Selective attention and executive functions deficits among criminal psychopaths

The present study examined whether psychopaths exhibit deficits in selective attention and executive functions. Prison inmates were assigned to either a "psychopath" group or a "control" group according to their scores on the PCL-R [Hare, 1991: Toronto, Multi-Health Systems]. The two groups were compared in terms of performance on the following tests: (1) D-II cancellation, (2) Porteus Maze, (3) Modified Wisconsin Card Sorting, (4) Stroop Color Word Interference, (5) Trail Making, and (6) Tower of London. The results support the hypothesis of selective attention and specific executive function deficits among psychopaths. Specifically, psychopaths' abilities to maintain a plan and to inhibit irrelevant information were inferior to those of control participants. (C) 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc

Long-term allelopathic control of phytoplankton by the submerged macrophyte Elodea nuttallii

Keywords: allelochemicals; chemical ecology; competition; nutrient limitation; shallow lakes Summary 1.It is well known that submerged macrophytes can suppress phytoplankton blooms in lakes and thus promote water quality and biodiversity. One of the possible mechanisms through which submerged macrophytes control phytoplankton is by producing allelochemicals that suppress phytoplankton growth rates. The in situ importance of allelopathy, however, is often questioned because it is assumed that phytoplankton communities can rapidly evolve resistance to allelochemicals. 2.Here, we present the results of two mesocosm experiments in which we evaluated whether the submerged macrophyte Elodea nuttallii is capable of controlling phytoplankton biomass over periods of 4 to 8 weeks. Such a timescale is long relative to the generation time of phytoplankton and is therefore expected to allow the development of resistance through compositional shifts at both population and community levels. 3.Although the mesocosms were inoculated with a diverse phytoplankton inoculum including species that had previously been exposed to Elodea, phytoplankton biomass remained consistently low during the course of the experiments in the treatments with Elodea. As zooplankton grazing and competition for nutrients and light by macrophytes were excluded in our experiments, this suggests that phytoplankton was controlled by allelopathy. 4.Dialysis bag assays, performed at the end of each mesocosm experiment, showed that phytoplankton communities from mesocosms with Elodea were equally sensitive to exudates from Elodea than phytoplankton communities from mesocosms without Elodea. 5.These results suggest that phytoplankton communities do not evolve resistance to allelochemicals from Elodea. This may allow Elodea to control phytoplankton in natural ecosystems over prolonged time periods through allelopathy.

Biological control of phytoplankton by the subtropical submerged macrophytes Egeria densa and Potamogeton illinoensis: a mesocosm study

1. In temperate regions, submerged macrophytes can hamper phytoplankton blooms. Such an effect could arise directly, for instance via allelopathy, or indirectly, via competition for nutrients or the positive interaction between submerged macrophytes and zooplankton grazing. However, there is some evidence that the positive interaction between submerged macrophytes and zooplankton grazing is less marked in warmer regions, where the interaction is less well studied, and that negative effects of higher water plants on phytoplankton biomass are weaker. 2. We carried out two consecutive mesocosm experiments in Uruguay (subtropical South America) to study the effects of two common submerged macrophytes from this region (Egeria densa and Potamogeton illinoensis) on phytoplankton biomass, in the absence of zooplankton grazing. We compared phytoplankton development between different macrophyte treatments (no macrophytes, artificial macrophytes, real Egeria and real Potamogeton). We used artificial macrophytes to differentiate between physical effects (i.e. shading, sedimentation and competition with periphyton) and biological effects (i.e. nutrient competition and allelopathy). 3. In Experiment 1, we found no evidence for physical effects of macrophytes on phytoplankton biomass, but both macrophyte species seemed to exert strong biological effects on phytoplankton biomass. Only Egeria affected phytoplankton community structure, particularly tempering the dominance of Scenedesmus. Nutrient addition assays revealed that only Egeria suppressed phytoplankton through nutrient competition. 4. We performed a second mesocosm experiment with the same design, but applying saturating nutrient conditions as a way of excluding the effects of competition for nutrients. This experiment showed that both macrophytes were still able to suppress phytoplankton through biological mechanisms, providing evidence for allelopathic effects. Our results indicate that both common macrophytes are able to keep phytoplankton biomass low, even in the absence of zooplankton grazing

The influence of plant-associated filter feeders on phytoplankton biomass: a mesocosm study

Low phytoplankton biomass usually occurs in the presence of submerged macrophytes, possibly because submerged macrophytes enhance top-down control of phytoplankton by offering a refuge for efficient grazers like Daphnia against fish predation. However, other field studies also suggest that submerged macrophytes suppress phytoplankton in the absence of Daphnia. In order to investigate these mechanisms further, we conducted an outdoor mesocosm experiment to study the effect of submerged macrophytes (Elodea nuttallii) on phytoplankton and zooplankton biomass. The experiment combined four nutrient addition levels (0, 10, 100, and 1000 lg P l-1; N/P ratio: 16) with three macrophyte levels (no macrophytes, artificial macrophytes, and real macrophytes). We inoculated the tanks with species-rich inocula of phytoplankton and zooplank macrophyte treatment combinations. Compared to the treatment combinations without macrophytes, lower phytoplankton biomass occurred in the treatment combinations with real macrophytes at all the nutrient addition levels and in those with artificial macrophytes at all the nutrient levels except the highest. Significantly, higher abundances of plant-associated filter feeders (Simocephalus vetulus and Ceriodaphnia spp.) occurred in the treatment combinations with real and artificial macrophytes. T

The influence of plant-associated filter feeders on phytoplankton biomass: a mesocosm study

Low phytoplankton biomass usually occurs in the presence of submerged macrophytes, possibly because submerged macrophytes enhance top-down control of phytoplankton by offering a refuge for efficient grazers like Daphnia against fish predation. However, other field studies also suggest that submerged macrophytes suppress phytoplankton in the absence of Daphnia. In order to investigate these mechanisms further, we conducted an outdoor mesocosm experiment to study the effect of submerged macrophytes (Elodea nuttallii) on phytoplankton and zooplankton biomass. The experiment combined four nutrient addition levels (0, 10, 100, and 1000 lg P l-1; N/P ratio: 16) with three macrophyte levels (no macrophytes, artificial macrophytes, and real macrophytes). We inoculated the tanks with species-rich inocula of phytoplankton and zooplank macrophyte treatment combinations. Compared to the treatment combinations without macrophytes, lower phytoplankton biomass occurred in the treatment combinations with real macrophytes at all the nutrient addition levels and in those with artificial macrophytes at all the nutrient levels except the highest. Significantly, higher abundances of plant-associated filter feeders (Simocephalus vetulus and Ceriodaphnia spp.) occurred in the treatment combinations with real and artificial macrophytes. Th

Appendix C. The methods and results of the primary production experiment.

The methods and results of the primary production experiment

Appendix B. ANOVA tables for TP, chlorophyll a, and periphyton growth.

ANOVA tables for TP, chlorophyll a, and periphyton growth

Appendix A. The species (zooplankton) or genera (phytoplankton) belonging to each of the defined functional groups.

The species (zooplankton) or genera (phytoplankton) belonging to each of the defined functional groups

Appendix D. Results of additional GLM analyses on the species richness and evenness of the functional groups.

Results of additional GLM analyses on the species richness and evenness of the functional groups