Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (48)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = CCMP

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
27 pages, 7418 KiB  
Article
Assessment of CCMP in Capturing High Winds with Respect to Individual Satellite Datasets
by Pingping Rong and Hui Su
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(22), 4215; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16224215 - 12 Nov 2024
Viewed by 381
Abstract
High-wind structures were identified in the Cross-Calibrated Multi-Platform (CCMP) ocean wind vector reanalysis for comparison with winds measured by satellite radiometers, scatterometers, and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) instruments from February to October 2023. The comparison aims to evaluate bias, uncertainty, and spatial correlations [...] Read more.
High-wind structures were identified in the Cross-Calibrated Multi-Platform (CCMP) ocean wind vector reanalysis for comparison with winds measured by satellite radiometers, scatterometers, and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) instruments from February to October 2023. The comparison aims to evaluate bias, uncertainty, and spatial correlations with the goal of enhancing the accuracy of ocean wind datasets during tropical cyclones (TCs). In 10° longitude × 10° latitude blocks, each containing a TC, Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) and Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) winds are 6.5 and 4.8% higher than CCMP, while Advanced Scatterometer (ASCATB) is 0.8% lower. For extratropical cyclones, AMSR2 and SMAP also show stronger winds with a 5% difference, and ASCATB is about 0.3% weaker compared to CCMP. The comparison between SAR and CCMP for TC winds, sampled at the locations and time frames of SAR tiles, indicates that SAR winds around TCs are about 9% higher than CCMP winds. Using empirically defined TC structural indices, we find that the TCs observed by CCMP are shifted in locations and lack a compact core region. A Random Forest (RF) regressor was applied to TCs in CCMP with corresponding SAR observations, nearly correcting the full magnitude of low bias in CCMP statistically, with a 15 m/s correction in the core region. The hierarchy of importance among the predictors is as follows: CCMP wind speed (62%), distance of SAR pixels to the eye region (21%) and eye center (7%), and distance of CCMP pixels to the eye region (5%) and eye center (5%). Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Demonstration of local time (LT) coverages for SMAP (<b>a</b>), ASCATB (<b>b</b>), and ASMR2 (<b>c</b>) on 1 September 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>(<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) Demonstration of local time (LT) coverages for CYGNSS at the indicated UT time plus or minus 0.75 hours (as shown in each title), on 1 September 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Each pair of global hourly (4 UT hours per day from February to October 2023) pixel-by-pixel (0.25° × 0.25°) ocean wind speed maps are compared between CCMP and AMSR2, SMAP, ASCAT2, or CYGNSS, and then statistical moments of all such pairs are shown in histograms, represented by different colors. (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) Histograms of the mean, standard deviation (STD), and standard error of the mean (SEM) of the percent differences. (<b>d</b>) Histograms of spatial correlation coefficients of these hourly maps. Note that in the legend, the median and standard deviation describe the current histogram’s median and spread.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>CCMP is linearly interpolated from the 4 UTs onto 0.5-hourly intervals, and same statistical moments of percent differences between CCMP and SMAP are calculated to compare with the results based on the 4 UTs per day. The maxima of the red histograms are adjusted (8–10 times) to match the blue curves. The y-axis numbers correspond to the blue histogram. The (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) resemble those in <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>(<b>a</b>) A global map of CCMP for a selected day to demonstrate the distribution of high-wind structures. Both Saola and Haikui (within the white rectangle) are notable, and a magnified regional map is shown in (<b>b</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Same as <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a>, except that the individual cases are 10° Lon × 10° Lat blocks identified as containing high-wind structures (i.e., TCs) in the low-latitude region between 35°S and 35°N. CYGNSS is not included because, based on our criteria, no high-wind features were identified. The (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) resemble those in <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>AMSR2 maps (<b>top</b>) and CCMP maps (<b>bottom</b>) at coincidences for the five selected high spatial correlation cases, based on the results in <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Same as <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f007" class="html-fig">Figure 7</a>, except for SMAP.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Same as <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f007" class="html-fig">Figure 7</a>, except for ASCATB.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Same as <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>, except for the mid-high latitude region south of 35°S or north of 35°N. The (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) resemble those in <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>AMSR2 maps (<b>top</b>) and CCMP maps (<b>bottom</b>) at coincidences for the five selected high spatial correlation cases in the mid-high latitude region, based on the results in <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f010" class="html-fig">Figure 10</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Same as <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f011" class="html-fig">Figure 11</a>, except for SMAP.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Same as <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f011" class="html-fig">Figure 11</a>, except for ASCATB.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Histograms of the statistics for the SAR and CCMP pixel-by-pixel ocean wind speed comparisons over individual tiles. (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) The histograms of tile-wise means, STDs, and SEMs of the pixel-by-pixel percent differences. (<b>c</b>) Spatial correlations of CCMP and SAR ocean wind speed over individual SAR tiles. CCMP values are sampled over the SAR tiles, and the SAR data are resampled onto the CCMP’s grid.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Same as <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>, except with a block size of 5° × 5°, to compare with <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f014" class="html-fig">Figure 14</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Selected SAR (<b>top</b>) and CCMP (<b>bottom</b>) TC maps at coincidences with spatial correlations greater than 0.9.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Demonstration of the TC eye center and eye region identification routines. The black crosses are filled into the detected eye-region size, and the red circle marks the eye center position, which is generally the pixel that possesses the lowest ocean wind speed. (<b>a</b>) and (<b>b</b>) here correspond to (d) and (i) in <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f016" class="html-fig">Figure 16</a>, except that they are magnified.</p>
Full article ">Figure 18
<p>(<b>a</b>–<b>e</b>) SAR and CCMP TC equivalent radii for different ocean wind speed levels (2.0 m/s intervals) for the five pairs of maps shown in <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f016" class="html-fig">Figure 16</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 19
<p>TC structure comparisons between SAR and CCMP, via histograms of differences in TC eye-center locations (<b>a</b>), eye-region sizes (<b>b</b>), equivalent radii (<b>c</b>), and S–N and W–E asymmetries (<b>d</b>), using all coincident pairs throughout February–October 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 20
<p>The performance levels of the RF model described by the statistical moments of the scatter plots. (<b>a</b>) Statistical moments when the model is applied to the training set (which are the 75% of ocean wind speed values for the selected set of TCs for model training). (<b>b</b>) The same statistics for the remaining 25% of the wind speed values for the same set of TCs. (<b>c</b>) The same statistics, except for the result from applying the model to a blind TC set. The ty1n2 in the title refers to the case when all predictors in Table 2 are used for the RF model training.</p>
Full article ">Figure 21
<p>Histograms of the statistics when the RF model is applied to the individual TC tiles in the blind set. In each panel, the comparison between different curves illustrates the improvement in the predicted ocean wind speed maps relative to the CCMP maps, assuming that the SAR maps are considered the true states, in terms of accuracy (<b>a</b>), bias (<b>b</b>), correlation coefficient (<b>c</b>), and STD of the differences (<b>d</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 22
<p>Three selected ocean wind speed tiles (in rows 1st–3rd) are used to demonstrate the performance of the ty1, ty2, and ty1n2 (3rd–5th columns) relative to SAR maps (1st column) and the CCMP maps (2nd column).</p>
Full article ">
21 pages, 7837 KiB  
Article
Salinity Stress Acclimation Strategies in Chlamydomonas sp. Revealed by Physiological, Morphological and Transcriptomic Approaches
by Chiara Lauritano, Emma Bazzani, Eleonora Montuori, Francesco Bolinesi, Olga Mangoni, Gennaro Riccio, Angela Buondonno and Maria Saggiomo
Mar. Drugs 2024, 22(8), 351; https://doi.org/10.3390/md22080351 - 29 Jul 2024
Viewed by 1257
Abstract
Climate changes may include variations in salinity concentrations at sea by changing ocean dynamics. These variations may be especially challenging for marine photosynthetic organisms, affecting their growth and distribution. Chlamydomonas spp. are ubiquitous and are often found in extreme salinity conditions. For this [...] Read more.
Climate changes may include variations in salinity concentrations at sea by changing ocean dynamics. These variations may be especially challenging for marine photosynthetic organisms, affecting their growth and distribution. Chlamydomonas spp. are ubiquitous and are often found in extreme salinity conditions. For this reason, they are considered good model species to study salinity adaptation strategies. In the current study, we used an integrated approach to study the Chlamydomonas sp. CCMP225 response to salinities of 20‰ and 70‰, by combining physiological, morphological, and transcriptomic analyses, and comparing differentially expressed genes in the exponential and stationary growth phases under the two salinity conditions. The results showed that the strain is able to grow under all tested salinity conditions and maintains a surprisingly high photosynthetic efficiency even under high salinities. However, at the highest salinity condition, the cells lose their flagella. The transcriptomic analysis highlighted the up- or down-regulation of specific gene categories, helping to identify key genes responding to salinity stress. Overall, the findings may be of interest to the marine biology, ecology, and biotechnology communities, to better understand species adaptation mechanisms under possible global change scenarios and the potential activation of enzymes involved in the synthesis of bioactive molecules. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biotechnological Applications of Marine Enzymes)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Growth curves of <span class="html-italic">Chlamydomonas</span> sp. under the three salinity conditions: 20‰ (red line), 36‰ (blue line), and 70‰ (grey line). The curves represent mean values of three replicates with standard deviation bars: (<b>a</b>) the three conditions together, and (<b>b</b>) a close-up on the growth curve at salinity 70‰.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Morphological analysis at the scanning electron microscope (SEM) of <span class="html-italic">Chlamydomonas</span> sp. cultured in: (<b>a</b>) control condition, salinity 36‰; (<b>b</b>) salinity 20‰; and (<b>c</b>) salinity 70‰.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Fv/Fm values of <span class="html-italic">Chlamydomonas</span> sp. in the studied salinity conditions: 20‰ (red line), 36‰ (blue line), and 70‰ (grey line), in three different biological replicates: (<b>a</b>) experiment I; (<b>b</b>) experiment II; and (<b>c</b>) experiment III.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Sample correlation matrix of all genes in the samples. The abbreviation exp stands for exponential and stat for stationary.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Venn diagrams showing numbers of up- (<b>a</b>) and down-regulated (<b>b</b>) differentially expressed genes (DEGs) different and shared among the experimental setups: exponential (exp) and stationary (stat) growth phases of microalgae cultivated at 20‰ and 70‰ salinity (S).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>GO terms enriched: (<b>a</b>) UP in S20_Exp vs. S70_Exp, (<b>b</b>) UP in S20_Stat vs. S70_Stat, and (<b>c</b>) DOWN in S20_Stat vs. S70_Stat. The abbreviation GO stands for gene ontology, BP for biological processes (grouped in each panel by a black rectangle), CC for cellular components (grouped in each panel by an orange rectangle), and MF for molecular functions (grouped in each panel by a purple rectangle). Exp stands for exponential and Stat for stationary.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Schematic diagram of main physiological, morphological, and transcriptomic results observed at high salinity.</p>
Full article ">
22 pages, 18966 KiB  
Article
Analysis of Wind Energy Potential in Sri Lankan Waters Based on ERA5 (ECMWF Reanalysis v5) and CCMP (Cross-Calibrated Multi-Platform)
by Jinglong Yao, Yating Miao, P. B. Terney Pradeep Kumara, K. Arulananthan, Zhenqiu Zhang and Wei Zhou
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12(6), 876; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12060876 - 24 May 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 985
Abstract
Amid global energy demands and environmental concerns, the exploration of renewable energy sources has become critically important. This study presents a comprehensive analysis of wind energy dynamics over a 35-year period (1988–2022) using CCMP and ERA5 datasets. It focuses on the spatial and [...] Read more.
Amid global energy demands and environmental concerns, the exploration of renewable energy sources has become critically important. This study presents a comprehensive analysis of wind energy dynamics over a 35-year period (1988–2022) using CCMP and ERA5 datasets. It focuses on the spatial and temporal characteristics of wind energy within the region, particularly its distribution. The wind field in Sri Lanka has significant seasonal and regional characteristics. Despite seasonal variations, the overall wind activity remains moderate, with speeds generally above 5.4 m/s and annual average wind power densities exceeding 150 W/m2, reaching up to 200 W/m2 in certain areas. The two primary wind directions in the waters near Sri Lanka are WSW and NE. The study identifies periods of high stability, particularly from June to August, where effective wind speed occurrence (EWSO) exceeds 80%. A ‘W’-shaped pattern in monthly variations corresponds with changes in wind power density (WPD), highlighting optimal periods for wind energy extraction. Additionally, estimated reserves and technically exploitable wind energy resources (WERs) suggest that wind energy development off Sri Lanka is feasible, with potential capacities of approximately 2.00 GW and 1.60 GW, respectively. The overall coefficient of variation (CV) is small, indicating stable wind energy conditions. This analysis not only provides a scientific basis for evaluating WERs near Sri Lanka but also offers valuable insights for strategic planning and development in the renewable energy sector. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Marine Environmental Science)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Observation Site Location for Data Validation (Red Point) and Study Area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Mean Wind Speed Comparison: gray dot: Marine Flux Tower data; blue line: the daily moving average of Marine Flux Tower data; orange line: the daily moving average of ERA5 data; green line: the daily moving average of CCMP data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The EOF Distribution from 1988 to 2022: (<b>a1</b>–<b>d1</b>): the first four modal spatial distributions of CCMP; (<b>a2</b>–<b>d2</b>): the first four modal spatial distributions of ERA5; (<b>a3</b>–<b>d3</b>): the monthly averaged time series plots of ERA5 and CCMP data, the red line represents CCMP data, and the black line represents ERA5 data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Spatial distribution of annual mean wind speed and direction during 1988–2022, (<b>a</b>) ERA5, (<b>b</b>) CCMP, and (<b>c</b>) The difference between ERA5 data and CCMP data. <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <msub> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">V</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">d</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">f</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">f</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">e</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">r</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">e</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">n</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">c</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">e</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <msub> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">V</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">E</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">R</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">A</mi> <mn>5</mn> </mrow> </msub> <mo>−</mo> <msub> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">V</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">C</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">C</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">M</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">P</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Spatial distribution of seasonal mean wind speed and direction during 1988−2022. MAM is March to May, JJA is June to August, SOD is September to November, DJF is December to February of the following year. (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) are ERA5 data. (<b>e</b>–<b>h</b>) are CCMP data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Wind rose diagram of wind speed distribution from 1988 to 2022. (<b>a</b>) is ERA5 data, and (<b>b</b>) is CCMP data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Wind rose diagram of seasonal distribution of wind speed during 1988−2022. (<b>a</b>) MAM, (<b>b</b>) JJA, (<b>c</b>) SOD, and (<b>d</b>) DJF are ERA5 data. (<b>e</b>) MAM, (<b>f</b>) JJA, (<b>g</b>) SOD, and (<b>h</b>) DJF are CCMP data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Weibull probability distribution in all directions from 1988 to 2022. (<b>a</b>) E: East, (<b>b</b>) ENE: East-Northeast, (<b>c</b>) NE: Northeast, (<b>d</b>) NNE: North-Northeast, (<b>e</b>) N: North, (<b>f</b>) NNW: North-Northwest, (<b>g</b>) NW: Northwest, (<b>h</b>) WNW: West-Northwest, (<b>i</b>) W: West, (<b>j</b>) WSW: West-Southwest, (<b>k</b>) SW: Southwest, (<b>l</b>) SSW: South-Southwest, (<b>m</b>) S: South, (<b>n</b>) SSE: South-Southeast, (<b>o</b>) SE: Southeast, (<b>p</b>) ESE: East-Southeast. <span class="html-italic">x</span>-axis: wind speed; <span class="html-italic">y</span>-axis: probability density function (PDF). Red line: Weibull distribution of wind speed probability; λ: scale parameter; k: shape parameter.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Weibull probability distribution in all directions from 1988 to 2022. (<b>a</b>) E: East, (<b>b</b>) ENE, (<b>c</b>) NE, (<b>d</b>) NNE, (<b>e</b>) N, (<b>f</b>) NNW, (<b>g</b>) NW, (<b>h</b>) WNW, (<b>i</b>) W, (<b>j</b>) WSW, (<b>k</b>) SW, (<b>l</b>) SSW, (<b>m</b>) S: South, (<b>n</b>) SSE, (<b>o</b>) SE, (<b>p</b>) ESE. <span class="html-italic">x</span>-axis: wind speed; <span class="html-italic">y</span>-axis: probability density function (PDF). Red line: Weibull distribution of wind speed probability; λ: scale parameter; k: shape parameter.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Spatial distribution of annual mean WPD (wind power density) during 1988−2022, (<b>a</b>) ERA5, (<b>b</b>) CCMP, and (<b>c</b>) The difference between ERA5 data and CCMP data. (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">W</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">P</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">D</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">d</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">f</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">f</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">e</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">r</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">e</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">n</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">c</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">e</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <msub> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">W</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">P</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">D</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">E</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">R</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">A</mi> <mn>5</mn> </mrow> </msub> <mo>−</mo> <msub> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">W</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">P</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">D</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">C</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">C</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">M</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">P</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Spatial distribution of seasonal mean WPD (wind power density) during 1988−2022. (<b>a</b>) MAM, (<b>b</b>) JJA, (<b>c</b>) SOD, and (<b>d</b>) DJF are ERA5 data. (<b>e</b>) MAM, (<b>f</b>) JJA, (<b>g</b>) SOD, and (<b>h</b>) DJF are CCMP data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Spatial distribution of annual mean CV (coefficient of variation) during 1988−2022, (<b>a</b>) ERA5, (<b>b</b>) CCMP, and (<b>c</b>) The difference between ERA5 data and CCMP data. <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <mi mathvariant="normal">C</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">V</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">d</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">f</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">f</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">e</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">r</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">e</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">n</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">c</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">e</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <msub> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">C</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">V</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">E</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">R</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">A</mi> <mn>5</mn> </mrow> </msub> <mo>−</mo> <mi mathvariant="normal">C</mi> <msub> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">V</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">C</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">C</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">M</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">P</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Spatial distribution of seasonal CV (coefficient of variation) during 1988−2022. (<b>a</b>) MAM, (<b>b</b>) JJA, (<b>c</b>) SOD, and (<b>d</b>) DJF are ERA5 data. (<b>e</b>) MAM, (f) JJA, (<b>g</b>) SOD, and (<b>h</b>) DJF are CCMP data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Spatial distribution of EWSO (Effective Wind Speed Occurrence) during 1988−2022, (<b>a</b>) ERA5, (<b>b</b>) CCMP, and (<b>c</b>) The difference between ERA5 data and CCMP data. (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">E</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">W</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">O</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">d</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">f</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">f</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">e</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">r</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">e</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">n</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">c</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">e</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <msub> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">E</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">W</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">O</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">E</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">R</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">A</mi> <mn>5</mn> </mrow> </msub> <mo>−</mo> <msub> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">E</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">W</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">O</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">C</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">C</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">M</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">P</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>) Blue represents when the EWSO of ERA5 data is less than CCMP, while red represents the opposite.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Monthly distribution of changes from 1988 to 2022: (<b>a</b>) Monthly variation of average WS; (<b>b</b>) Monthly variation of average WPD; (<b>c</b>) Monthly variation of coefficient of variation; (<b>d</b>) Monthly variation of EWSO. Blue represents ERA5 data, while red represents CCMP data.</p>
Full article ">
13 pages, 8890 KiB  
Article
Solotvynia, a New Coccoid Lineage among the Ulvophyceae (Chlorophyta)
by Tatyana Darienko and Thomas Pröschold
Microorganisms 2024, 12(5), 868; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12050868 - 26 Apr 2024
Viewed by 1461
Abstract
Coccoid Ulvophyceae are often overlooked despite their wide distribution. They occur as epiphytes on marine seaweeds or grow on stones or on shells of mussels and corals. Most of the species are not easy to identify based solely on morphology. However, they form [...] Read more.
Coccoid Ulvophyceae are often overlooked despite their wide distribution. They occur as epiphytes on marine seaweeds or grow on stones or on shells of mussels and corals. Most of the species are not easy to identify based solely on morphology. However, they form two groups based on the flagellated cells during asexual reproduction. The biflagellated coccoids are monophyletic and represent the genus Sykidion (Sykidiales). In contrast, the quadriflagellated taxa are polyphyletic and belong to different genera and orders. The newly investigated strains NIES-1838 and NIES-1839, originally identified as Halochlorococcum, belong to the genus Chlorocystis (C. john-westii) among the order Chlorocystidales. The unidentified strain CCMP 1293 had almost an identical SSU and ITS-2 sequence to Symbiochlorum hainanense (Ignatiales) but showed morphological differences (single chloroplast, quadriflagellated zoospores) compared with the original description of this species (multiple chloroplasts, aplanospores). Surprisingly, the strain SAG 2662 (= ULVO-129), together with the published sequence of MBIC 10461, formed a new monophyletic lineage among the Ulvophyceae, which is highly supported in all of the bootstrap and Bayesian analyses and approximately unbiased tests of user-defined trees. This strain is characterized by a spherical morphology and also form quadriflagellated zoospores, have a unique ITS-2 barcode, and can tolerate a high variation of salinities. Considering our results, we emend the diagnosis of Symbiochlorum and propose the new genus Solotvynia among the new order Solotvyniales. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Microbiology)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Molecular phylogeny of the Ulvophyceae based on SSU rDNA sequence comparisons. The phylogenetic tree shown was constructed using the maximum likelihood method based on a data set of 1780 aligned positions of 67 taxa using PAUP 4.0a (build169). For the analysis, the GTR+I+G (base frequencies: A 0.24763, C 0.21994, G 0.27379, U 0.25864; rate matrix A–C 1.1859, A–G 2.3460, A–U 1.4208, C–G 0.8191, C–U 4.4100, G–U 1.0000) with the proportion of invariable sites (I = 0.5216) and gamma shape parameter (G = 0.4680) was chosen, which was calculated as the best model using the automated model selection tool implemented in PAUP. The branches in bold are highly supported by all of the analyses (Bayesian values &gt; 0.95 calculated with PHASE and MrBayes; bootstrap values &gt; 70% calculated with PAUP using maximum likelihood, neighbor-joining, maximum parsimony, and RAxML using maximum likelihood). The sister group Scotinosphaerales was chosen as an outgroup. The clade designations follow the currently accepted order classification of the Ulvophyceae. The newly sequenced strains are highlighted in bold.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Molecular phylogeny of the coccoid ulvophytes based on SSU and ITS rDNA sequence comparisons. The phylogenetic trees shown were constructed using the maximum likelihood method based on the data sets (2389 aligned positions of 36 taxa) using PAUP 4.0a (build169). For the analyses, the best model was calculated by the automated model selection tool implemented in PAUP. The setting of the best model was given as follows: SYM+I+G (base frequencies: equal; rate matrix A–C 1.1884, A–G 2.2434, A–U 1.6291, C–G 1.1783, C–U 4.3437, G–U 1.0000) with the proportion of invariable sites (I = 0.7046) and gamma shape parameter (G = 0.4966). The branches in bold are highly supported by all of the analyses (Bayesian values &gt; 0.95 calculated with PHASE and MrBayes; bootstrap values &gt; 70% calculated with PAUP using maximum likelihood, neighbor-joining, maximum parsimony, and RAxML using maximum likelihood).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Comparison of the conserved region of ITS-2 among the species of <span class="html-italic">Solotvynia</span>, <span class="html-italic">Symbiochlorum</span>, and <span class="html-italic">Ignatius</span>. Extraction of this region and translation into a number code for its usage as barcode. Number code for each base pair: 1 = A–U; 2 = U–A; 3 = G-C; 4 = C–G; 5 = G·U; 6 = U·G; 7 = mismatch. Compensatory base changes (CBCs/HCBCs) are highlighted in blue.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Distribution of the coccoid and sarcinoid green algae belonging to the Ulvophyceae around the world. The geographical origin of <span class="html-italic">Sykidion marina</span> is unknown.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Morphology and phenotypic plasticity of <span class="html-italic">Solotvynia ucrainica</span> (SAG 2662) grown on SWES medium. (<b>A</b>). Quadriflagellated zoospores; (<b>B</b>,<b>C</b>). Young vegetative cells; (<b>D</b>–<b>I</b>). Tetrad formation; (<b>J</b>). Parenchyma-like crust; (<b>K</b>–<b>N</b>). Vegetative cells with cup-shaped chloroplasts; (<b>O</b>–<b>X</b>). Mature cells of different ages with reticulated chloroplasts; (<b>Y</b>–<b>B′</b>). Old cells with reticulated chloroplasts and numerous vacuoles. Scale bar = 10 µm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Morphology and phenotypic plasticity of <span class="html-italic">Solotvynia ucrainica</span> (SAG 2662) grown on different media. (<b>A</b>). ES medium (freshwater); (<b>B</b>). 1/2SWES medium (brackish); (<b>C</b>). <span class="html-italic">Dunaliella</span> medium (hypersaline). Scale bar = 10 µm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Morphology and phenotypic plasticity of <span class="html-italic">Symbiochlorum hainanense</span> (CCMP 1293) grown on SWES medium. (<b>A</b>). Zoospores shortly after settlement; (<b>B</b>). Quadirflagellated zoospore; (<b>C</b>,<b>F</b>,<b>G</b>). Young cells shortly after settlement with eye spot and empty sporangium cell wall; (<b>D</b>,<b>E</b>,<b>H</b>,<b>I</b>). Vegetative cells in apical and middle sections showing the structure of chloroplast; (<b>J</b>–<b>L</b>). Vegetative cells of different age. Scale bar = 10 µm.</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 18828 KiB  
Article
Dark Light Image-Enhancement Method Based on Multiple Self-Encoding Prior Collaborative Constraints
by Lei Guan, Jiawei Dong, Qianxi Li, Jijiang Huang, Weining Chen and Hao Wang
Photonics 2024, 11(2), 190; https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics11020190 - 19 Feb 2024
Viewed by 1765
Abstract
The purpose of dark image enhancement is to restore dark images to visual images under normal lighting conditions. Due to the ill-posedness of the enhancement process, previous enhancement algorithms often have overexposure, underexposure, noise increases and artifacts when dealing with complex and changeable [...] Read more.
The purpose of dark image enhancement is to restore dark images to visual images under normal lighting conditions. Due to the ill-posedness of the enhancement process, previous enhancement algorithms often have overexposure, underexposure, noise increases and artifacts when dealing with complex and changeable images, and the robustness is poor. This article proposes a new enhancement approach consisting in constructing a dim light enhancement network with more robustness and rich detail features through the collaborative constraint of multiple self-coding priors (CCMP). Specifically, our model consists of two prior modules and an enhancement module. The former learns the feature distribution of the dark light image under normal exposure as an a priori term of the enhancement process through multiple specific autoencoders, implicitly measures the enhancement quality and drives the network to approach the truth value. The latter fits the curve mapping of the enhancement process as a fidelity term to restore global illumination and local details. Through experiments, we concluded that the new method proposed in this article can achieve more excellent quantitative and qualitative results, improve detail contrast, reduce artifacts and noise, and is suitable for dark light enhancement in multiple scenes. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Optical Imaging and Measurements)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) This is a method of processing low-light images through semantic contrastive learning, which is divided into three parts: enhancement, contrastive learning and semantic segmentation. (<b>b</b>) This is a dark light enhancement network based on multiple prior collaborative constraints newly designed in this article. The blue box is used to enhance the network data flow, and the red box is not input into the network, but rather is only used to display the data processing method. Through the prior acquisition of LBP manipulation and MCMC mask prior, the information is obtained, and the differentiated loss is designed to constrain and enhance the loss of multiple pieces of prior information. The smooth loss acts on the enhanced network together to achieve a better image enhancement effect.</p>
Full article ">Figure 1 Cont.
<p>(<b>a</b>) This is a method of processing low-light images through semantic contrastive learning, which is divided into three parts: enhancement, contrastive learning and semantic segmentation. (<b>b</b>) This is a dark light enhancement network based on multiple prior collaborative constraints newly designed in this article. The blue box is used to enhance the network data flow, and the red box is not input into the network, but rather is only used to display the data processing method. Through the prior acquisition of LBP manipulation and MCMC mask prior, the information is obtained, and the differentiated loss is designed to constrain and enhance the loss of multiple pieces of prior information. The smooth loss acts on the enhanced network together to achieve a better image enhancement effect.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Enhanced network with multiple prior coordination constraints.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Detailed comparison results of dark light enhancement networks with different prior information on dark-light images of the LOL dataset. Among them, images (<b>b</b>–<b>e</b>) represent the different enhancement effects of image (<b>a</b>), while (<b>g</b>–<b>j</b>) represent the different enhancement effects of image (<b>f</b>). The four enhancement methods are in order: no prior enhancement, MCMC prior enhancement, LBP prior enhancement, and dual prior collaborative enhancement.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Comparison of information entropy of dark light enhancement networks with different prior information on 15 images of the LOL test set.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Processing speed map of multiple dim light enhancement algorithm models on a single 600 × 400 image.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Comparative experiments of various dim light enhancement algorithms on the LOL test dataset.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Enhancement performance of various enhancement algorithms on the LIME dataset.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Enhancement results of dark light enhancement algorithms on the DarkFace dataset.</p>
Full article ">
31 pages, 2117 KiB  
Article
Effects of Replacing Fishmeal with Algal Biomass (Pavlova sp. 459) on Membrane Lipid Composition of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) Parr Muscle and Liver Tissues
by Nigel Guerra, Christopher C. Parrish, Minmin Wei, Judy Perry, Jorge A. Del Ángel-Rodríguez, Sean M. Tibbetts, Mohamed Emam and Stefanie M. Colombo
Sustainability 2023, 15(24), 16599; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416599 - 6 Dec 2023
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1528
Abstract
A 12-week feeding trial examined the dietary impact of replacing fishmeal (FM) with algal biomass (AB) derived from Pavlova sp. strain CCMP459 (Pav459) in Atlantic salmon diets. Three distinct diets were formulated: a control diet featuring 20% FM and 7% fish [...] Read more.
A 12-week feeding trial examined the dietary impact of replacing fishmeal (FM) with algal biomass (AB) derived from Pavlova sp. strain CCMP459 (Pav459) in Atlantic salmon diets. Three distinct diets were formulated: a control diet featuring 20% FM and 7% fish oil (FO), an experimental diet incorporating a 50:50 blend of FM and AB Pav459 and reduced FO (10% FM; 4.5% FO; 10% AB), and a second experimental diet with full replacement of FM with AB Pav459 and further reduction in FO (1.75% FO; 20% AB). Replacing FM with AB Pav459 showed no significant effects on the growth performance of Atlantic salmon. Fish across all diets exhibited growth exceeding 200% from their initial weight. Analysis of total lipid content after the 12-week trial revealed no significant differences among the diets. However, individual proportions of omega-3 (ω3) and omega-6 (ω6) fatty acids varied. Fatty acid profiling in muscle and liver tissues showed distinct compositions reflective of dietary treatments. Linoleic acid (LA) and α-linolenic acid (ALA) exhibited higher proportions in total fatty acids than in membrane lipids. Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) emerged as the predominant fatty acid in the membranes of both liver and muscle tissues. Furthermore, an analysis of sterol composition in Pavlova and salmon muscle tissue showed the presence of important sterols, including conventionally animal-associated cholesterol. This emphasizes the suitability of microorganisms, such as Pav459, for synthesizing diverse nutrients. Stable isotope analysis demonstrated direct incorporation of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and DHA from diets into salmon tissues. Notably, minimal biosynthesis from the precursor ALA was observed, reaffirming the utility of Pav459-derived fatty acids. The EPA+DHA proportions in the fillet consistently met daily human consumption requirements across all dietary conditions, supporting the use of Pav459 algal biomass as an alternative to FM. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>PCO of Atlantic salmon liver tissue total fatty acid composition (%) after 12 weeks of feeding experimental diets.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>PCO of Atlantic salmon liver tissue phospholipid fatty acid composition (%) after 12 weeks of feeding experimental diets.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>PCO of Atlantic salmon muscle tissue total fatty acid composition (%) after 12 weeks of feeding experimental diets.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>PCO of Atlantic salmon muscle tissue phospholipid fatty acid composition (%) after 12 weeks of feeding experimental diets.</p>
Full article ">
13 pages, 4231 KiB  
Technical Note
Evaluation of Blended Wind Products and Their Implications for Offshore Wind Power Estimation
by Xiaochun Wang, Tong Lee and Carl Mears
Remote Sens. 2023, 15(10), 2620; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15102620 - 18 May 2023
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1581
Abstract
The Cross-Calibrated Multi-Platform (CCMP) wind analysis is a satellite-based blended wind product produced using a two-dimensional variational method. The current version available publicly is Version 2 (CCMP2.0), which includes buoy winds in addition to satellite winds. Version 3 of the product (CCMP3.0) is [...] Read more.
The Cross-Calibrated Multi-Platform (CCMP) wind analysis is a satellite-based blended wind product produced using a two-dimensional variational method. The current version available publicly is Version 2 (CCMP2.0), which includes buoy winds in addition to satellite winds. Version 3 of the product (CCMP3.0) is being produced with several improvements in analysis algorithms, without including buoy winds. Here, we compare CCMP3.0 with a special version of CCMP2.0 that did not include buoy winds, so both versions are independent of buoy measurements. We evaluate them using wind data from buoys around the coasts of the United States and discuss the implications for the wind power industry and offshore wind farms. CCMP2.0 uses ERA-Interim 10 m winds as the background to fill observational gaps. CCMP3.0 uses ERA5 10 m neutral winds as the background. Because ERA5 winds are biased towards lower values at higher wind conditions, CCMP3.0 corrected this bias by matching ERA5 wind speeds with satellite scatterometer wind speeds using a histogram matching method. Our evaluation indicates that CCMP3.0 has better agreement with the independent buoy winds, primarily for higher winds (>10 m/s). This is reflected by the higher correlation and lower root-mean-squared differences of CCMP3.0 versus buoy winds, especially for higher wind conditions. For the U.S. coastal region (within 200 km), the mean wind speed of CCMP3.0 is enhanced by 1–2%, and the wind speed standard deviation is enhanced by around 3–5%. These changes in wind speed and its standard deviation from CCMP2.0 to CCMP3.0 cause an 8–12% increase in wind power density. The wind power density along the U.S. coastal region is also correlated with various climate indices depending on locations, providing a useful approach for predicting wind power on subseasonal to interannual timescales. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The 48 independent buoy stations (indicated by red stars) around the U.S. where the in situ wind data were used to evaluate CCMP3.0 product.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>(<b>a</b>)Ratio of CCMP3.0 and CCMP2.0 wind speed, (<b>b</b>) ratio of ERA5 and ERA-Interim wind speed, and (<b>c</b>) averaged OSCAR current of Jan 2000.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>(<b>a</b>) Ratio of CCMP3.0 and CCMP2.0 wind speed, (<b>b</b>) ratio of ERA5 and ERA-Interim wind speed, and (<b>c</b>) averaged OSCAR ocean current of July 2000.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Root-mean-square difference (RMSD) of CCMP and buoy winds for different buoy wind speed bins.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The relationship of root-mean-square-difference (RMSD) of CCMP, buoy wind, and wind speed standard deviation (STD). (<b>a</b>) For all wind speeds. (<b>b</b>) For wind speeds higher than 10 m/s.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Averaged wind power density for different seasons from 2000 to 2018 for U.S. coastal regions within 200 km at 100 m height. (<b>a</b>) DJF, (<b>b</b>) MAM, (<b>c</b>) JJA, and (<b>d</b>) SON.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Ratio of averaged winter (DJF) wind power density at 100 m height based on CCMP3.0 and CCMP2.0 for U.S. coastal region.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Linear regression coefficient of wind power density against climate indices, (<b>a</b>) AMO, (<b>b</b>) AO, (<b>c</b>) NAO, (<b>d</b>) Niño3.4, and (<b>e</b>) PDO.</p>
Full article ">
15 pages, 5563 KiB  
Article
Time Variation Trend of Wave Power Density in the South China Sea
by Hongyu Li, Qingshan Gao, Shaobo Yang, Weizhuang Ma, Dongsong Zhen and Yu Zhang
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11(3), 608; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11030608 - 13 Mar 2023
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1648
Abstract
Based on the third-generation wave model WAVEWATCH-III (WW3), this paper analyzes the changing trend of wave power density (WPD) in the South China Sea, which can provide necessary references for the development and utilization of wave energy resources in the future. In this [...] Read more.
Based on the third-generation wave model WAVEWATCH-III (WW3), this paper analyzes the changing trend of wave power density (WPD) in the South China Sea, which can provide necessary references for the development and utilization of wave energy resources in the future. In this study, multi-platform cross-calibrated (CCMP) wind data was used to drive WW3 to calculate the WPD of the South China Sea. The Mann-Kendall (MK) algorithm can be used to determine the mutation of WPD, and the accuracy of the CCMP wind was verified. Next, the time distribution of WPD is analyzed for the whole sea area and dominant sea area of the South China Sea, and on this basis, the dominant sea area for the development of wave energy resources in the South China Sea was studied. The results are as follows: (1) Extreme weather has a significant impact on the change of WPD in the South China Sea, and this change is likely due to the effect of extreme weather on sea temperature. (2) Dongsha Islands has the highest annual WPD value and has the greatest impact on the overall trend change of the South China Sea. (3) Integrated wave energy exploitability and safety and technology perspectives, the waters around Taiwan Strait are more suitable as the primary site for energy conversion. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Topographic map of the South China Sea.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Observed and calculated wave height variation trend at the P1 position. The pink line represents the simulated wave height of the CCMP wind field, and the green dotted line represents the observed data of the altimeter.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Observed and calculated wave height variation trend at the P2 position. The pink line represents the simulated wave height of the CCMP wind field, and the green dotted line represents the observed data of the altimeter.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Observed and calculated wave height variation trend at the P3 position. The pink line represents the simulated wave height of the CCMP wind field, and the green dotted line represents the observed data of the altimeter.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Observed and calculated wave height variation trend at the P4 position. The pink line represents the simulated wave height of the CCMP wind field, and the green dotted line represents the observed data of the altimeter.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Annual variation of WPD in the South China Sea.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The MK test of annual variation of WPD in the South China Sea.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The geographic regions of the dominant sea areas.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Variation trend of WPD in dominant sea area year by year.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Dominant sea area year-by-year MK test.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Comparison of monthly WPD values from January to December in dominant sea area.</p>
Full article ">
13 pages, 1403 KiB  
Review
Alzheimer’s Disease: A Brief History of Immunotherapies Targeting Amyloid β
by Anne-Cathrine S. Vogt, Gary T. Jennings, Mona O. Mohsen, Monique Vogel and Martin F. Bachmann
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24(4), 3895; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24043895 - 15 Feb 2023
Cited by 37 | Viewed by 9632
Abstract
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia and may contribute to 60–70% of cases. Worldwide, around 50 million people suffer from dementia and the prediction is that the number will more than triple by 2050, as the population ages. Extracellular [...] Read more.
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia and may contribute to 60–70% of cases. Worldwide, around 50 million people suffer from dementia and the prediction is that the number will more than triple by 2050, as the population ages. Extracellular protein aggregation and plaque deposition as well as accumulation of intracellular neurofibrillary tangles, all leading to neurodegeneration, are the hallmarks of brains with Alzheimer’s disease. Therapeutic strategies including active and passive immunizations have been widely explored in the last two decades. Several compounds have shown promising results in many AD animal models. To date, only symptomatic treatments are available and because of the alarming epidemiological data, novel therapeutic strategies to prevent, mitigate, or delay the onset of AD are required. In this mini-review, we focus on our understanding of AD pathobiology and discuss current active and passive immunomodulating therapies targeting amyloid-β protein. Full article
(This article belongs to the Collection Feature Papers in Molecular Immunology)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Processing of APP. (1) During the non-amyloidogenic pathway, amyloid precursor protein (APP) is cleaved by α-secretase yielding extracellular released soluble APP (left). (2) For the amyloidogenic pathway, APP is primarily cleaved by β-secretase and subsequently cleaved by γ-secretase within the membrane (right). The proteolytic processing of APP via the amyloidogenic pathway releases amyloid-β into the extracellular space, which is prone to self-aggregate, leading to the formation of cytotoxic oligomers and insoluble Aβ fibrils. Adapted from Patterson et al. [<a href="#B25-ijms-24-03895" class="html-bibr">25</a>]. This illustration was created using <a href="http://BioRender.com" target="_blank">BioRender.com</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Targets of monoclonal anti-Aβ agents. The main mode of action of anti-amyloid β drugs is currently in phase III clinical trials. Adapted from Panza et al. [<a href="#B76-ijms-24-03895" class="html-bibr">76</a>]. This illustration was created using <a href="http://BioRender.com" target="_blank">BioRender.com</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Active immunotherapy agents targeting Aβ. Adapted from Song et al. [<a href="#B18-ijms-24-03895" class="html-bibr">18</a>]. This illustration was created using <a href="http://BioRender.com" target="_blank">BioRender.com</a>.</p>
Full article ">
15 pages, 10277 KiB  
Article
Generation of Non-Linear Technique Based 6 Hourly Wind Reanalysis Products Using SCATSAT-1 and Numerical Weather Prediction Model Outputs
by Suchandra Aich Bhowmick, Maneesha Gupta, Abhisek Chakraborty, Neeraj Agarwal, Rashmi Sharma and Meer Mohammed Ali
Remote Sens. 2023, 15(4), 1040; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15041040 - 14 Feb 2023
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1385
Abstract
We combined observations of ocean surface winds from Indian SCATterometer SATellite-1 (SCATSAT-1) with a background wind field from a numerical weather prediction (NWP) model available at National Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecast (NCMRWF) to generate a 6-hourly gridded hybrid wind product. A distinctive [...] Read more.
We combined observations of ocean surface winds from Indian SCATterometer SATellite-1 (SCATSAT-1) with a background wind field from a numerical weather prediction (NWP) model available at National Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecast (NCMRWF) to generate a 6-hourly gridded hybrid wind product. A distinctive feature of the study is to produce a global gridded wind field from SCATSAT-1 scatterometer passes with spatio-temporal data gaps at regular synoptic hours relevant for forcing models and other NWP studies. We are following the concept from the modern particle filter technique, which does not represent the model probability density function (PDF) as Gaussian. We generated the 6-hourly hybrid winds for 2018 and validated them using the wind speed from daily gridded level-4 SCATSAT-1 winds (L4AW), Cross Calibrated Multi-Platform (CCMP) dataset and global buoy data from National Data Buoy Centre (NDBC). The results suggest the potential of the technique to produce scatterometer winds at the desired temporal frequency with significantly less noise and bias along the swath. The study shows that the generated hybrid winds are of prime quality compared with the already existing daily products available from Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO). Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) L2B and (<b>b</b>) L4AW winds from SCATSAT-1 on 1 December 2018 (accessed on 15 August 2022).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Particle-filter implementation steps.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Variation of RMSE of each ensemble w.r.t introduced biases in wind fields.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Variation of weights in each ensemble w.r.t introduced biases in wind fields.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>(<b>a</b>) Histogram of the bias in initial and final population. (<b>b</b>) mean perturbation in initial population (top) and same in resampled population (bottom) on 31 May 2018.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Mean wind field Jan–Dec 2018 from (<b>a</b>) SCATSAT-1 (<b>b</b>) NCMRWF and (<b>c</b>) Particle filter-based Reanalysis.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Bias between (<b>a</b>) NCMRWF wind speed and SCATSAT-1 wind speed (<b>b</b>) Particle filter-based reanalyzed wind speed and SCATSAT-1 wind speed between Jan–Jun 2018 and Jul–Dec 2018.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The spatial distribution of bias in wind speed (m/s) between CCMP wind speed and (<b>i</b>) SCATSAT-1 L2B wind speed (top panel), (<b>ii</b>) Particle filter based reanalysed wind speed (middle panel) (<b>iii</b>) SCATSAT-1 L4AW wind speed (bottom panel) during January 2018.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The spatial distribution of bias in wind speed (m/s) between CCMP wind speeds and (<b>i</b>) SCATSAT-1 L2B wind speed (top panel), (<b>ii</b>) Particle filter based reanalysed wind speed (middle panel) (<b>iii</b>) SCATSAT-1 L4AW wind speed (bottom panel) during July 2018.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>The spatial distribution of RMSE (top panel) and standard deviation (bottom panel) in wind speed (m/s) between daily CCMP winds and (<b>a</b>) Particle filter based reanalysed wind speed and (<b>b</b>) SCATSAT-1 L4AW wind speed during 2018.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The normalized histogram of SCATSAT-1 L2B, daily L4AW wind speed, particle filter-based reanalyzed wind speed and wind speed observations from NDBC global buoys.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Mean wind and standard deviation of the difference between NDBC global buoy winds and (<b>a</b>) analyzed L4AW wind and (<b>b</b>) PF-wind for the year 2018.</p>
Full article ">
26 pages, 7007 KiB  
Article
GloWS-Net: A Deep Learning Framework for Retrieving Global Sea Surface Wind Speed Using Spaceborne GNSS-R Data
by Jinwei Bu, Kegen Yu, Xiaoqing Zuo, Jun Ni, Yongfa Li and Weimin Huang
Remote Sens. 2023, 15(3), 590; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15030590 - 18 Jan 2023
Cited by 18 | Viewed by 3542
Abstract
Spaceborne Global Navigation Satellite System Reflectometry (GNSS-R) is a new remote sensing technology that uses GNSS signals reflected from the Earth’s surface to estimate geophysical parameters. Because of its unique advantages such as high temporal and spatial resolutions, low observation cost, wide coverage [...] Read more.
Spaceborne Global Navigation Satellite System Reflectometry (GNSS-R) is a new remote sensing technology that uses GNSS signals reflected from the Earth’s surface to estimate geophysical parameters. Because of its unique advantages such as high temporal and spatial resolutions, low observation cost, wide coverage and all-weather operation, it has been widely used in land and ocean remote sensing fields. Ocean wind monitoring is the main objective of the recently launched Cyclone GNSS (CYGNSS). In previous studies, wind speed was usually retrieved using features extracted from delay-Doppler maps (DDMs) and empirical geophysical model functions (GMFs). However, it is a challenge to employ the GMF method if using multiple sea state parameters as model input. Therefore, in this article, we propose an improved deep learning network framework to retrieve global sea surface wind speed using spaceborne GNSS-R data, named GloWS-Net. GloWS-Net considers the fusion of auxiliary information including ocean swell significant wave height (SWH), sea surface rainfall and wave direction to build an end-to-end wind speed retrieval model. In order to verify the improvement of the proposed model, ERA5 and Cross-Calibrated Multi-Platform (CCMP) wind data were used as reference for extensive testing to evaluate the wind speed retrieval performance of the GloWS-Net model and previous models (i.e., GMF, fully connected network (FCN) and convolutional neural network (CNN)). The results show that, when using ERA5 winds as ground truth, the root mean square error (RMSE) of the proposed GloWS-Net model is 23.98% better than that of the MVE method. Although the GloWS-Net model and the FCN model have similar RMSE (1.92 m/s), the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of the former is improved by 16.56%; when using CCMP winds as ground truth, the RMSE of the proposed GloWS-Net model is 2.16 m/s, which is 20.27% better than the MVE method. Compared with the FCN model, the MAPE is improved by 17.75%. Meanwhile, the GloWS-Net outperforms the FCN, traditional CNN, modified CNN (MCNN) and CyGNSSnet models in global wind speed retrieval especially at high wind speeds. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue GNSS-R Earth Remote Sensing from SmallSats)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Data processing and model development process of spaceborne GNSS-R sea surface wind speed retrieval.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>DDMs under different wind speed (WS) conditions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Architecture of GloWS-Net.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Comparison of different activation functions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Scatter density plots of retrieved wind speed by different models and ERA5 wind speed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5 Cont.
<p>Scatter density plots of retrieved wind speed by different models and ERA5 wind speed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>When ERA5 wind speed is used as reference for (<b>a</b>) RMSE and (<b>b</b>) MAE for different wind speed ranges.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Global distribution of ERA5 wind speed data and retrieved wind speed by different models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7 Cont.
<p>Global distribution of ERA5 wind speed data and retrieved wind speed by different models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Deviation distribution histograms between ERA5 wind speed and retrieved wind speed by different models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Scatter density plots of ERA5 and CCMP wind speed (<b>left</b>) and probability density function (PDF) distribution using ERA5 (the red line) and CCMP (the blue line) products as reference in the testing set (<b>right</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Scatter density plots of retrieved wind speed by different models and CCMP wind speed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>(<b>a</b>) RMSE and (<b>b</b>) MAE for different wind speed ranges when CCMP wind speed is used as reference.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Deviation distribution histograms between CCMP wind speed and retrieved wind speed by different models.</p>
Full article ">
14 pages, 2382 KiB  
Article
Upregulation of Peridinin-Chlorophyll A-Binding Protein in a Toxic Strain of Prorocentrum hoffmannianum under Normal and Phosphate-Depleted Conditions
by Thomas Chun-Hung Lee, Kaze King-Yip Lai, Steven Jing-Liang Xu and Fred Wang-Fat Lee
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24(2), 1735; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24021735 - 15 Jan 2023
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 2293
Abstract
Some strains of the dinoflagellate species Prorocentrum hoffmannianum show contrasting ability to produce diarrhetic shellfish poisoning (DSP) toxins. We previously compared the okadaic acid (OA) production level between a highly toxic strain (CCMP2804) and a non-toxic strain (CCMP683) of P. hoffmannianum and revealed [...] Read more.
Some strains of the dinoflagellate species Prorocentrum hoffmannianum show contrasting ability to produce diarrhetic shellfish poisoning (DSP) toxins. We previously compared the okadaic acid (OA) production level between a highly toxic strain (CCMP2804) and a non-toxic strain (CCMP683) of P. hoffmannianum and revealed that the cellular concentration of OA in CCMP2804 would increase significantly under the depletion of phosphate. To understand the molecular mechanisms, here, we compared and analyzed the proteome changes of both strains growing under normal condition and at phosphate depletion using two-dimensional gel electrophoresis (2-DE). There were 41 and 33 differential protein spots observed under normal condition and phosphate depletion, respectively, of which most were upregulated in CCMP2804 and 22 were common to both conditions. Due to the lack of matched peptide mass fingerprints in the database, de novo peptide sequencing was applied to identify the differentially expressed proteins. Of those upregulated spots in CCMP2804, nearly 60% were identified as peridinin-chlorophyll a-binding protein (PCP), an important light-harvesting protein for photosynthesis in dinoflagellates. We postulated that the high expression of PCP encourages the production of DSP toxins by enhancing the yields of raw materials such as acetate, glycolate and glycine. Other possible mechanisms of toxicity related to PCP might be through triggering the transcription of non-ribosomal peptide synthetase/polyketide synthase genes and the transportation of dinophysistoxin-4 from chloroplast to vacuoles. Full article
(This article belongs to the Collection Feature Papers in Molecular Toxicology)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Representative 2-DE profiles of 100 μg protein extracts from the two strains of <span class="html-italic">P. hoffmannianum</span> with normal nutrient supply separated over a pH range of 4–7 and then by 10% SDS-PAGE. Protein visualization was performed with silver stain. The circled spots with initials “T” and “NT” were upregulated in the toxic strain CCMP2804 and non-toxic strain CCMP683 respectively when compared with each other. A side-by-side comparison of each pair of enlarged differential protein spots was included.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Representative 2-DE profiles of 100 μg protein extracted from CCMP2804 and CCMP683 under phosphate depletion (0P) separated over a pH range of 4–7 and then by 10% SDS-PAGE. Protein visualization was performed with silver stain. The circled spots with initials “TP” and “NTP” were upregulated in the toxic strain and non-toxic strain respectively when compared with each other. A side-by-side comparison of each pair of enlarged differential protein spots was included.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Number of protein spots showing at least two-fold differences in intensity between CCMP2804 and CCMP683 with normal nutrient supply in log phase (log) versus under 0P on day 50: (<b>a</b>) upregulated spots in CCMP2804; (<b>b</b>) upregulated spots in CCMP683. The area of overlapping shows differential spots commonly found during log and under 0P.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Upregulated protein spots that were commonly found during log and under 0P in the 2-DE profiles of CCMP2804 or CCMP683 when compared to each other.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The possible pathway of DSP toxin biosynthesis and the role of peridinin chlorophyll a binding protein (PCP) and hybrid NRPS/PKS. Orange arrows indicate possible pathways suggested by this study while black arrows indicate demonstrated pathways according to the literature.</p>
Full article ">
29 pages, 5041 KiB  
Article
Towards Intelligent Zone-Based Content Pre-Caching Approach in VANET for Congestion Control
by Khola Nazar, Yousaf Saeed, Abid Ali, Abeer D. Algarni, Naglaa F. Soliman, Abdelhamied A. Ateya, Mohammed Saleh Ali Muthanna and Faisal Jamil
Sensors 2022, 22(23), 9157; https://doi.org/10.3390/s22239157 - 25 Nov 2022
Cited by 11 | Viewed by 2554
Abstract
In vehicular ad hoc networks (VANETs), content pre-caching is a significant technology that improves network performance and lowers network response delay. VANET faces network congestion when multiple requests for the same content are generated. Location-based dependency requirements make the system more congested. Content [...] Read more.
In vehicular ad hoc networks (VANETs), content pre-caching is a significant technology that improves network performance and lowers network response delay. VANET faces network congestion when multiple requests for the same content are generated. Location-based dependency requirements make the system more congested. Content pre-caching is an existing challenge in VANET; pre-caching involves the content’s early delivery to the requested vehicles to avoid network delays and control network congestion. Early content prediction saves vehicles from accidents and road disasters in urban environments. Periodic data dissemination without considering the state of the road and surrounding vehicles are considered in this research. The content available at a specified time poses considerable challenges in VANET for content delivery. To address these challenges, we propose a machine learning-based, zonal/context-aware-equipped content pre-caching strategy in this research. The proposed model improves content placement and content management in the pre-caching mode for VANET. Content caching is achieved through machine learning, which significantly improves content prediction by pre-caching the content early to the desired vehicles that are part of the zone. In this paper, three algorithms are presented, the first is zone selection using the customized algorithm, the second is the content dissemination algorithm, and the third is the content pre-caching decision algorithm using supervised machine learning that improves the early content prediction accuracy by 99.6%. The cache hit ratio for the proposed technique improves by 13% from the previous techniques. The prediction accuracy of the proposed technique is compared with CCMP, MLCP, and PCZS+PCNS on the number of vehicles from 10 to 150, with an improved average of 16%. Finally, the average delay reduces over time compared with the state-of-the-art techniques of RPSS, MLCP, CCMP, and PCZS+PCNS. Finally, the average delay shows that the proposed method effectively reduces the delay when the number of nodes increases. The proposed solution improves the content delivery request while comparing it with existing techniques. The results show improved pre-caching in VANET to avoid network congestion. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>VANET structure for AU, OBU, and RSU [<a href="#B2-sensors-22-09157" class="html-bibr">2</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Machine learning models for VANET [<a href="#B11-sensors-22-09157" class="html-bibr">11</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Zone-based content caching technique using machine learning.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Logical workflow of the proposed methodology.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Dataset description with sample values used inside the research.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Accuracy of the proposed machine learning CNN model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Proposed CNN model loss with train over the testing dataset.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Correlation map.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Cache hit ratio of the proposed technique.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Pre-caching Prediction Accuracy of the proposed technique.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Average Delay of proposed technique compared with RPSS, MLCP, CCMP, PCZS+PCNS.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Average delay on the number of nodes for the proposed methodology.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Network throughput for congestion control in the proposed approach.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>ROC curve to show the tradeoff between specificity and sensitivity values for the proposed method.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Confidence interval for road type used in the scenario.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Confidence interval for accident severity is used in the scenario.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Confidence interval for the speed limit used in the scenario.</p>
Full article ">
28 pages, 7365 KiB  
Article
Improving the Accuracy of the Cross-Calibrated Multi-Platform (CCMP) Ocean Vector Winds
by Carl Mears, Tong Lee, Lucrezia Ricciardulli, Xiaochun Wang and Frank Wentz
Remote Sens. 2022, 14(17), 4230; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14174230 - 27 Aug 2022
Cited by 31 | Viewed by 4498
Abstract
The Cross-Calibrated Multi-Platform (CCMP) Ocean vector wind analysis is a level-4 product that uses a variational method to combine satellite retrievals of ocean winds with a background wind field from a numerical weather prediction (NWP) model. The result is a spatially complete estimate [...] Read more.
The Cross-Calibrated Multi-Platform (CCMP) Ocean vector wind analysis is a level-4 product that uses a variational method to combine satellite retrievals of ocean winds with a background wind field from a numerical weather prediction (NWP) model. The result is a spatially complete estimate of global ocean vector winds on six-hour intervals that are closely tied to satellite measurements. The current versions of CCMP are fairly accurate at low to moderate wind speeds (<15 m/s) but are systematically too low at high winds at locations/times where a collocated satellite measurement is not available. This is mainly because the NWP winds tend to be lower than satellite winds, especially at high wind speed. The current long-term CCMP version, version 2.0, also shows spurious variations on interannual to decadal time scales caused by the interaction of satellite/model bias with the varying amount of satellite measurements available as satellite missions begin and end. To alleviate these issues, here we explore methods to adjust the source datasets to more closely match each other before they are combined. The resultant new CCMP wind analysis agrees better with long-term trend estimates from satellite observations and reanalysis than previous versions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Remote Sensing of Ocean Surface Winds)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Times that each satellite contributes to CCMP. Scatterometers are shown in blue, and radiometers are shown in black (SSM/I series,) and green. Those shown in green include the lower frequency 11 GHz channel. ASCAT-B is shown in light blue because it is withheld from CCMP and is instead used as a source of validation winds.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>2-D histograms of zonal wind (U) (<b>a</b>), meridional wind (V) (<b>b</b>) and wind speed (W) (<b>c</b>) for current-correct ERA5 and ASCAT-A for an example month, January 2015. Above about 17 m/s, ERA5 wind speed are systematically lower than ASCAT-A wind speed. A very similar pattern is seen in the vector components, motivating the use of a multiplicative adjustment. Note that the color scale is logarithmic to make areas with relatively low number of collocations easy to see at the expense of making the overall scatter away from the diagonal appear wider. The features in (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) roughly perpendicular to the diagonal do not contain many collocations. These are likely caused by relatively rare, incorrect selections for the correct “ambiguity” in the wind direction in the scatterometer retrieval.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>(<b>a</b>) Multiplicative wind speed adjustment factor derived by analyzing ERA5/ASCAT-A collocations for 2015. (<b>b</b>) Global histograms of the 10 m equivalent neutral wind speed for ERA5, ASCAT-A, and ERA5 Adjusted accumulated over 2015. (<b>c</b>) Same as (<b>b</b>), except plotted on a log scale. In this example, we derive a global correction for all months. The correction is fairly small at low and moderate wind speeds, but begins to increase rapidly above about 17 m/s. When the correction is applied to the unadjusted ERA5 winds (blue in panels <b>b</b> and <b>c</b>), the resulting histogram (green in panels <b>b</b> and <b>c</b>), is almost indistinguishable from the ASCAT-A histogram (orange in panels <b>b</b> and <b>c</b>) for the same period, demonstrating the success of the method.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Color-coded representations of the wind speed adjustment factor applied to ERA5 winds as a function of ERA5 wind speed and latitude. We show the adjustments for two example months, January (<b>a</b>) and July (<b>b</b>). Adjustments for all other months are qualitatively similar, except for the seasonal variation of the low-speed corrections described in the text.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Example of the construction procedure for removing vector component biases. (<b>a</b>) Monthly averaged meridional wind difference for June, averaged over QuikSCAT (2000–2009) and ASCAT-A (2007–2019). (<b>b</b>) A smoothed version of the differences in (<b>a</b>), obtained by fitting the data in (<b>a</b>) to a series of spherical harmonics Y<sub>lm</sub>, with l extending up to 40 and m to +/− 40. (<b>c</b>) Differences for (ERA5-QuikSCAT) meridional wind component, before adjustments are applied for June 2009. (<b>d</b>) Same as (<b>c</b>), except after the adjustment shown in (<b>b</b>) is subtracted. The adjustment removes much of the regional biases, particularly near the Equator.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Two-dimensional histograms of ERA5 winds as a function of scatterometer winds. The top row (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) shows the results using unadjusted ERA5 neutral stability winds and ASCAT-A winds. The second row (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) shows the results for ERA5 and ASCAT-A winds after the adjustment for ocean currents, speed adjustments and vector components were applied. The bottom row (<b>g</b>–<b>i</b>) is similar to the middle row, except for collocations with ASCAT-B winds were used. Note that ASCAT-B results were not used to derive any of the adjustments, confirming that the adjustments applied to ERA5 are not idiosyncratic differences arising from features of a single instrument.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Hovmöller diagrams of ERA5—QuikSCAT wind differences for 2000–2009. Panels (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) show the differences for zonal wind, meridional wind, and wind speed when only the ocean adjustments for currents are applied to ERA5. Panels (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) show the same differences after the wind speed adjustment was applied. Panels (<b>g</b>–<b>i</b>) shown the final results after the regional vector-component biases are also removed. Results for ERA5—ASCAT-A are similar (see <a href="#remotesensing-14-04230-f0A3" class="html-fig">Figure A3</a>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Global maps of the differences between ERA5 and SSM/I F13, averaged over 1996–2009. (<b>a</b>) shows the differences relative to ERA5_OSCAR. There are large regional biases, with several areas showing average differences as large as 1 m/s. (<b>b</b>) shows the differences relative to ERA5_ADJ. The adjustments applied to ERA5 reduced the ERA5-F13 differences, but substantial regional differences remain. After regional wind speed adjustments were applied to the F13 winds, the differences are much reduced (panel <b>c</b>). We note that the corrections applied to F13 was derived using all Rad_MED instruments (F10, F11, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17 and F18). The success of these adjustment for F13 indicates that the differences are consistent across instruments of the same type.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Hovmöller diagrams of the differences between ERA5 and SSM/I F13. (<b>a</b>) shows the differences relative to ERA5_OSCAR. There are large seasonally modulated differences poleward of about 25°S and 25°N. (<b>b</b>) shows the differences relative to ERA5_ADJ. The adjustments applied to ERA5 reduced the ERA5-F13 seasonal differences. After wind speed adjustments were applied to the F13 winds, the seasonal differences are much reduced (<b>c</b>). The remaining differences are mostly lower than 0.2 m/s and do not show a consistent seasonal pattern.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Map of collocations between ASCAT-B and CCMP for an example day (1 January 2018), for the ascending passes of ASCAT-B. Locations where CCMP included a satellite observation from any satellite (SAT) are shown in yellow and locations without a satellite in CCMP (NOSAT) are shown in blue. NOSAT collocations occur for two reasons: (1) Satellite observations were excluded from CCMP because of rain contamination. These are the irregularly shaped regions spread across the map. (2) The existence of gaps between satellite swaths even when all satellites are included. For this day/node, this only occurs in the Southern Ocean and on the extreme left side of a few swaths near the equator. The locations of the satellite gaps vary over time as the swaths for the other satellites drift with respect to ASCAT-B.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Maps (<b>a</b>), Zonal Wind; (<b>b</b>), Meridional Wind; (<b>c</b>)-Wind Speed of mean difference between CCMP ERA5 ADJ. vs. ASCAT-B, averaged over the 2013–2019 period. These maps were made using all rain-free ASCAT-B collocations and are intended to serve as an estimate of the performance of the CCMP ERA5 ADJ wind product.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Maps (<b>A</b>), Zonal Wind; (<b>B</b>), Meridional Wind; (<b>C</b>), Wind Speed of standard deviation of the difference between CCMP ERA5 ADJ. vs. ASCAT-B, averaged over the 2013–2019 period. As was the case for <a href="#remotesensing-14-04230-f011" class="html-fig">Figure 11</a> these maps were made using all rain-free collocations and are intended to serve as an estimate of the performance of the CCMP ERA5 ADJ wind product.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Hovmöller plots of CCMP-ASCAT-B differences for 3 versions of CCMP and ERA5-Oscar. Note that CCMP NRT begins in early 2015, and CCMP 2.0 ends before the end of 2019. (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) zonal wind, meridional wind and wind speed differecnes for CCMP ADJ—ASCAT-B. (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) same as (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) except for CCMPT-NRT—ASCAT-B. (<b>g</b>–<b>i</b>) same as (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>), except for CCMP 2.0—ASCAT-B. (<b>j</b>–<b>l</b>) same as (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>), except for ERA-5—ASCAT-B.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Histograms of wind speed for ASCAT-B, three version of CCMP and ERA5. Panels (<b>a</b>) and (<b>c</b>) show the results for collocations without satellite observations in CCMP, and (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>) show all colocations. Panels (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) are identical except for the vertical axis, which is displayed in logarithmic form in (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Binned mean differences and RMS differences between wind and ASCAT-B. The left column (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>,<b>e</b>) shows the mean differences for W, U, and V as a function the average wind between the wind variable pairs. The right column (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>,<b>f</b>) shows the RMS differences. In all cases, CCMP ERA5 ADJ shows better agreement with ASCAT-B than the other wind datasets.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Time series of annual, globally averaged (60S–60N) mean wind speed for two versions of CCMP, ERA5_OSCAR, and merged RSS radiometer winds.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Maps of Trends in wind speed (1993–2019) for two versions of CCMP (<b>a</b>,<b>d</b>), ERA5 NS Oscar (<b>b</b>), and RSS radiometer winds (<b>c</b>). CCMP ADJ is in much better agreement with ERA5 and with the radiometer winds than CCMP 2.0.</p>
Full article ">Figure A1
<p>Maps of monthly zonal wind adjustments applied to speed-adjusted ERA5 winds.</p>
Full article ">Figure A2
<p>Months of monthly meridional wind adjustments applied to speed-adjusted ERA5 winds.</p>
Full article ">Figure A3
<p>Similar to <a href="#remotesensing-14-04230-f007" class="html-fig">Figure 7</a> in the main text, except for ASCAT-A. Hovmöller diagrams of ERA5—ASCAT-A wind differences for 2000–2009. Panels (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) show the differences for zonal wind, meridional wind, and wind speed when only the ocean current adjustments are applied to ERA5. Panels (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) show the same differences after the wind speed adjustment was applied. Panels (<b>g</b>–<b>i</b>) shown the final results after location-dependent vector-component biases are also removed.</p>
Full article ">Figure A4
<p>Similar to <a href="#remotesensing-14-04230-f008" class="html-fig">Figure 8</a> in main text, except for AMSR-E. Global maps of the differences between ERA5 and AMSRE, averaged over 2003–2010. (<b>a</b>) shows the differences relative to ERA5_OSCAR. As was the case for SSM/I F13, there are large regional biases. (<b>b</b>) shows the differences relative to ERA5_ADJ. The adjustments applied to ERA5 reduced the ERA5-AMSR-E differences substantially, but some regional differences remain. After wind speed adjustments were applied to the AMSR-E winds, the differences are much reduced (<b>c</b>). We note that the corrections applied to AMSR-E we derived using all Rad_LO instruments with global coverage (AMSR-E, AMSR2, and WindSat).</p>
Full article ">Figure A5
<p>Similar to <a href="#remotesensing-14-04230-f009" class="html-fig">Figure 9</a> in the main text, except for AMSR-E. Hovmöller diagrams of the differences between ERA5 and AMSR-E. (<b>a</b>) shows the differences relative to ERA5_OSCAR. There are large seasonally modulated differences poleward of about 25 degrees north and south. (<b>b</b>) shows the differences relative to ERA5_ADJ. The adjustments applied to ERA5 reduced the ERA5-AMSR-E seasonal differences. After WS adjustments were applied to the AMSR-E winds, the seasonal differences are much reduced (<b>c</b>). The remaining differences are mostly less than 0.25 m/s with a small trend over the period.</p>
Full article ">Figure A6
<p>Wind Speed Adjustments applied to RAD_MED radiometer winds before inclusion in CCMP.</p>
Full article ">Figure A7
<p>Wind Speed Adjustments applied to RAD_LO winds before inclusion in CCMP.</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 2479 KiB  
Article
Assessment of Conventional and Low Gossypol Cottonseed Meal as Alternative Protein Sources in Low-Fishmeal Diets of Hybrid Grouper (Epinephelus fuscoguttatus× Epinephelus lanceolatus): Growth, Feed Utilization, Gut Histology, and Immunity
by Misbah Irm, Bo Ye, Xiaoyi Wu, Lina Geng, Qinxiao Cai, Lu Zhang, Haoyun Zhai and Zhiyu Zhou
Animals 2022, 12(15), 1906; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12151906 - 26 Jul 2022
Cited by 8 | Viewed by 2096
Abstract
A 9-week growth trial was carried out to assess the influence of replacing poultry by-product meal protein with conventional cottonseed meal protein (CCMP) or low gossypol cottonseed meal protein (LGCMP) on growth, feed utilization, gut micromorphology, and immunity of hybrid grouper (Epinephelus [...] Read more.
A 9-week growth trial was carried out to assess the influence of replacing poultry by-product meal protein with conventional cottonseed meal protein (CCMP) or low gossypol cottonseed meal protein (LGCMP) on growth, feed utilization, gut micromorphology, and immunity of hybrid grouper (Epinephelus fuscoguttatus× Epinephelus lanceolatus) juveniles fed low-fish meal (18.53%, dry matter) diets. Eleven experimental diets were prepared. The control diet (PBMP) contained 46.15% poultry by-product meal protein. Both conventional cottonseed meal protein (CCMP) and low-gossypol cottonseed meal protein (LGCMP) were used in replacement ratios of 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% of poultry by-product meal protein (PBMP) from the control diet, forming ten experimental diets (CCMP20, CCMP40, CCMP60, CCMP80, CCMP100, LGCMP20, LGCMP40, LGCMP60, LGCMP80, and LGCMP100). Results demonstrated that weight-gain percentage (WG%) was not different between different sources of cottonseed meal (CCMP and LGCMP). However, values of WG% significantly differed among different replacement levels, with CCMP80 and LGCMP40 having significantly higher values compared to other treatments. Fish fed CCMP80 and LGCMP40 exhibited higher protein efficiency ratios (PERs) than fish fed other experimental diets. The regression analysis from a second-order or third-order polynomial model based on WG% showed that the optimal PBMP replacement levels by CCMP and LGCMP are 74% and 33%, respectively. The whole-body lipid contents remarkably decreased as dietary CCMP or LGCMP inclusion levels increased. The relative mRNA expression of insulin-like growth factor-1(IGF-1) in liver was higher in fish fed CCMP80 and LGCMP40 diets compared to fish fed other diets. Generally, in low-FM diets of hybrid grouper, CCMP and LGCMP could replace 74% and 33% of PBMP, respectively. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Animal Nutrition)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Relationship of WG% of hybrid grouper juveniles with different dietary PBMP replacement levels by CCMP or LGCMP.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Light microscopy of gut morphology of hybrid grouper juveniles in fish fed different PMBP replacements by CCMP and LGCMP for 9 weeks (hematoxylin–eosin staining; original magnification 10×), (<b>A</b>): foregut, (<b>B</b>): midgut, (<b>C</b>): hindgut; (a): PBMP, (b): CCMP20, (c): CCMP40, (d): CCMP60, (e): CCMP80, (f): CCMP100, (g): LGCMP20, (h): LGCMP40, (i): LGCMP60, (j): LGCM80, (k): LGCMP100.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Expression of hepatic <span class="html-italic">IGF-1</span> in hybrid grouper juveniles fed low-FM diets with different PBMP replacements by CCMP or LGCMP for 9 weeks. The gene expression of the PBMP group was set as 1. Figure (<b>a</b>) represented one-way ANOVA results and figure (<b>b</b>) represented Two-way ANOVA results. Subscript letters a,b,c,d showed significant differences among different PBMP replacement levels by CCMP or LGCMP and subscript letters A,B represented significant difference between CSM sources.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The concentration of LZM and IgM activity of in serum of hybrid grouper juveniles fed low-FM diets with different PMBP replacements by CCMP or LGCMP for 9 weeks. Superscript letters (a,b,c,d) represented significant difference among different PBMP replacement levels by CCMP or LGCMP while superscript letter (A,B) represented significant difference between CSM sources. Subfigures (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) explains One way ANOVA and Two-way ANOVA results for LZM concentration and subfigures (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) explains one way ANOVA and Two-way ANOVA results for IgM concentration.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop