Solar UV radiation drives CO2 fixation in marine phytoplankton: A double-edged sword

Photosynthesis by phytoplankton cells in aquatic environments contributes to more than 40% of the global primary production (Behrenfeld et al., 2006). Within the euphotic zone (down to 1% of surface photosynthetically active radiation [PAR]), cells are exposed not only to PAR (400-700 nm) but also to UV radiation (UVR; 280-400 nm) that can penetrate to considerable depths (Hargreaves, 2003). In contrast to PAR, which is energizing to photosynthesis, UVR is usually regarded as a stressor (Hader, 2003) and suggested to affect CO2-concentrating mechanisms in phytoplankton (Beardall et al., 2002). Solar UVR is known to reduce photosynthetic rates (Steemann Nielsen, 1964; Helbling et al., 2003), and damage cellular components such as D1 proteins (Sass et al., 1997) and DNA molecules (Buma et al., 2003). It can also decrease the growth (Villafane et al., 2003) and alter the rate of nutrient uptake (Fauchot et al., 2000) and the fatty acid composition (Goes et al., 1994) of phytoplankton. Recently, it has been found that natural levels of UVR can alter the morphology of the cyanobacterium Arthrospira (Spirulina) platensis (Wu et al., 2005b). On the other hand, positive effects of UVR, especially of UV- A (315-400 nm), have also been reported. UV- A enhances carbon fixation of phytoplankton under reduced (Nilawati et al., 1997; Barbieri et al., 2002) or fast-fluctuating (Helbling et al., 2003) solar irradiance and allows photorepair of UV- B-induced DNA damage (Buma et al., 2003). Furthermore, the presence of UV-A resulted in higher biomass production of A. platensis as compared to that under PAR alone (Wu et al., 2005a). Energy of UVR absorbed by the diatom Pseudo-nitzschia multiseries was found to cause fluorescence (Orellana et al., 2004). In addition, fluorescent pigments in corals and their algal symbiont are known to absorb UVR and play positive roles for the symbiotic photosynthesis and photoprotection (Schlichter et al., 1986; Salih et al., 2000). However, despite the positive effects that solar UVR may have on aquatic photosynthetic organisms, there is no direct evidence to what extent and howUVR per se is utilized by phytoplankton. In addition, estimations of aquatic biological production have been carried out in incubations considering only PAR (i. e. using UV-opaque vials made of glass or polycarbonate; Donk et al., 2001) without UVR being considered (Hein and Sand-Jensen, 1997; Schippers and Lurling, 2004). Here, we have found that UVR can act as an additional source of energy for photosynthesis in tropical marine phytoplankton, though it occasionally causes photoinhibition at high PAR levels. While UVR is usually thought of as damaging, our results indicate that UVR can enhance primary production of phytoplankton. Therefore, oceanic carbon fixation estimates may be underestimated by a large percentage if UVR is not taken into account.

Broadband terahertz time-domain spectroscopy of drugs-of-abuse and the use of principal component analysis

EPSRC, the European Community IST FP6 Integrated, etc

黄土区参考作物蒸散量多种计算方法的比较研究

参考作物蒸散量的计算公式大多存在地域性限制,分析其应用情况能够反映这些公式在中国部分地区的应用前景。该文根据1996～2000年陕西省榆林、延安与西安三站的逐日气象资料,以FAO推荐的Penman-Monteith方法为标准,对计算参考作物蒸散量的10种方法进行比较。线性回归,平方根误差与平均偏差方法检验的结果显示:Penman系列方法之间关系密切,Kimberly PM-72方法最好。不同方法之间在夏季的差异较大,春秋季较小。在需要数据较少的方法中Priestley-Taylor方法接近Penman-Monteith方法。FAO-Rad、FAO-BC、Hargreaves与Makkink 4种方法与其差异明显,而且存在地域差异。在本区应用这些方法时需要对其参数进行适当调整,以适应当地的气象条件。