides a theoretical interpretation for model parameter values. The key model parameter, g1, is predicted to increase with growth temperature and with the marginal water cost of carbon gain. The new model is fitted to a range of datasets ranging from tropical to boreal trees. The parameter g1 is shown to vary with growth temperature, as predicted, and also with plant functional type. The model is shown to correctly capture responses of stomatal conductance to changing atmospheric CO2, and thus can be used to test for stomatal acclimation to elevated CO2. The reconciliation of the optimal and empirical approaches to modelling stomatal conductance is important for global change biology because it provides a simple theoretical framework for analyzing, and simulating, the coupling between carbon and water cycles under environmental change.
Micronuclei (MN) and other nuclear anomalies such as nucleoplasmic bridges (NPBs) and nuclear buds (NBUDs) are biomarkers of genotoxic events and chromosomal instability. These genome damage events can be measured simultaneously in the cytokinesis-block micronucleus cytome (CBMNcyt) assay. The molecular mechanisms leading to these events have been investigated over the past two decades using molecular probes and genetically engineered cells. In this brief review, we summarise the wealth of knowledge currently available that best explains the formation of these important nuclear anomalies that are commonly seen in cancer and are indicative of genome damage events that could increase the risk of developmental and degenerative diseases. MN can originate during anaphase from lagging acentric chromosome or chromatid fragments caused by misrepair of DNA breaks or unrepaired DNA breaks. Malsegregation of whole chromosomes at anaphase may also lead to MN formation as a result of hypomethylation of repeat sequences in centromeric and pericentromeric DNA, defects in kinetochore proteins or assembly, dysfunctional spindle and defective anaphase checkpoint genes. NPB originate from dicentric chromosomes, which may occur due to misrepair of DNA breaks, telomere end fusions, and could also be observed when defective separation of sister chromatids at anaphase occurs due to failure of decatenation. NBUD represent the process of elimination of amplified DNA, DNA repair complexes and possibly excess chromosomes from aneuploid cells.
DNA barcoding should provide rapid, accurate and automatable species identifications by using a standardized DNA region as a tag. Based on sequences available in GenBank and sequences produced for this study, we evaluated the resolution power of the whole chloroplast trnL (UAA) intron (254-767 bp) and of a shorter fragment of this intron (the P6 loop, 10-143 bp) amplified with highly conserved primers. The main limitation of the whole trnL intron for DNA barcoding remains its relatively low resolution (67.3% of the species from GenBank unambiguously identified). The resolution of the P6 loop is lower (19.5% identified) but remains higher than those of existing alternative systems. The resolution is much higher in specific contexts such as species originating from a single ecosystem, or commonly eaten plants. Despite the relatively low resolution, the whole trnL intron and its P6 loop have many advantages: the primers are highly conserved, and the amplification system is very robust. The P6 loop can even be amplified when using highly degraded DNA from processed food or from permafrost samples, and has the potential to be extensively used in food industry, in forensic science, in diet analyses based on feces and in ancient DNA studies.
Abstract The measured net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of CO 2 between the ecosystem and the atmosphere reflects the balance between gross CO 2 assimilation [gross primary production (GPP)] and ecosystem respiration (R eco ). For understanding the mechanistic responses of ecosystem processes to environmental change it is important to separate these two flux components. Two approaches are conventionally used: (1) respiration measurements made at night are extrapolated to the daytime or (2) light–response curves are fit to daytime NEE measurements and respiration is estimated from the intercept of the ordinate, which avoids the use of potentially problematic nighttime data. We demonstrate that this approach is subject to biases if the effect of vapor pressure deficit (VPD) modifying the light response is not included. We introduce an algorithm for NEE partitioning that uses a hyperbolic light response curve fit to daytime NEE, modified to account for the temperature sensitivity of respiration and the VPD limitation of photosynthesis. Including the VPD dependency strongly improved the model's ability to reproduce the asymmetric diurnal cycle during periods with high VPD, and enhances the reliability of R eco estimates given that the reduction of GPP by VPD may be otherwise incorrectly attributed to higher R eco . Results from this improved algorithm are compared against estimates based on the conventional nighttime approach. The comparison demonstrates that the uncertainty arising from systematic errors dominates the overall uncertainty of annual sums (median absolute deviation of GPP: 47 g C m −2 yr −1 ), while errors arising from the random error (median absolute deviation: ∼2 g C m −2 yr −1 ) are negligible. Despite site‐specific differences between the methods, overall patterns remain robust, adding confidence to statistical studies based on the FLUXNET database. In particular, we show that the strong correlation between GPP and R eco is not spurious but holds true when quasi‐independent, i.e. daytime and nighttime based estimates are compared.
Abstract. The Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature (MEGANv2.1) together with the Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA) meteorological fields were used to create a global emission data set of biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOC) available on a monthly basis for the time period of 1980–2010. This data set, developed under the Monitoring Atmospheric Composition and Climate project (MACC), is called MEGAN–MACC. The model estimated mean annual total BVOC emission of 760 Tg (C) yr−1 consisting of isoprene (70%), monoterpenes (11%), methanol (6%), acetone (3%), sesquiterpenes (2.5%) and other BVOC species each contributing less than 2%. Several sensitivity model runs were performed to study the impact of different model input and model settings on isoprene estimates and resulted in differences of up to ±17% of the reference isoprene total. A greater impact was observed for a sensitivity run applying parameterization of soil moisture deficit that led to a 50% reduction of isoprene emissions on a global scale, most significantly in specific regions of Africa, South America and Australia. MEGAN–MACC estimates are comparable to results of previous studies. More detailed comparison with other isoprene inventories indicated significant spatial and temporal differences between the data sets especially for Australia, Southeast Asia and South America. MEGAN–MACC estimates of isoprene, α-pinene and group of monoterpenes showed a reasonable agreement with surface flux measurements at sites located in tropical forests in the Amazon and Malaysia. The model was able to capture the seasonal variation of isoprene emissions in the Amazon forest.
This paper is the outcome of a community initiative to identify major unsolved scientific problems in hydrology motivated by a need for stronger harmonisation of research efforts. The procedure involved a public consultation through online media, followed by two workshops through which a large number of potential science questions were collated, prioritised, and synthesised. In spite of the diversity of the participants (230 scientists in total), the process revealed much about community priorities and the state of our science: a preference for continuity in research questions rather than radical departures or redirections from past and current work. Questions remain focused on the process-based understanding of hydrological variability and causality at all space and time scales. Increased attention to environmental change drives a new emphasis on understanding how change propagates across interfaces within the hydrological system and across disciplinary boundaries. In particular, the expansion of the human footprint raises a new set of questions related to human interactions with nature and water cycle feedbacks in the context of complex water management problems. We hope that this reflection and synthesis of the 23 unsolved problems in hydrology will help guide research efforts for some years to come.
Abstract Terrestrial ecosystems sequester 2.1 Pg of atmospheric carbon annually. A large amount of the terrestrial sink is realized by forests. However, considerable uncertainties remain regarding the fate of this carbon over both short and long timescales. Relevant data to address these uncertainties are being collected at many sites around the world, but syntheses of these data are still sparse. To facilitate future synthesis activities, we have assembled a comprehensive global database for forest ecosystems, which includes carbon budget variables (fluxes and stocks), ecosystem traits (e.g. leaf area index, age), as well as ancillary site information such as management regime, climate, and soil characteristics. This publicly available database can be used to quantify global, regional or biome‐specific carbon budgets; to re‐examine established relationships; to test emerging hypotheses about ecosystem functioning [e.g. a constant net ecosystem production (NEP) to gross primary production (GPP) ratio]; and as benchmarks for model evaluations. In this paper, we present the first analysis of this database. We discuss the climatic influences on GPP, net primary production (NPP) and NEP and present the CO 2 balances for boreal, temperate, and tropical forest biomes based on micrometeorological, ecophysiological, and biometric flux and inventory estimates. Globally, GPP of forests benefited from higher temperatures and precipitation whereas NPP saturated above either a threshold of 1500 mm precipitation or a mean annual temperature of 10 °C. The global pattern in NEP was insensitive to climate and is hypothesized to be mainly determined by nonclimatic conditions such as successional stage, management, site history, and site disturbance. In all biomes, closing the CO 2 balance required the introduction of substantial biome‐specific closure terms. Nonclosure was taken as an indication that respiratory processes, advection, and non‐CO 2 carbon fluxes are not presently being adequately accounted for.
Summary This paper presents CO 2 flux data from 18 forest ecosystems, studied in the European Union funded EUROFLUX project. Overall, mean annual gross primary productivity (GPP, the total amount of carbon (C) fixed during photosynthesis) of these forests was 1380 ± 330 gC m −2 y −1 (mean ±SD). On average, 80% of GPP was respired by autotrophs and heterotrophs and released back into the atmosphere (total ecosystem respiration, TER = 1100 ± 260 gC m −2 y −1 ). Mean annual soil respiration (SR) was 760 ± 340 gC m −2 y −1 (55% of GPP and 69% of TER). Among the investigated forests, large differences were observed in annual SR and TER that were not correlated with mean annual temperature. However, a significant correlation was observed between annual SR and TER and GPP among the relatively undisturbed forests. On the assumption that (i) root respiration is constrained by the allocation of photosynthates to the roots, which is coupled to productivity, and that (ii) the largest fraction of heterotrophic soil respiration originates from decomposition of young organic matter (leaves, fine roots), whose availability also depends on primary productivity, it is hypothesized that differences in SR among forests are likely to depend more on productivity than on temperature. At sites where soil disturbance has occurred (e.g. ploughing, drainage), soil espiration was a larger component of the ecosystem C budget and deviated from the relationship between annual SR (and TER) and GPP observed among the less‐disturbed forests. At one particular forest, carbon losses from the soil were so large, that in some years the site became a net source of carbon to the atmosphere. Excluding the disturbed sites from the present analysis reduced mean SR to 660 ± 290 gC m −2 y −1 , representing 49% of GPP and 63% of TER in the relatively undisturbed forest ecosystems.
Climate change predictions derived from coupled carbon-climate models are highly dependent on assumptions about feedbacks between the biosphere and atmosphere. One critical feedback occurs if C uptake by the biosphere increases in response to the fossil-fuel driven increase in atmospheric [CO(2)] ("CO(2) fertilization"), thereby slowing the rate of increase in atmospheric [CO(2)]. Carbon exchanges between the terrestrial biosphere and atmosphere are often first represented in models as net primary productivity (NPP). However, the contribution of CO(2) fertilization to the future global C cycle has been uncertain, especially in forest ecosystems that dominate global NPP, and models that include a feedback between terrestrial biosphere metabolism and atmospheric [CO(2)] are poorly constrained by experimental evidence. We analyzed the response of NPP to elevated CO(2) ( approximately 550 ppm) in four free-air CO(2) enrichment experiments in forest stands. We show that the response of forest NPP to elevated [CO(2)] is highly conserved across a broad range of productivity, with a stimulation at the median of 23 +/- 2%. At low leaf area indices, a large portion of the response was attributable to increased light absorption, but as leaf area indices increased, the response to elevated [CO(2)] was wholly caused by increased light-use efficiency. The surprising consistency of response across diverse sites provides a benchmark to evaluate predictions of ecosystem and global models and allows us now to focus on unresolved questions about carbon partitioning and retention, and spatial variation in NPP response caused by availability of other growth limiting resources.
Environmentally induced periods of heat stress decrease productivity with devastating economic consequences to global animal agriculture. Heat stress can be defined as a physiological condition when the core body temperature of a given species exceeds its range specified for normal activity, which results from a total heat load (internal production and environment) exceeding the capacity for heat dissipation and this prompts physiological and behavioral responses to reduce the strain. The ability of ruminants to regulate body temperature is species- and breed-dependent. Dairy breeds are typically more sensitive to heat stress than meat breeds, and higher-producing animals are more susceptible to heat stress because they generate more metabolic heat. During heat stress, ruminants, like other homeothermic animals, increase avenues of heat loss and reduce heat production in an attempt to maintain euthermia. The immediate responses to heat load are increased respiration rates, decreased feed intake and increased water intake. Acclimatization is a process by which animals adapt to environmental conditions and engage behavioral, hormonal and metabolic changes that are characteristics of either acclimatory homeostasis or homeorhetic mechanisms used by the animals to survive in a new 'physiological state'. For example, alterations in the hormonal profile are mainly characterized by a decline and increase in anabolic and catabolic hormones, respectively. The response to heat load and the heat-induced change in homeorhetic modifiers alters post-absorptive energy, lipid and protein metabolism, impairs liver function, causes oxidative stress, jeopardizes the immune response and decreases reproductive performance. These physiological modifications alter nutrient partitioning and may prevent heat-stressed lactating cows from recruiting glucose-sparing mechanisms (despite the reduced nutrient intake). This might explain, in large part, why decreased feed intake only accounts for a minor portion of the reduced milk yield from environmentally induced hyperthermic cows. How these metabolic changes are initiated and regulated is not known. It also remains unclear how these changes differ between short-term v. long-term heat acclimation to impact animal productivity and well-being. A better understanding of the adaptations enlisted by ruminants during heat stress is necessary to enhance the likelihood of developing strategies to simultaneously improve heat tolerance and increase productivity.
Abstract. FLUXNET comprises globally distributed eddy-covariance-based estimates of carbon fluxes between the biosphere and the atmosphere. Since eddy covariance flux towers have a relatively small footprint and are distributed unevenly across the world, upscaling the observations is necessary to obtain global-scale estimates of biosphere–atmosphere exchange. Based on cross-consistency checks with atmospheric inversions, sun-induced fluorescence (SIF) and dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs), here we provide a systematic assessment of the latest upscaling efforts for gross primary production (GPP) and net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of the FLUXCOM initiative, where different machine learning methods, forcing data sets and sets of predictor variables were employed. Spatial patterns of mean GPP are consistent across FLUXCOM and DGVM ensembles (R2>0.94 at 1∘ spatial resolution) while the majority of DGVMs show, for 70 % of the land surface, values outside the FLUXCOM range. Global mean GPP magnitudes for 2008–2010 from FLUXCOM members vary within 106 and 130 PgC yr−1 with the largest uncertainty in the tropics. Seasonal variations in independent SIF estimates agree better with FLUXCOM GPP (mean global pixel-wise R2∼0.75) than with GPP from DGVMs (mean global pixel-wise R2∼0.6). Seasonal variations in FLUXCOM NEE show good consistency with atmospheric inversion-based net land carbon fluxes, particularly for temperate and boreal regions (R2>0.92). Interannual variability of global NEE in FLUXCOM is underestimated compared to inversions and DGVMs. The FLUXCOM version which also uses meteorological inputs shows a strong co-variation in interannual patterns with inversions (R2=0.87 for 2001–2010). Mean regional NEE from FLUXCOM shows larger uptake than inversion and DGVM-based estimates, particularly in the tropics with discrepancies of up to several hundred grammes of carbon per square metre per year. These discrepancies can only partly be reconciled by carbon loss pathways that are implicit in inversions but not captured by the flux tower measurements such as carbon emissions from fires and water bodies. We hypothesize that a combination of systematic biases in the underlying eddy covariance data, in particular in tall tropical forests, and a lack of site history effects on NEE in FLUXCOM are likely responsible for the too strong tropical carbon sink estimated by FLUXCOM. Furthermore, as FLUXCOM does not account for CO2 fertilization effects, carbon flux trends are not realistic. Overall, current FLUXCOM estimates of mean annual and seasonal cycles of GPP as well as seasonal NEE variations provide useful constraints of global carbon cycling, while interannual variability patterns from FLUXCOM are valuable but require cautious interpretation. Exploring the diversity of Earth observation data and of machine learning concepts along with improved quality and quantity of flux tower measurements will facilitate further improvements of the FLUXCOM approach overall.