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: Increased climate variability and higher mean temperatures are expected across many world regions, both of which will contribute to more frequent extreme high temperatures events. Empirical evidence increasingly shows that short episodes of high temperature experienced around flowering can have large negative impacts on cereal grain yields, a phenomenon increasingly referred to as heat stress. Crop models are currently the best tools available to investigate how crops will grow under future climatic conditions, though the need to include heat stress effects has been recognized only relatively recently. We reviewed literature on both how key crop physiological processes and the observed yields under production conditions are impacted by high temperatures occurring particularly in the flowering and grain filling phases for wheat, maize and rice. This state of the art in crop response to heat stress was then contrasted with generic approaches to simulate the impacts of high temperatures in crop growth models. We found that the observed impacts of heat stress on crop yield are the end result of the integration of many processes, not all of which will be affected by a “high temperature” regime. This complexity confirms an important role for crop models in systematizing the effects of high temperatures on many processes under a range of environments and realizations of crop phenology. Four generic approaches to simulate high temperature impacts on yield were identified: (1) empirical reduction of final yield, (2) empirical reduction in daily increment in harvest index, (3) empirical reduction in grain number, and (4) semi-deterministic models of sink and source limitation. Consideration of canopy temperature is suggested as a promising approach to concurrently account for heat and drought stress, which are likely to occur simultaneously. Improving crop models’ response to high temperature impacts on cereal yields will require experimental data representative of field production and should be designed to connect what is already known about physiological responses and observed yield impacts. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract: Livestock directly contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions mainly through methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. For cost and practicality reasons, quantification of GHG has been through development of various types of mathematical models. This chapter addresses the utility and limitations of mathematical models used to estimate enteric CH4 emissions from livestock production. Models used in GHG quantification can be broadly classified into either empirical or mechanistic models. Empirical models might be easier to use because they require fewer input variables compared with mechanistic models. However, their applicability in assessing mitigation options such as dietary manipulation may be limited. The major driving variables identified for both types of models include feed intake, lipid and nonstructural carbohydrate content of the feed, and animal variables. Knowledge gaps identified in empirical modeling were that some of the assumptions might not be valid because of geographical location, health status of animals, genetic differences, or production type. In mechanistic modeling, errors related to estimating feed intake, stoichiometry of volatile fatty acid (VFA) production, and acidity of rumen contents are limitations that need further investigation. Model prediction uncertainty was also investigated, and, depending on the intensity and source of the prediction uncertainty, the mathematical model may inaccurately predict the observed values with more or less variability. In conclusion, although there are quantification tools available, global collaboration is required to come to a consensus on quantification protocols. This can be achieved through developing various types of models specific to region, animal, and production type using large global datasets developed through international collaboration.