| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Kleijn, David, et al.
(författare)
-
Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation.
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Nature Communications. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2041-1723. ; 6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- There is compelling evidence that more diverse ecosystems deliver greater benefits to people, and these ecosystem services have become a key argument for biodiversity conservation. However, it is unclear how much biodiversity is needed to deliver ecosystem services in a cost-effective way. Here we show that, while the contribution of wild bees to crop production is significant, service delivery is restricted to a limited subset of all known bee species. Across crops, years and biogeographical regions, crop-visiting wild bee communities are dominated by a small number of common species, and threatened species are rarely observed on crops. Dominant crop pollinators persist under agricultural expansion and many are easily enhanced by simple conservation measures, suggesting that cost-effective management strategies to promote crop pollination should target a different set of species than management strategies to promote threatened bees. Conserving the biological diversity of bees therefore requires more than just ecosystem-service-based arguments.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Rader, Romina, et al.
(författare)
-
Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination.
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. - : Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. - 1091-6490 .- 0027-8424. ; 113:1, s. 146-151
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Wild and managed bees are well documented as effective pollinators of global crops of economic importance. However, the contributions by pollinators other than bees have been little explored despite their potential to contribute to crop production and stability in the face of environmental change. Non-bee pollinators include flies, beetles, moths, butterflies, wasps, ants, birds, and bats, among others. Here we focus on non-bee insects and synthesize 39 field studies from five continents that directly measured the crop pollination services provided by non-bees, honey bees, and other bees to compare the relative contributions of these taxa. Non-bees performed 25-50% of the total number of flower visits. Although non-bees were less effective pollinators than bees per flower visit, they made more visits; thus these two factors compensated for each other, resulting in pollination services rendered by non-bees that were similar to those provided by bees. In the subset of studies that measured fruit set, fruit set increased with non-bee insect visits independently of bee visitation rates, indicating that non-bee insects provide a unique benefit that is not provided by bees. We also show that non-bee insects are not as reliant as bees on the presence of remnant natural or seminatural habitat in the surrounding landscape. These results strongly suggest that non-bee insect pollinators play a significant role in global crop production and respond differently than bees to landscape structure, probably making their crop pollination services more robust to changes in land use. Non-bee insects provide a valuable service and provide potential insurance against bee population declines.
|
|
| 9. |
- Riggi, Laura, et al.
(författare)
-
Early-season mass-flowering crop cover dilutes wild bee abundance and species richness in temperate regions : A quantitative synthesis
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Journal of Applied Ecology. - 0021-8901 .- 1365-2664. ; 61:3, s. 452-464
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Pollinators benefit from increasing floral resources in agricultural landscapes, which could be an underexplored co-benefit of mass-flowering crop cultivation. However, the impacts of mass-flowering crops on pollinator communities are complex and appear to be context-dependent, mediated by factors such as crop flowering time and the availability of other flower resources in the landscape. A synthesis of research is needed to develop management recommendations for effective pollinator conservation in agroecosystems. By combining 22 datasets from 13 publications conducted in nine temperate countries (20 European, 2 North American), we investigated if mass-flowering crop flowering time (early or late season), bloom state (during or after crop flowering) and extent of non-crop habitat cover in the landscape moderated the effect of mass-flowering crop cover on wild pollinator abundance and species richness in mass-flowering crop and non-crop habitats. During bloom, wild bee abundance and richness are negatively related to mass-flowering crop cover. Dilution effects were predominant in crop habitats and early in the season, except for bumblebees, which declined with mass-flowering crop cover irrespective of habitat or season. Late in the season and in non-crop habitats, several of these negative relationships were either absent or reversed. Late-season mass-flowering crop cover is positively related to honeybee abundance in crop habitats and to other bee abundance in non-crop habitats. These results indicate that crop-adapted species, like honeybees, move to forage and concentrate on late-season mass-flowering crops at a time when flower availability in the landscape is limited, potentially alleviating competition for flower resources in non-crop habitats. We found no evidence of pollinators moving from mass-flowering crop to non-crop habitats after crop bloom. Synthesis and applications: Our results confirm that increasing early-season mass-flowering crop cover dilutes wild pollinators in crop habitats during bloom. We find that dilution effects were absent late in the season. While mass-flowering crop cultivation alone is unlikely to be sufficient for maintaining pollinators, as part of carefully designed diverse crop rotations or mixtures combined with the preservation of permanent non-crop habitats, it might provide valuable supplementary food resources for pollinators in temperate agroecosystems, particularly later in the season when alternative flower resources are scarce.
|
|
