Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
About: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences is a(n) education organization based out in Uppsala, Sweden. It is known for research contribution in the topic(s): Population & Soil water. The organization has 13510 authors who have published 35241 publication(s) receiving 1414458 citation(s). The organization is also known as: Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet & SLU.
Topics: Population, Soil water, Species richness, Biodiversity, Picea abies
Papers published on a yearly basis
Western Washington University1, University of Alaska Fairbanks2, United States Forest Service3, University of Zurich4, Centre national de la recherche scientifique5, Natural Environment Research Council6, University of Notre Dame7, École Normale Supérieure8, Columbia University9, University of Helsinki10, United States Geological Survey11, University of Michigan12, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences13, Landcare Research14
01 Feb 2005-Ecological Monographs
TL;DR: Understanding this complexity, while taking strong steps to minimize current losses of species, is necessary for responsible management of Earth's ecosystems and the diverse biota they contain.
Abstract: Humans are altering the composition of biological communities through a variety of activities that increase rates of species invasions and species extinctions, at all scales, from local to global. These changes in components of the Earth's biodiversity cause concern for ethical and aesthetic reasons, but they also have a strong potential to alter ecosystem properties and the goods and services they provide to humanity. Ecological experiments, observations, and theoretical developments show that ecosystem properties depend greatly on biodiversity in terms of the functional characteristics of organisms present in the ecosystem and the distribution and abundance of those organisms over space and time. Species effects act in concert with the effects of climate, resource availability, and disturbance regimes in influencing ecosystem properties. Human activities can modify all of the above factors; here we focus on modification of these biotic controls. The scientific community has come to a broad consensus on many aspects of the re- lationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, including many points relevant to management of ecosystems. Further progress will require integration of knowledge about biotic and abiotic controls on ecosystem properties, how ecological communities are struc- tured, and the forces driving species extinctions and invasions. To strengthen links to policy and management, we also need to integrate our ecological knowledge with understanding of the social and economic constraints of potential management practices. Understanding this complexity, while taking strong steps to minimize current losses of species, is necessary for responsible management of Earth's ecosystems and the diverse biota they contain.
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Kotb Abdelmohsen2, Akihisa Abe3, Joynal Abedin4 +2519 more•Institutions (695)
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macro-autophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: 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. For example, 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 versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase 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. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. 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. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation, it is imperative to target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagy-related protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. 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 assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
University of Michigan1, College of William & Mary2, McGill University3, Western Washington University4, Arizona State University5, Imperial College London6, University of Minnesota7, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences8, Stanford University9, Centre national de la recherche scientifique10, United States Geological Survey11, University of British Columbia12, Columbia University13
TL;DR: It is argued that human actions are dismantling the Earth’s ecosystems, eliminating genes, species and biological traits at an alarming rate, and the question of how such loss of biological diversity will alter the functioning of ecosystems and their ability to provide society with the goods and services needed to prosper is asked.
Abstract: The most unique feature of Earth is the existence of life, and the most extraordinary feature of life is its diversity. Approximately 9 million types of plants, animals, protists and fungi inhabit the Earth. So, too, do 7 billion people. Two decades ago, at the first Earth Summit, the vast majority of the world's nations declared that human actions were dismantling the Earth's ecosystems, eliminating genes, species and biological traits at an alarming rate. This observation led to the question of how such loss of biological diversity will alter the functioning of ecosystems and their ability to provide society with the goods and services needed to prosper.
TL;DR: Larger numbers of species are probably needed to reduce temporal variability in ecosystem processes in changing environments and to determine how biodiversity dynamics, ecosystem processes, and abiotic factors interact.
Abstract: The ecological consequences of biodiversity loss have aroused considerable interest and controversy during the past decade. Major advances have been made in describing the relationship between species diversity and ecosystem processes, in identifying functionally important species, and in revealing underlying mechanisms. There is, however, uncertainty as to how results obtained in recent experiments scale up to landscape and regional levels and generalize across ecosystem types and processes. Larger numbers of species are probably needed to reduce temporal variability in ecosystem processes in changing environments. A major future challenge is to determine how biodiversity dynamics, ecosystem processes, and abiotic factors interact.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory1, University of Tennessee2, West Virginia University3, Umeå University4, University of British Columbia5, United States Department of Energy6, Ghent University7, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences8, Institut national de la recherche agronomique9, Virginia Tech10, Michigan Technological University11, University of Toronto12, Pennsylvania State University13, University of Provence14, University of Georgia15, University of Florida16, University of California, Berkeley17, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory18, University of Arizona19, Purdue University20, Stanford University21, United States Department of Agriculture22, University of Turku23, University of Helsinki24, Massachusetts Institute of Technology25, University of Tennessee Health Science Center26, University of Tübingen27
TL;DR: The draft genome of the black cottonwood tree, Populus trichocarpa, has been reported in this paper, with more than 45,000 putative protein-coding genes identified.
Abstract: We report the draft genome of the black cottonwood tree, Populus trichocarpa. Integration of shotgun sequence assembly with genetic mapping enabled chromosome-scale reconstruction of the genome. More than 45,000 putative protein-coding genes were identified. Analysis of the assembled genome revealed a whole-genome duplication event; about 8000 pairs of duplicated genes from that event survived in the Populus genome. A second, older duplication event is indistinguishably coincident with the divergence of the Populus and Arabidopsis lineages. Nucleotide substitution, tandem gene duplication, and gross chromosomal rearrangement appear to proceed substantially more slowly in Populus than in Arabidopsis. Populus has more protein-coding genes than Arabidopsis, ranging on average from 1.4 to 1.6 putative Populus homologs for each Arabidopsis gene. However, the relative frequency of protein domains in the two genomes is similar. Overrepresented exceptions in Populus include genes associated with lignocellulosic wall biosynthesis, meristem development, disease resistance, and metabolite transport.
Showing all 13510 results
|Carol V. Robinson||123||670||51896|
|Peter J. Anderson||120||966||63635|
|David E. Clapham||119||382||58360|
|Angela M. Gronenborn||113||568||44800|
|David A. Wardle||110||409||70547|
|Jack S. Remington||103||481||38006|
|Per A. Peterson||102||356||35788|
|Malcolm J. Bennett||99||439||37207|
|Gunnar E. Carlsson||98||466||32638|
Related Institutions (5)
Institut national de la recherche agronomique
68.3K papers, 3.2M citations
Wageningen University and Research Centre
54.8K papers, 2.6M citations
University of Guelph
50.5K papers, 1.7M citations
United States Forest Service
21.8K papers, 959.1K citations
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
21.3K papers, 748.1K citations