The assimilation and retention of carbon in upland heath plant communities typical of contrasting management regimes : a 13C tracer study

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Legacy effects of nitrogen and phosphorus additions on vegetation and carbon stocks of upland heaths

Open Access via the Wiley Jisc Agreement. Funding Information Scottish Natural Heritage Royal Society of Edinburgh Fellowship Scottish Government Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division (RESAS) N8 AgriFoodPeer reviewedPublisher PD

Wind farm development on peatlands increases fluvial macronutrient loading

Wind farms can help to mitigate increasing atmospheric carbon (C) emissions. However, disturbance caused by wind farm development must not have lasting deleterious impacts on landscape C sequestration. To understand the effects of wind farm development on peatlands, we monitored streamwater at Europe’s second largest onshore wind farm (539 MW), Whitelee, Scotland, for 31 months. Using nested catchment sampling to understand impacts on water quality, increasing macronutrient concentrations and exports were associated with wind farm development, particularly forest-felling and borrow pits. Low/poor water quality occurred in small headwater catchments most disturbed by development. At the site exit, dissolved organic C and soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) concentrations increased during construction, though [SRP] recovery occurred within 2 years. Since C was lost and streamwater quality negatively affected, we propose future good practice measures for wind farm development, including limiting total disturbance within individual catchments and locating borrow pits, where deemed necessary, off site avoiding peatlands

Cohort profile for the STratifying Resilience and Depression Longitudinally (STRADL) study:A depression-focused investigation of Generation Scotland, using detailed clinical, cognitive, and neuroimaging assessments

Grant information: STRADL is supported by the Wellcome Trust through a Strategic Award (104036/Z/14/Z). GS:SFHS received core support from the CSO of the Scottish Government Health Directorates (CZD/16/6) and the Scottish Funding Council (HR03006). ADM is supported by Innovate UK, the European Commission, the Scottish Funding Council via the Scottish Imaging Network SINAPSE, and the CSO. HCW is supported by a JMAS SIM Fellowship from the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, by an ESAT College Fellowship from the University of Edinburgh, and has received previous funding from the Sackler Trust. LR has previously received financial support from Pfizer (formerly Wyeth) in relation to imaging studies of people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. JDH is supported by the MRC. DJM is an NRS Clinician, funded by the CSO. RMR is supported by the British Heart Foundation. ISP-V and MRM are supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health; and MRM is also supported by the MRC MC_UU_12013/6). JMW is supported by MRC UK Dementia Research Institute and MRC Centre and project grants, EPSRC, Fondation Leducq, Stroke Association, British Heart Foundation, Alzheimer Society, and the European Union H2020 PHC-03-15 SVDs@Target grant agreement (666881). DJP is supported by Wellcome Trust Longitudinal Population Study funding (216767/Z/19/Z) the Eva Lester bequest to the University of Edinburgh. AMM is additionally supported by the MRC (MC_PC_17209, MC_PC_MR/R01910X/1, MR/S035818/1), The Wellcome Trust (216767/Z/19/Z ), The Sackler Trust, and has previously received research funding from Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Janssen. Both AMM and IJD are members of The University of Edinburgh Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology, part of the cross council Lifelong Health and Wellbeing Initiative (MR/K026992/1); funding from the BBSRC and MRC is gratefully acknowledged. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscriptPeer reviewedPublisher PD

An overview of <i>Scheuchzeria palustris</i> in Scotland and a new locality in Westerness (v.c.97)

A new locality for Scheuchzeria palustris L. (Rannoch Rush) in Westerness extends its extant range in Scotland. The characteristics of the site are presented in the context of the known distribution and ecology of S. palustris on and around Rannoch Moor, the only extant populations in the British Isles. An overview of the population dynamics revealed by monitoring since 1988 is given

Characterisation of opioid receptors involved in modulating circular and longitudinal muscle contraction in the rat ileum

1. The aim of the present investigation was to characterise the opioid receptor subtypes present in the rat ileum using a method that detects drug action on the enteric nerves innervating the circular and longitudinal muscles. 2. Neurogenic contractions were reversibly inhibited by morphine (circular muscle pEC(50), 6.43±0.17, E(max) 81.7±5.0%; longitudinal muscle pEC(50), 6.65±0.27, E(max) 59.7±7.8%), the μ-opioid receptor-selective agonist, DAMGO ([D-Ala(2),N-Me-Phe(4),Gly(5)-ol]enkephalin acetate) (circular pEC(50), 7.85±0.04, E(max) 97.8±3.6%; longitudinal pEC(50), 7.35±0.09, E(max) 56.0±6.1%), the δ-selective agonist DADLE ([D-Ala(2),D-Leu(5)]enkephalin acetate) (circular pEC(50), 7.41±0.17, E(max), 93.3±8.4%; longitudinal pEC(50), 6.31±0.07, E(max) 66.5±5.2%) and the κ-selective agonist U 50488H (trans-(±)-3,4-dichloro-N-methyl-N-[2-(1-pyrrolidinyl)cyclohexyl]benzeneacetamide methanesulphonate) (circular pEC(50), 5.91±0.41, E(max), 83.5±26.8%; longitudinal pEC(50), 5.60±0.08, E(max) 74.3±7.2%). Agonist potencies were generally within expected ranges for activity at the subtype for which they are selective, except for U 50488H, which was less potent than expected. 3. The μ and δ receptor-selective antagonists, CTAP (H-D-Phe-Cys-Tyr-D-Trp-Arg-Thr-Pen-Thr-NH(2)) and naltrindole, caused progressive, parallel rightward shifts in the DAMGO and DADLE curves, respectively. Analysis indicated conformity to theoretical simple competitive antagonist behaviour. U 50488H effects were insensitive to the κ-selective antagonist, n-BNI. A high concentration (1 μM) of naltrexone caused apparent potentiation of U 50488H effects. 4. CTAP pK(B) estimates were consistent with previously reported values for μ receptor antagonism (circular 7.84±0.17, longitudinal 7.64±0.35). However, the naltrindole pK(B) estimates indicated lower antagonist potency than expected (circular 8.22±0.23, longitudinal 8.53±0.35). 5. It is concluded that μ and possibly atypical δ receptors (but not κ receptors) mediate inhibition of contraction in this model. Nonopioid actions of U 50488H are probably responsible for the inhibitory effects seen with this compound

Antibody responses and protective immunity to recombinant vaccinia virus-expressed bluetongue virus antigens

The role of individual viral proteins in the immune response to bluetongue virus (BTV) is not clearly understood. To investigate the contributions of the outer capsid proteins, VP2 and VP5, and possible interactions between them, these proteins were expressed from recombinant vaccinia viruses either as individual proteins or together in double recombinants, or with the core protein VP7 in a triple recombinant. Comparison of the immunogenicity of the vaccinia expressed proteins with BTV expressed proteins was carried out by inoculation of rabbits and sheep. Each of the recombinants was capable of stimulating an anti-BTV antibody response, although there was a wide range in the level of response between animals and species. Vaccinia-expressed VP2 was poorly immunogenic, particularly in rabbits. VP5, on the whole, stimulated higher ELISA titers in rabbits and sheep and in some animals in both species was able to stimulate virus neutralizing antibodies. When the protective efficacy of VP2 and VP5 was tested in sheep, vaccinia-expressed VP2, VP5 and VP2 + VP5 were protective, with the most consistent protection being in groups immunized with both proteins. (C) 1997 Elsevier Science B.V