Abstract: Polyphenol oxidase (PPO) catalyses the oxidation of monophenols and/or o-diphenols to o-quinones with the concomitant reduction of oxygen to water which results in protein complexing and the formation of brown melanin pigments. The most frequently suggested role for PPO in plants has been in defence against herbivores and pathogens, based on the physical separation of the chloroplast-localized enzyme from the vacuole-localized substrates. The o-quinone-protein complexes, formed as a consequence of cell damage, may reduce the nutritional value of the tissue and thereby reduce predation but can also participate in the formation of structural barriers against invading pathogens. However, since a sufficient level of compartmentation-based regulation could be accomplished if PPO was targeted to the cytosol, the benefit derived by some plant species in having PPO present in the chloroplast lumen remains an intriguing question. So is there more to the chloroplastic location of PPO? An interaction between PPO activity and photosynthesis has been proposed on more than one occasion but, to date, evidence either for or against direct involvement has been equivocal, and the lack of identified chloroplastic substrates remains an issue. Similarly, PPO has been suggested to have both pro- and anti-oxidant functions. Nevertheless, several independent lines of evidence suggest that PPO responds to environmental conditions and could be involved in the response of plants to abiotic stress. This review highlights our current understanding of the in vivo functions of PPO and considers the potential opportunities it presents for exploitation to increase stress tolerance in food crops.

Abstract: The use of biophysical models in agroecology has increased in the last few decades for two main reasons: the need to formalize empirical knowledge and the need to disseminate model-based decision support for decision makers (such as farmers, advisors, and policy makers). The first has encouraged the development and use of mathematical models to enhance the efficiency of field research through extrapolation beyond the limits of site, season, and management. The second reflects the increasing need (by scientists, managers, and the public) for simulation experimentation to explore options and consequences, for example, future resource use efficiency (i.e., management in sustainable intensification), impacts of and adaptation to climate change, understanding market and policy responses to shocks initiated at a biophysical level under increasing demand, and limited supply capacity. Production concerns thus dominate most model applications, but there is a notable growing emphasis on environmental, economic, and policy dimensions. Identifying effective methods of assessing model quality and performance has become a challenging but vital imperative, considering the variety of factors influencing model outputs. Understanding the requirements of stakeholders, in respect of model use, logically implies the need for their inclusion in model evaluation methods. We reviewed the use of metrics of model evaluation, with a particular emphasis on the involvement of stakeholders to expand horizons beyond conventional structured, numeric analyses. Two major topics are discussed: (1) the importance of deliberative processes for model evaluation, and (2) the role computer-aided techniques may play to integrate deliberative processes into the evaluation of agroecological models. We point out that (i) the evaluation of agroecological models can be improved through stakeholder follow-up, which is a key for the acceptability of model realizations in practice, (ii) model credibility depends not only on the outcomes of well-structured, numerically based evaluation, but also on less tangible factors that may need to be addressed using complementary deliberative processes, (iii) comprehensive evaluation of simulation models can be achieved by integrating the expectations of stakeholders via a weighting system of preferences and perception, (iv) questionnaire-based surveys can help understand the challenges posed by the deliberative process, and (v) a benefit can be obtained if model evaluation is conceived in a decisional perspective and evaluation techniques are developed at the same pace with which the models themselves are created and improved. Scientific knowledge hubs are also recognized as critical pillars to advance good modeling practice in relation to model evaluation (including access to dedicated software tools), an activity which is frequently neglected in the context of time-limited framework programs.