The North Atlantic Waveguide and Downstream Impact Experiment

The North Atlantic Waveguide and Downstream Impact Experiment (NAWDEX) explored the impact of diabatic processes on disturbances of the jet stream and their influence on downstream high-impact weather through the deployment of four research aircraft, each with a sophisticated set of remote sensing and in situ instruments, and coordinated with a suite of ground-based measurements. A total of 49 research flights were performed, including, for the first time, coordinated flights of the four aircraft: the German High Altitude and Long Range Research Aircraft (HALO), the Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) Dassault Falcon 20, the French Service des Avions Français Instrumentés pour la Recherche en Environnement (SAFIRE) Falcon 20, and the British Facility for Airborne Atmospheric Measurements (FAAM) BAe 146. The observation period from 17 September to 22 October 2016 with frequently occurring extratropical and tropical cyclones was ideal for investigating midlatitude weather over the North Atlantic. NAWDEX featured three sequences of upstream triggers of waveguide disturbances, as well as their dynamic interaction with the jet stream, subsequent development, and eventual downstream weather impact on Europe. Examples are presented to highlight the wealth of phenomena that were sampled, the comprehensive coverage, and the multifaceted nature of the measurements. This unique dataset forms the basis for future case studies and detailed evaluations of weather and climate predictions to improve our understanding of diabatic influences on Rossby waves and the downstream impacts of weather systems affecting Europe

The Floral C-Lineage Genes Trigger Nectary Development in Petunia and Arabidopsis

International audienceTo attract insects, flowers produce nectar, an energy-rich substance secreted by specialized organs called nectaries. For Arabidopsis thaliana, a rosid species with stamen-associated nectaries, the floral B-, C-, and E- functions were proposed to redundantly regulate nectary development. Here we investigated the molecular basis of carpel-associated nectary development in the asterid species Petunia hybrida. We show that its euAGAMOUS (euAG) and PLENA (PLE) C-lineage MADS-box proteins are essential for nectary development, while their overexpression is sufficient to induce ectopic nectaries on sepals. Furthermore, we demonstrate that Arabidopsis nectary development also fully depends on euAG/PLE C-lineage genes. In turn, we show that petunia nectary development depends on two homologs of CRABS CLAW (CRC), a gene previously shown to be required for Arabidopsis nectary development, and demonstrate that CRC expression in both species depends on the members of both euAG/PLE C-sublineages. Therefore, petunia and Arabidopsis employ a similar molecular mechanism underlying nectary development, despite otherwise major differences in the evolutionary trajectory of their C-lineage genes, their distant phylogeny and different nectary positioning. However, unlike in Arabidopsis, petunia nectary development is position-independent within the flower. Finally, we show that the TARGET OF EAT (TOE)-type BLIND ENHANCER (BEN) and APETALA2 (AP2)-type REPRESSOR OF B-FUNCTION (ROB) genes act as major regulators of nectary size

Screening and sampling in studies of binocular vision

Binocular deficits are relatively common within a typical sample of observers. This has implications for research on binocular vision, as a variety of stereo deficits can affect performance. Despite this, there is no agreed standard for testing stereo capabilities in observers and many studies do not report visual abilities at all. Within the stereo literature, failure to report screening and sampling has the potential to undermine the results of otherwise strictly controlled research. We reviewed research articles on binocular vision published in three journals between 2000 and 2008 to illustrate how screening for binocular deficits and sampling of participants is approached. Our results reveal that 44% of the studies do not mention screening for stereo deficits and 91% do not report selection of participants. The percentage of participants excluded from studies that report stereo screening amounts to 3.9% and 0.7% for studies that do not report stereo screening. These low numbers contrast with the exclusion of 17.6% of participants in studies that report screening for binocular deficits as well as selection of participants. We discuss various options for stereo testing and the need for stereo-motion testing with reference to recent research on binocular perception