28 research outputs found

    Climate-Induced Boreal Forest Change: Predictions versus Current Observations

    Get PDF
    For about three decades, there have been many predictions of the potential ecological response in boreal regions to the currently warmer conditions. In essence, a widespread, naturally occurring experiment has been conducted over time. In this paper, we describe previously modeled predictions of ecological change in boreal Alaska, Canada and Russia, and then we investigate potential evidence of current climate-induced change. For instance, ecological models have suggested that warming will induce the northern and upslope migration of the treeline and an alteration in the current mosaic structure of boreal forests. We present evidence of the migration of keystone ecosystems in the upland and lowland treeline of mountainous regions across southern Siberia. Ecological models have also predicted a moisture-stress-related dieback in white spruce trees in Alaska, and current investigations show that as temperatures increase, white spruce tree growth is declining. Additionally, it was suggested that increases in infestation and wildfire disturbance would be catalysts that precipitate the alteration of the current mosaic forest composition. In Siberia, five of the last seven years have resulted in extreme fire seasons, and extreme fire years have also been more frequent in both Alaska and Canada. In addition, Alaska has experienced extreme and geographically expansive multi-year outbreaks of the spruce beetle, which had been previously limited by the cold, moist environment. We suggest that there is substantial evidence throughout the circumboreal region to conclude that the biosphere within the boreal terrestrial environment has already responded to the transient effects of climate change. Additionally, temperature increases and warming-induced change are progressing faster than had been predicted in some regions, suggesting a potential non-linear rapid response to changes in climate, as opposed to the predicted slow linear response to climate change

    A Guide to Utilization of the Microbiology Laboratory for Diagnosis of Infectious Diseases: 2013 Recommendations by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the American Society for Microbiology (ASM)a

    Get PDF
    The critical role of the microbiology laboratory in infectious disease diagnosis calls for a close, positive working relationship between the physician and the microbiologists who provide enormous value to the health care team. This document, developed by both laboratory and clinical experts, provides information on which tests are valuable and in which contexts, and on tests that add little or no value for diagnostic decisions. Sections are divided into anatomic systems, including Bloodstream Infections and Infections of the Cardiovascular System, Central Nervous System Infections, Ocular Infections, Soft Tissue Infections of the Head and Neck, Upper Respiratory Infections, Lower Respiratory Tract infections, Infections of the Gastrointestinal Tract, Intraabdominal Infections, Bone and Joint Infections, Urinary Tract Infections, Genital Infections, and Skin and Soft Tissue Infections; or into etiologic agent groups, including Tickborne Infections, Viral Syndromes, and Blood and Tissue Parasite Infections. Each section contains introductory concepts, a summary of key points, and detailed tables that list suspected agents; the most reliable tests to order; the samples (and volumes) to collect in order of preference; specimen transport devices, procedures, times, and temperatures; and detailed notes on specific issues regarding the test methods, such as when tests are likely to require a specialized laboratory or have prolonged turnaround times. There is redundancy among the tables and sections, as many agents and assay choices overlap. The document is intended to serve as a reference to guide physicians in choosing tests that will aid them to diagnose infectious diseases in their patients

    TRY plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access

    Get PDF
    Plant traits - the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants - determine how plants respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, and influence ecosystem properties and their benefits and detriments to people. Plant trait data thus represent the basis for a vast area of research spanning from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology, to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem and landscape management, restoration, biogeography and earth system modelling. Since its foundation in 2007, the TRY database of plant traits has grown continuously. It now provides unprecedented data coverage under an open access data policy and is the main plant trait database used by the research community worldwide. Increasingly, the TRY database also supports new frontiers of trait‐based plant research, including the identification of data gaps and the subsequent mobilization or measurement of new data. To support this development, in this article we evaluate the extent of the trait data compiled in TRY and analyse emerging patterns of data coverage and representativeness. Best species coverage is achieved for categorical traits - almost complete coverage for ‘plant growth form’. However, most traits relevant for ecology and vegetation modelling are characterized by continuous intraspecific variation and trait–environmental relationships. These traits have to be measured on individual plants in their respective environment. Despite unprecedented data coverage, we observe a humbling lack of completeness and representativeness of these continuous traits in many aspects. We, therefore, conclude that reducing data gaps and biases in the TRY database remains a key challenge and requires a coordinated approach to data mobilization and trait measurements. This can only be achieved in collaboration with other initiatives

    The leaf economics spectrum and its underlying physiological and anatomical principles

    No full text
    Large variations are found in leaf morphology and physiology across species in nature, reflecting diversity in carbon fixation and growth strategies. These variations in leaf traits are not random; rather, they are tightly coordinated with each other. Leaf traits can be expressed per leaf dry mass or per leaf area. A leaf-mass basis reflects leaf economics, i.e., revenues and expenditures per unit investment of biomass, while a leaf-area basis reflects fluxes in relation to surfaces. Leaf N and P concentrations, and photosynthetic and respiration rates – all considered on a mass basis, are negatively correlated with leaf mass per area (LMA) whilst leaf lifespan is positively correlated with LMA. These correlations are summarized into a single major axis called the “leaf economics spectrum” that runs from “quick-return” to “slow-return” species. On the other hand, correlations among area-based traits are less consistent and less understood in relation to leaf economy. LMA was positively correlated with leaf N content but mostly independent from photosynthetic rates per unit leaf area. Given that N is an essential element in photosynthetic proteins and thus photosynthesis, clarifying the mechanisms why the efficiency of photosynthesis (photosynthesis per unit N) decreases with LMA is a major concern in understanding the correlations among area-based traits in relation to leaf economy. Currently available data suggest that greater amounts of cell wall are required for long-lived leaves, which reduces the efficiency of photosynthesis by lowering (1) the fraction of leaf N invested in photosynthetic proteins and (2) CO2 diffusion rates through thicker and denser mesophyll cell walls. These physiological and structural constraints are a fundamental mechanism underpinning the general correlations among leaf economic traits

    Convergence across biomes to a common rain-use efficiency

    Full text link
    Water availability limits plant growth and production in almost all terrestrial ecosystems1, 2, 3, 4, 5. However, biomes differ substantially in sensitivity of aboveground net primary production (ANPP) to between-year variation in precipitation6, 7, 8. Average rain-use efficiency (RUE; ANPP/precipitation) also varies between biomes, supposedly because of differences in vegetation structure and/or biogeochemical constraints8. Here we show that RUE decreases across biomes as mean annual precipitation increases. However, during the driest years at each site, there is convergence to a common maximum RUE (RUEmax) that is typical of arid ecosystems. RUEmax was also identified by experimentally altering the degree of limitation by water and other resources. Thus, in years when water is most limiting, deserts, grasslands and forests all exhibit the same rate of biomass production per unit rainfall, despite differences in physiognomy and site-level RUE. Global climate models9, 10 predict increased between-year variability in precipitation, more frequent extreme drought events, and changes in temperature. Forecasts of future ecosystem behaviour should take into account this convergent feature of terrestrial biomes
    corecore