Resource allocation and sucrose mobilization in light-limited eelgrass Zostera marina

Este artículo contiene 12 páginas, 9 figuras, 4 tablas.This study evaluated the ability of Zostera marina L. (eelgrass) to balance the daily photosynthetic deficit by mobilization of carbon reserves stored in below-ground tissues during a period of extreme winter light limitation. A quantitative understanding of the mobilization process and its limitations is essential to the development of robust models predicting minimum light levels required to maintain healthy seagrass populations. Plants were grown in running seawater tanks under 2 light regimes. One treatment was provided with 2 h irradiance-saturated photosynthesis (Hsat) to produce severe Light Limitation, while control plants were grown under 7 h Hsat, simulating the typical wintertime condition in Monterey Bay, California, USA. Although plants maintained under 2 h Hsat were more severely carbon limited than plants grown under 7 h Hsat, whole-plant carbon balance calculated from metabolic needs and growth rates was negative for both Hsat treatments. The eelgrass studied here responded to negative carbon balances by suppressing the production of new roots, depleting sucrose reserves, and effecting a gradual decrease in growth rate and an increase in the activity of sucrose synthase (SS, E.C. 2.4.1.13) in sink tissues in the terminal stages of carbon stress. The 7 h Hsat plants survived the 45 d course of the experiment while the plants grown under 2 h Hsat died within 30 d, even though one-third of their carbon reserves remained immobilized in the rhizome. Thus. extreme Light limitation can prevent full mobilization of carbon reserves stored in below-ground tissues, probably through the effects of anoxia on translocation. Metabolic rates, particularly photosynthesis and respiration of the shoot, were unaffected by prolonged carbon limitation in both treatments. The patterns observed here can provide useful indices for assessing the state and fate of seagrass ecosystems in advance of catastrophic declines.Financial support was provided by a CIRIT (Comissionat per a Universitats i Recerca)Trainlng Grant to T.A, and by grant OCE-9223265 from the US National Science Foundation to R.C.Z. and R.Peer reviewe

Resource Allocation and Sucrose Mobilization In Light Limited Eelgrass Zostera marina

This study evaluated the ability of Zostera marina L. (eelgrass) to balance the daily photosynthetic deficit by mobilization of carbon reserves stored in below-ground tissues during a period of extreme winter light limitation. A quantitative understanding of the mobilization process and its limitations is essential to the development of robust models predicting minimum light levels required to maintain healthy seagrass populations. Plants were grown in running seawater tanks under 2 light regimes. One treatment was provided with 2 h irradiance-saturated photosynthesis (Hsat) to produce severe Light Limitation, while control plants were grown under 7 h Hsat, simulating the typical wintertime condition in Monterey Bay, California, USA. Although plants maintained under 2 h Hsat were more severely carbon limited than plants grown under 7 h Hsat, whole-plant carbon balance calculated from metabolic needs and growth rates was negative for both Hsat treatments. The eelgrass studied here responded to negative carbon balances by suppressing the production of new roots, depleting sucrose reserves, and effecting a gradual decrease in growth rate and an increase in the activity of sucrose synthase (SS, E.C. 2.4.1.13) in sink tissues in the terminal stages of carbon stress. The 7 h Hsat plants survived the 45 d course of the experiment while the plants grown under 2 h Hsat died within 30 d, even though one-third of their carbon reserves remained immobilized in the rhizome. Thus. extreme Light limitation can prevent full mobilization of carbon reserves stored in below-ground tissues, probably through the effects of anoxia on translocation. Metabolic rates, particularly photosynthesis and respiration of the shoot, were unaffected by prolonged carbon limitation in both treatments. The patterns observed here can provide useful indices for assessing the state and fate of seagrass ecosystems in advance of catastrophic declines

Top-Down Impact Through a Bottom-Up Mechanism. In Situ Effects of Limpet Grazing on Growth, Light Requirements and Survival of the Eelgrass Zostera marina

Temporal changes in abundance, size, productivity, resource allocation and light requirements of a subtidal eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) population were followed for 2 yr after the September 1993 appearance of a previously rare oval form of the commensal limpet Tectura depicta (Berry) in Monterey Bay, California, USA, By exclusively targeting the epidermis, limpet grazing impaired photosynthetic performance but left respiratory demand, meristematic growth and more than 90 % of the leaf biomass intact, The resulting low P:R ratios of grazed plants raised the light requirements for the maintenance of positive carbon balance almost 2-fold relative to healthy ungrazed plants and prevented the summertime accumulation of internal carbon reserves. Shoot density in this once-continuously vegetated 30 ha meadow declined from more than 50 shoots m-2 (2230 g fresh wt [FW] m-2) to sparse patches supporting an average of 16 shoots m-2 (380 g FW m-2). More than 50 % of the continuously vegetated meadow was converted to bare sand despite ambient light availability and water temperatures that were favorable for growth of healthy, ungrazed plants. Plant size declined by 50 % and internal sugar reserves declined more than 4-fold within 6 mo after the appearance of T. depicta, Plant losses were most extensive during winter, when internal carbon reserves were minimal, The dramatic decline in eelgrass vigor and abundance reported here, despite a physical environment that was favorable for healthy eelgrass survival, illustrates the amplification of top-down control by this relatively inconspicuous limpet through a feeding mechanism that specifically impairs photosynthesis, a bottom-up process

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health