Manejo de Riego por Goteo en Uva de Mesa cv. Thompson Seedless Cultivada en Suelos de Textura Fina

The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effect of three drip irrigation frequencies on table grapes (Vitis vinifera L.) cv. Thompson Seedless planted on a clay loam textured soil (Fluventic Haploxeroll). The drip irrigation frequencies were established considering daily crop evapotranspiration (ETc), estimated by evaporation pan and adjusted using a crop coefficient (Kc). The treatments corresponded to a water application each time the accumulated daily ETc was equivalent to 6 h (T6), 12 h (T12), and 18 h of irrigation (T18). The largest soil wet bulb size was obtained with T18. This treatment also produced greater berry weight and size. Stem water potential was higher in T18 (P 64 0.05) than in the other treatments. These results can be explained, given the soil texture characteristics (clay loam), by a better water/air balance with a less frequent irrigation regime.El objetivo de este ensayo fue evaluar el efecto de tres frecuencias de riego por goteo sobre un parronal de uva de mesa (Vitis vinifera L.), cv. Thompson Seedless, plantado en un suelo de textura franco arcillosa (Fluventic Haploxeroll). Las frecuencias de riego se establecieron considerando la evapotranspiraci\uf3n (ETc) acumulada del cultivo, determinada por el m\ue9todo de la evaporaci\uf3n de bandeja y corregida por un coeficiente de cultivo (Kc), y expresada como acumulaci\uf3n de horas de riego equivalentes. Los tratamientos correspondieron a regar cada vez que la ETc acumulada correspondiera a 6 h (T6), 12 h (T12) y 18 h de riego (T18). El mayor tama\uf1o de bulbo de suelo h\ufamedo se obtuvo con el T18. Este tratamiento present\uf3 mayor peso de poda y calibre de bayas a la cosecha. El potencial h\ueddrico xilem\ue1tico fue m\ue1s alto (P 640,05) en el tratamiento T18 que en los otros tratamientos. Estos resultados se podr\uedan explicar, dadas las caracter\uedsticas texturales del suelo, por un mejor equilibrio agua-aire en el suelo en el tratamiento regado con menos frecuencia

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field