Measurement of the Charged Multiplicities in b, c and Light Quark Events from Z0 Decays

Average charged multiplicities have been measured separately in $b$, $c$ and light quark ($u,d,s$) events from $Z^0$ decays measured in the SLD experiment. Impact parameters of charged tracks were used to select enriched samples of $b$ and light quark events, and reconstructed charmed mesons were used to select $c$ quark events. We measured the charged multiplicities: $\bar{n}_{uds} = 20.21 \pm 0.10 (\rm{stat.})\pm 0.22(\rm{syst.})$, $\bar{n}_{c} = 21.28 \pm 0.46(\rm{stat.}) ^{+0.41}_{-0.36}(\rm{syst.})$ $\bar{n}_{b} = 23.14 \pm 0.10(\rm{stat.}) ^{+0.38}_{-0.37}(\rm{syst.})$, from which we derived the differences between the total average charged multiplicities of $c$ or $b$ quark events and light quark events: $\Delta \bar{n}_c = 1.07 \pm 0.47(\rm{stat.})^{+0.36}_{-0.30}(\rm{syst.})$ and $\Delta \bar{n}_b = 2.93 \pm 0.14(\rm{stat.})^{+0.30}_{-0.29}(\rm{syst.})$. We compared these measurements with those at lower center-of-mass energies and with perturbative QCD predictions. These combined results are in agreement with the QCD expectations and disfavor the hypothesis of flavor-independent fragmentation.Comment: 19 pages LaTex, 4 EPS figures, to appear in Physics Letters

Growth analysis and carbon economy of developing peach (Prunus Persica (L.) Batsch) and Apple (Malus Pumila Mill.) fruits

SIGLEAvailable from TIB Hannover: DW 7385 / FIZ - Fachinformationszzentrum Karlsruhe / TIB - Technische InformationsbibliothekDEGerman

Comparative assessment of five methods of determining sap flow in peach trees

Five different methods of determining sap flow (SF), three based on heat pulse (compensation heat pulse, New Zealand—cHP–NZ; compensation heat pulse, Greenspan/Australia—cHP–G (South oriented), and cHP–G–EW (East and West oriented, average); non-compensation heat pulse, Ariel/Israel—ncHP), one based on stem heat balance (Dynamax/USA—SHB), and another based on heat dissipation (Granier/France—HD) were compared in an experiment performed on peach trees in Northeast Spain. Two irrigation treatments (drip-irrigated) were applied: a control and a stress treatment, the latter consisting of withholding water from day 190 to 199. Between 1 and 3 different systems were installed in some trees of both, the control and stress treatments. All the techniques reflected the evolution of water stress in the stressed trees with a very similar tendency and in agreement with the evolution of predawn water potential (Cp). Cp correlated well with sap flow (SF) determined with all the systems (r2 > 0.65) in the stress treatment, indicating that all the SF techniques detected changes in tree water status. The cHP–NZ system was the first to detect a SF reduction through the outer xylem vessels, as a response to water withholding. In control trees, daily SF rates provided by the three heat pulse and heat balance methods were well correlated with ETo and somewhat less with global radiation; all regressions improved on an hourly basis. Daily pattern and magnitude of mean SF rates monitored by the three heat pulse systems were quite similar in control trees. This was reflected by high regression coefficients when compared with each other. Higher SF rates recorded by ncHP methods in comparison with cHP–G and cHP–NZ might be attributed to technical limitations and to different sensor orientation. In an accompanying experiment, substantial differences between East and West location of the cHP–G sensors were observed, but when taking the mean value of those daily SF rates, differences between ncHP and cHP–G–EW were lower. Mean monthly crop coefficients, calculated by using SF data computed with ncHP method and soil evaporation as determined with microlysimeters, were 0.64 in July and 0.67 August. SF systems can be used to detect plant water stress related to control, and might be useful for irrigation scheduling based on plant water status. The SF techniques analysed showed potential to better determine actual plant water necessities than other traditional methods, but a preceding calibration is needed

Comparative assessment of five methods of determining sap flow in peach trees

Five different methods of determining sap flow (SF), three based on heat pulse (compensation heat pulse, New Zealand--cHP-NZ; compensation heat pulse, Greenspan/Australia--cHP-G (South oriented), and cHP-G-EW (East and West oriented, average); non-compensation heat pulse, Ariel/Israel--ncHP), one based on stem heat balance (Dynamax/USA--SHB), and another based on heat dissipation (Granier/France--HD) were compared in an experiment performed on peach trees in Northeast Spain. Two irrigation treatments (drip-irrigated) were applied: a control and a stress treatment, the latter consisting of withholding water from day 190 to 199. Between 1 and 3 different systems were installed in some trees of both, the control and stress treatments. All the techniques reflected the evolution of water stress in the stressed trees with a very similar tendency and in agreement with the evolution of predawn water potential ([Psi]p). [Psi]p correlated well with sap flow (SF) determined with all the systems (r2 > 0.65) in the stress treatment, indicating that all the SF techniques detected changes in tree water status. The cHP-NZ system was the first to detect a SF reduction through the outer xylem vessels, as a response to water withholding. In control trees, daily SF rates provided by the three heat pulse and heat balance methods were well correlated with ETo and somewhat less with global radiation; all regressions improved on an hourly basis. Daily pattern and magnitude of mean SF rates monitored by the three heat pulse systems were quite similar in control trees. This was reflected by high regression coefficients when compared with each other. Higher SF rates recorded by ncHP methods in comparison with cHP-G and cHP-NZ might be attributed to technical limitations and to different sensor orientation. In an accompanying experiment, substantial differences between East and West location of the cHP-G sensors were observed, but when taking the mean value of those daily SF rates, differences between ncHP and cHP-G-EW were lower. Mean monthly crop coefficients, calculated by using SF data computed with ncHP method and soil evaporation as determined with microlysimeters, were 0.64 in July and 0.67 in August. SF systems can be used to detect plant water stress related to control, and might be useful for irrigation scheduling based on plant water status. The SF techniques analysed showed potential to better determine actual plant water necessities than other traditional methods, but a preceding calibration is needed.

Phase III study of gefitinib compared with intravenous methotrexate for recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck [corrected].

Contains fulltext : 81936.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)PURPOSE: To compare survival in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) treated with gefitinib 250 or 500 mg/day or standard methotrexate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred eighty-six patients with recurrent SCCHN were randomly assigned to oral gefitinib 250 mg/day, gefitinib 500 mg/day, or methotrexate 40 mg/m(2) intravenously weekly. Primary end point was overall survival, secondary end points were objective response rate (ORR), safety, symptom improvement, and quality of life (QOL). Exploratory end points included association of efficacy with epidermal growth factor receptor gene copy number and other biomarkers. RESULTS: Neither gefitinib 250 nor 500 mg/day improved overall survival compared with methotrexate (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.57; P = .12; and HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.43; P = .39, respectively). In the gefitinib 250 mg/day, 500 mg/day, and methotrexate groups, respectively, median overall survival was 5.6, 6.0, and 6.7 months; ORRs (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) were 2.7%, 7.6% and 3.9%, with no statistically significant difference between either gefitinib arm and methotrexate. No unexpected adverse events were observed, except for tumor hemorrhage-type events with gefitinib (8.9%, gefitinib 250 mg/day; 11.4%, gefitinib 500 mg/day; 1.9%, methotrexate). QOL improvement rates (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head & Neck total score) were 13.4%, 18.0%, and 6.0% for gefitinib 250 mg/day, 500 mg/day, and methotrexate, respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN, while responses with gefitinib were seen, neither gefitinib 250 nor 500 mg/day improved overall survival compared with methotrexate. With the exception of tumor hemorrhage-type events with gefitinib, the adverse event profiles were generally consistent with those previously observed