| 1. |
- Landhausser, S. M., et al.
(författare)
-
Standardized protocols and procedures can precisely and accurately quantify non-structural carbohydrates
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Tree Physiology. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0829-318X .- 1758-4469. ; 38:12, s. 1764-1778
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Non-structural carbohydrates (NSCs), the stored products of photosynthesis, building blocks for growth and fuel for respiration, are central to plant metabolism, but their measurement is challenging. Differences in methods and procedures among laboratories can cause results to vary widely, limiting our ability to integrate and generalize patterns in plant carbon balance among studies. A recent assessment found that NSC concentrations measured for a common set of samples can vary by an order of magnitude, but sources for this variability were unclear. We measured a common set of nine plant material types, and two synthetic samples with known NSC concentrations, using a common protocol for sugar extraction and starch digestion, and three different sugar quantification methods (ion chromatography, enzyme, acid) in six laboratories. We also tested how sample handling, extraction solvent and centralizing parts of the procedure in one laboratory affected results. Non-structural carbohydrate concentrations measured for synthetic samples were within about 11.5% of known values for all three methods. However, differences among quantification methods were the largest source of variation in NSC measurements for natural plant samples because the three methods quantify different NSCs. The enzyme method quantified only glucose, fructose and sucrose, with ion chromatography we additionally quantified galactose, while the acid method quantified a large range of mono- and oligosaccharides. For some natural samples, sugars quantified with the acid method were two to five times higher than with other methods, demonstrating that trees allocate carbon to a range of sugar molecules. Sample handling had little effect on measurements, while ethanol sugar extraction improved accuracy over water extraction. Our results demonstrate that reasonable accuracy of NSC measurements can be achieved when different methods are used, as long as protocols are robust and standardized. Thus, we provide detailed protocols for the extraction, digestion and quantification of NSCs in plant samples, which should improve the comparability of NSC measurements among laboratories.
|
|
| 2. |
- Quentin, Audrey G, et al.
(författare)
-
Non-structural carbohydrates in woody plants compared among laboratories.
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Tree physiology. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1758-4469 .- 0829-318X. ; 35:11, s. 1146-1165
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Non-structural carbohydrates (NSC) in plant tissue are frequently quantified to make inferences about plant responses to environmental conditions. Laboratories publishing estimates of NSC of woody plants use many different methods to evaluate NSC. We asked whether NSC estimates in the recent literature could be quantitatively compared among studies. We also asked whether any differences among laboratories were related to the extraction and quantification methods used to determine starch and sugar concentrations. These questions were addressed by sending sub-samples collected from five woody plant tissues, which varied in NSC content and chemical composition, to 29 laboratories. Each laboratory analyzed the samples with their laboratory-specific protocols, based on recent publications, to determine concentrations of soluble sugars, starch and their sum, total NSC. Laboratory estimates differed substantially for all samples. For example, estimates for Eucalyptus globulus leaves (EGL) varied from 23 to 116 (mean = 56) mg g(-1) for soluble sugars, 6-533 (mean = 94) mg g(-1) for starch and 53-649 (mean = 153) mg g(-1) for total NSC. Mixed model analysis of variance showed that much of the variability among laboratories was unrelated to the categories we used for extraction and quantification methods (method category R(2) = 0.05-0.12 for soluble sugars, 0.10-0.33 for starch and 0.01-0.09 for total NSC). For EGL, the difference between the highest and lowest least squares means for categories in the mixed model analysis was 33 mg g(-1) for total NSC, compared with the range of laboratory estimates of 596 mg g(-1). Laboratories were reasonably consistent in their ranks of estimates among tissues for starch (r = 0.41-0.91), but less so for total NSC (r = 0.45-0.84) and soluble sugars (r = 0.11-0.83). Our results show that NSC estimates for woody plant tissues cannot be compared among laboratories. The relative changes in NSC between treatments measured within a laboratory may be comparable within and between laboratories, especially for starch. To obtain comparable NSC estimates, we suggest that users can either adopt the reference method given in this publication, or report estimates for a portion of samples using the reference method, and report estimates for a standard reference material. Researchers interested in NSC estimates should work to identify and adopt standard methods.
|
|
| 3. |
- Karp, Melissa A., et al.
(författare)
-
Increasing the uptake of multispecies models in fisheries management
- 2023
-
Ingår i: ICES Journal of Marine Science. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1054-3139 .- 1095-9289. ; 80:2, s. 243-257
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Multispecies models have existed in a fisheries context since at least the 1970s, but despite much exploration, advancement, and consideration of multispecies models, there remain limited examples of their operational use in fishery management. Given that species and fleet interactions are inherently multispecies problems and the push towards ecosystem-based fisheries management, the lack of more regular operational use is both surprising and compelling. We identify impediments hampering the regular operational use of multispecies models and provide recommendations to address those impediments. These recommendations are: (1) engage stakeholders and managers early and often; (2) improve messaging and communication about the various uses of multispecies models; (3) move forward with multispecies management under current authorities while exploring more inclusive governance structures and flexible decision-making frameworks for handling tradeoffs; (4) evaluate when a multispecies modelling approach may be more appropriate; (5) tailor the multispecies model to a clearly defined purpose; (6) develop interdisciplinary solutions to promoting multispecies model applications; (7) make guidelines available for multispecies model review and application; and (8) ensure code and models are well documented and reproducible. These recommendations draw from a global assemblage of subject matter experts who participated in a workshop entitled “Multispecies Modeling Applications in Fisheries Management”.
|
|
