Breaking seasonal limitation: year-round sporogenesis in the brown alga Laminaria saccharina by blocking the transport of putative sporulation inhibitors

Year-round induction of sporogenesis of Laminaria saccharina was performed by mechanically blocking the transport of the putative sporulation inhibitors produced by the blade meristem and culturing the plants in constant short days. Sporogenesis was successfully induced by removal of the blade meristem, either by cultivating distal blade fragments or by performing a transverse cut in the frond. The earliest sorus formation after artificial induction was 10 days. The age of the sporophytes used for induction was 6-11 months or 2 years in tank-grown or field-collected sporophytes, respectively. Zoospores were successfully released in all cases. Thus, by year-round artificial induction of sporogenesis, (1) sporeling production of L. saccharina and thereafter sporophyte cultivation could be achieved without seasonal limitation, and (2) the life cycle of L. saccharina (from spore to spore) could be completed within 8 months under controlled conditions. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Potential P limitation leads to excess N in the pearl river estuarine coastal plume

There is excess nitrate (NO3) in the Pearl River coastal plume in the southern waters of Hong Kong in summer. We hypothesize that phosphorus (P) limitation controls the utilization of excess NO3 due to the high N:P ratio in the Pearl River. To test this hypothesis, we conducted two 1-day cruises on July 13 and 19, 2000 to examine the response of the phytoplankton to P additions with respect to changes in biomass, uptake of nutrients and nutrient uptake ratios using a batch incubation of natural water samples collected from the Pearl River estuary and adjacent coastal waters. At a station (E1, salinity =5) in the Pearl River estuary, the N/P ratio at the surface was 46:1, (64 muM DIN: 1.3 muM PO4) and decreased to 24:1 (12 muM DIN: 0.5 muM PO4) downstream at a station (Stn 26, salinity =26) in the coastal plume south of Hong Kong. Without a P addition, NO3 in the water samples collected at E1 could not be depleted during a 9 day incubation (similar to20 muM NO3 remaining). With a P addition, NO3 disappeared completely on day 6 with the depletion of the added PO4 (2-3 muM). This was also true for a station, E4 (salinity= 15) further downstream, but within the estuary. At Stn 26, in the coastal plume south of Hong Kong, NO3 (similar to11.5 muM) was eventually depleted without the addition of PO4, but it took 8 days instead of 5 days for Stn E4. The uptake ratio of dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) to PO4, without a P addition was 51:1, 43:1 and 46:1 for Stns E1, E4 and 26, respectively. With a P addition, the DIN/PO4 uptake ratio decreased to 20:1, 14:1 and 12:1, respectively, for the 3 stations. These results clearly indicate potential P limitation to utilization of NO3 in the Pearl River estuary, resulting in excess NO3 in waters of the coastal plume downstream of the estuary, some of which would eventually be transported offshore. High uptake ratios of N:P without a P addition (43N:1P) suggest that phytoplankton have a nitrogen uptake capacity in excess of the Redfield ratio of 16N: 1P by 2.5-3 times. The value of 2.5-3 times was likely a maximum that should have contained a contribution of P released from desorption of P from sediments or from regeneration by zooplankton grazing and bacterial activity during the incubation of natural water samples. Without a P addition, however, phytoplankton biomass did not increase. This means that P turnover rates or regeneration may allow phytoplankton to take up additional N in excess of the Redfield ratio and store it, but without increasing the algal biomass. Therefore, high ambient N:P ratios in excess of the Redfield ratio do indicate potential P limitation to phytoplankton biomass in this estuarine coastal ecosystem. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Interannual fluctuations in floral longevity, pollinator visitation and pollination limitation of an alpine plant (Gentiana straminea Maxim., Gentianaceae) at two altitudes in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau

Prolonged floral longevity and bumblebees as dominate pollinators in alpine ecosystem have been suggested to overcome pollination limitation of alpine plants arising from the decrease of pollinator activity with increasing altitude. However, this conclusion has never been examined in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau (QTP), the highest and largest plateau in the world. In this study, we intended to test year-to-year correlations between floral longevity, visiting frequency and pollen limitation of this species between two populations (at 3200 m and 4000 m) of Gentiana straminea in this plateau. Pollinator exclusion elongated both male and female phases greatly at both sites, and durations of both male and female phases in natural condition varied greatly over three years. The visiting frequency of bumblebees varied greatly at the higher altitude, but seemed to be stable at the lower altitude. Seed production was pollination limited in both populations in most studied years. The floral durations, pollinator frequency and pollination limitation showed no significant and consistent variations with the increase of altitude. The previous hypothesis that the prolonged floral longevity of alpine plants can compensate for low levels of pollinator visitation therefore could not be confirmed, and our results further suggested that in the QTP platform, the altitude shows no consistent effect on the reproductive performance of this species, despite that the fluctuation of visit frequency intensified at the higher altitude.

Whose News? Copyright and the Dissemination of News on the Internet

International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, Volume 17, Issue 2 July 2003 , pages 163 - 174 RAE2008

Autor filmowy według przepisów prawa w systemach droit d`auteur i copyright. Zarys problematyki

The aim of the article is to outline the key issues surrounding legal notions of film authorship. For scholars interested in studying the process of production it is extremely important to analyze the status and scope of power of its participants as well as their position in the hierarchy – one of the main sources of priveleges is the fact of being recognized by the law as the author of the work produced. The article depicts the benefits of such situation, but its main aim is to descibe the legal rules of granting the status of the author. Outlined are the issues emerged from the two radically different legal system – european droit d`auteur tradition and american copyright. The first one honours the artists while the other focuses mostly on providing the certainty of the economics, so the actual authors of the work are not that important. The paper points to the fact that – especially in the case of american copyright – the actual (determined by law) situation of a creator may differ significantly from the character of their contribution to the process of producing a film. Analysis of the rules and principles of the law is essential to the understanding of the structural determinants of film production and deserves no less attention than social, political and economic factors.

The Union Mission hymnal, with which is incorporated "Hymns for Heart and Life" / edited by Fredk. C. Spurr ; the harmonies of the non-copyright pieces revised by Henry C. Banister.

http://www.archive.org/details/theunionmissiony00spuruoft

Complying with the NIH Public Access Policy - Copyright Considerations and Options

On January 11, 2008, the National Institutes of Health ('NIH') adopted a revised Public Access Policy for peer-reviewed journal articles reporting research supported in whole or in part by NIH funds. Under the revised policy, the grantee shall ensure that a copy of the author's final manuscript, including any revisions made during the peer review process, be electronically submitted to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central ('PMC') archive and that the person submitting the manuscript will designate a time not later than 12 months after publication at which NIH may make the full text of the manuscript publicly accessible in PMC. NIH adopted this policy to implement a new statutory requirement under which: The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law. This White Paper is written primarily for policymaking staff in universities and other institutional recipients of NIH support responsible for ensuring compliance with the Public Access Policy. The January 11, 2008, Public Access Policy imposes two new compliance mandates. First, the grantee must ensure proper manuscript submission. The version of the article to be submitted is the final version over which the author has control, which must include all revisions made after peer review. The statutory command directs that the manuscript be submitted to PMC 'upon acceptance for publication.' That is, the author's final manuscript should be submitted to PMC at the same time that it is sent to the publisher for final formatting and copy editing. Proper submission is a two-stage process. The electronic manuscript must first be submitted through a process that requires input of additional information concerning the article, the author(s), and the nature of NIH support for the research reported. NIH then formats the manuscript into a uniform, XML-based format used for PMC versions of articles. In the second stage of the submission process, NIH sends a notice to the Principal Investigator requesting that the PMC-formatted version be reviewed and approved. Only after such approval has grantee's manuscript submission obligation been satisfied. Second, the grantee also has a distinct obligation to grant NIH copyright permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible through PMC not later than 12 months after the date of publication. This obligation is connected to manuscript submission because the author, or the person submitting the manuscript on the author's behalf, must have the necessary rights under copyright at the time of submission to give NIH the copyright permission it requires. This White Paper explains and analyzes only the scope of the grantee's copyright-related obligations under the revised Public Access Policy and suggests six options for compliance with that aspect of the grantee's obligation. Time is of the essence for NIH grantees. As a practical matter, the grantee should have a compliance process in place no later than April 7, 2008. More specifically, the new Public Access Policy applies to any article accepted for publication on or after April 7, 2008 if the article arose under (1) an NIH Grant or Cooperative Agreement active in Fiscal Year 2008, (2) direct funding from an NIH Contract signed after April 7, 2008, (3) direct funding from the NIH Intramural Program, or (4) from an NIH employee. In addition, effective May 25, 2008, anyone submitting an application, proposal or progress report to the NIH must include the PMC reference number when citing articles arising from their NIH funded research. (This includes applications submitted to the NIH for the May 25, 2008 and subsequent due dates.) Conceptually, the compliance challenge that the Public Access Policy poses for grantees is easily described. The grantee must depend to some extent upon the author(s) to take the necessary actions to ensure that the grantee is in compliance with the Public Access Policy because the electronic manuscripts and the copyrights in those manuscripts are initially under the control of the author(s). As a result, any compliance option will require an explicit understanding between the author(s) and the grantee about how the manuscript and the copyright in the manuscript are managed. It is useful to conceptually keep separate the grantee's manuscript submission obligation from its copyright permission obligation because the compliance personnel concerned with manuscript management may differ from those responsible for overseeing the author's copyright management. With respect to copyright management, the grantee has the following six options: (1) rely on authors to manage copyright but also to request or to require that these authors take responsibility for amending publication agreements that call for transfer of too many rights to enable the author to grant NIH permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible ('the Public Access License'); (2) take a more active role in assisting authors in negotiating the scope of any copyright transfer to a publisher by (a) providing advice to authors concerning their negotiations or (b) by acting as the author's agent in such negotiations; (3) enter into a side agreement with NIH-funded authors that grants a non-exclusive copyright license to the grantee sufficient to grant NIH the Public Access License; (4) enter into a side agreement with NIH-funded authors that grants a non-exclusive copyright license to the grantee sufficient to grant NIH the Public Access License and also grants a license to the grantee to make certain uses of the article, including posting a copy in the grantee's publicly accessible digital archive or repository and authorizing the article to be used in connection with teaching by university faculty; (5) negotiate a more systematic and comprehensive agreement with the biomedical publishers to ensure either that the publisher has a binding obligation to submit the manuscript and to grant NIH permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible or that the author retains sufficient rights to do so; or (6) instruct NIH-funded authors to submit manuscripts only to journals with binding deposit agreements with NIH or to journals whose copyright agreements permit authors to retain sufficient rights to authorize NIH to make manuscripts publicly accessible.