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: In crop insurance, the accuracy with which the insurer quantifies the actual risk is highly dependent on the availability on actual yield data. Crop models might be valuable tools to generate data on expected yields for risk assessment when no historical records are available. However, selecting a crop model for a specific objective, location and implementation scale is a difficult task. A look inside the different crop and soil modules to understand how outputs are obtained might facilitate model choice. The objectives of this paper were (i) to assess the usefulness of crop models to be used within a crop insurance analysis and design and (ii) to select the most suitable crop model for drought risk assessment in semi-arid regions in Spain. For that purpose first, a pre-selection of crop models simulating wheat yield under rainfed growing conditions at the field scale was made, and second, four selected models (Aquacrop, CERES-Wheat, CropSyst and WOFOST) were compared in terms of modelling approaches, process descriptions and model outputs. Outputs of the four models for the simulation of winter wheat growth are comparable when water is not limiting, but differences are larger when simulating yields under rainfed conditions. These differences in rainfed yields are mainly related to the dissimilar simulated soil water availability and the assumed linkages with dry matter formation. We concluded that for the simulation of winter wheat growth at field scale in such semi-arid conditions, CERES-Wheat and CropSyst are preferred. WOFOST is a satisfactory compromise between data availability and complexity when detail data on soil is limited. Aquacrop integrates physiological processes in some representative parameters, thus diminishing the number of input parameters, what is seen as an advantage when observed data is scarce. However, the high sensitivity of this model to low water availability limits its use in the region considered. Contrary to the use of ensembles of crop models, we endorse that efforts be concentrated on selecting or rebuilding a model that includes approaches that better describe the agronomic conditions of the regions in which they will be applied. The use of such complex methodologies as crop models is associated with numerous sources of uncertainty, although these models are the best tools available to get insight in these complex agronomic systems. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.