Patterns of Tree Mortality During an Uncontrolled Spruce Budworm Outbreak in Baxter State Park, 1983

A forest inventory of Baxter State Park, Maine, was done during the summer and fall of 1983 to study the patterns of mortality in balsam fir and in the red-black spruce complex during an uncontrolled spruce budworm outbreak. The volume of trees that died during the outbreak was estimated at 40% of the original quantity. Fir mortality was consistently greater than that of spruce. The percentage mortality of spruce was always greater in the higher elevation zone than in the lower elevation zone. Percentage mortality of fir and spruce showed inconsistent patterns in relation to the proportion of hardwood species basal area and to the proportion of fir basal area in a stand. However, those mortality patterns tended to be pronounced when the overall tree mortality was relatively high. Hypotheses on the mechanisms producing the tree mortality patterns during a budworm outbreak were summarized and observed tree mortality patterns were then interpreted according to those hypotheses. Most observed patterns could be explained by more than one hypothesis. It was suggested that complex processes were responsible for developing certain tree mortality patterns, and a deductive method based on the simple observations would not reveal the true mechanisms.https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/aes_techbulletin/1081/thumbnail.jp

Patterns of Tree Mortality During an Uncontrolled Spruce Budworm Outbreak in Baxter State Park, 1983

A forest inventory of Baxter State Park, Maine, was done during the summer and fall of 1983 to study the patterns of mortality in balsam fir and in the red-black spruce complex during an uncontrolled spruce budworm outbreak. The volume of trees that died during the outbreak was estimated at 40% of the original quantity. Fir mortality was consistently greater than that of spruce. The percentage mortality of spruce was always greater in the higher elevation zone than in the lower elevation zone. Percentage mortality of fir and spruce showed inconsistent patterns in relation to the proportion of hardwood species basal area and to the proportion of fir basal area in a stand. However, those mortality patterns tended to be pronounced when the overall tree mortality was relatively high. Hypotheses on the mechanisms producing the tree mortality patterns during a budworm outbreak were summarized and observed tree mortality patterns were then interpreted according to those hypotheses. Most observed patterns could be explained by more than one hypothesis. It was suggested that complex processes were responsible for developing certain tree mortality patterns, and a deductive method based on the simple observations would not reveal the true mechanisms.https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/aes_techbulletin/1081/thumbnail.jp

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

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