Reply to Elmendorf and Ettinger: Photoperiod playsa dominantand irreplaceable role in triggering secondary growth resumption

In their Letter, Elmendorf and Ettinger (1) question the dominant role of photoperiod in driving secondary growth resumption (hereafter referred to as xylem formation onset) of the Northern Hemisphere conifers, recently reported by Huang et al. (2). Their opinions are grounded on the following three aspects, including 1) the seasonality of the photoperiod, 2) the dependence of the predictor variables (e.g., photoperiod, forcing, and chilling) on the response variable (the date of onset of xylem formation, day of the year [DOY]), and 3) the limited value of the obtained models for interannual forecasting. We think they bring up an interesting issue that deserves further discussion and clarification. Photoperiod is acknowledged to regulate spring bud swelling while wood formation starts (3, 4). Although photoperiod seasonality occurs at each site, its influence is marginal in our study given that the analysis involved comparisons among sites across the Northern Hemisphere. Our conclusion that photoperiod plays a dominant role was built upon the combination of several coherent pieces of evidence, rather than “the crux of Huang et al….” as they pointed out. First, we clearly stated that model 2, which modeled DOY as a function of the mean annual temperature of the site (MAT), forcing, chilling, and soil moisture, was considered the best model in terms of parsimony according to minimum Akaike information criterion and Bayesian information criterion, rather than R2 as referred to in their Letter. Second, photoperiod interacted with MAT and can explain 61.7% of the variance of MAT alone (2). Therefore, we concluded that secondary growth resumption was driven primarily by MAT and photoperiod or by their interaction, which is challenging to be disentangled without experimental data, we agree. In terms of biological functioning, they play an ..

Between Consent and Effectiveness: Incidental Determinations and the Expansion of the Jurisdiction of UNCLOS Tribunals

This paper discusses the legal framework within which the jurisdiction ratione materiae of tribunals established under UNCLOS Part XV can be extended, at least incidentally, over non-UNCLOS issues. The analysis illustrates that, whilst UNCLOS Tribunals\u2014like other international tribunals\u2014have an incidental jurisdiction to determine incidental issues beyond the scope of their principal jurisdiction, a consistent and well-developed doctrine relating to such incidental jurisdiction is still lacking. The Chagos award provides some hints about the features of this jurisdiction, but essentially refers to judicial assessments which remain to a large extent discretionary. The same holds true when it comes to the determination of the legal effects of incidental determinations over external issues. In this paper it is argued that further clarification about such prominent aspects of the adjudication of law of sea disputes is needed. This would help achieving a better balance between the principle of consent and the principle of effectiveness in the exercise of Part XV jurisdiction