RESUMEN
Agroforestry management has immense potential in enhancing forest carbon sequestration and mitigating climate change. Yet the impact and response mechanism of compound fertilization rates on carbon sinks in agroforestry systems remain ambiguous. This study aims to elucidate the impact of different compound fertilizer rates on soil greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, vegetation and soil organic carbon (SOC) sinks, and to illustrate the differences in agroforestry systems' carbon sinks through a one-year positioning test across 12 plots, applying different compound fertilizer application rates (0 (CK), 400 (A1), 800 (A2), and 1600 (A3) kg ha-1). The study demonstrated that, after fertilization, the total GHG emissions of A1 decreased by 4.41%, whereas A2 and A3 increased their total GHG emissions by 17.13% and 72.23%, respectively. The vegetation carbon sequestration of A1, A2, and A3 increased by 18.04%, 26.75%, and 28.65%, respectively, and the soil organic carbon sequestration rose by 32.57%, 42.27% and 43.29%, respectively. To sum up, in contrast with CK, the ecosystem carbon sequestration climbed by 54.41%, 51.67%, and 0.90%, respectively. Our study suggests that rational fertilization can improve the carbon sink of the ecosystem and effectively ameliorate climate change.
RESUMEN
Objective: To investigate the effect of capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil in advanced gastric cancer patients. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and other databases from database establishment to June 2022, containing randomized controlled trials (RCT) on capecitabine and 5-fluorouracil in advanced gastric cancer patients. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil on overall response rate, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, stomatitis, hand-foot syndrome, nausea and vomiting, alopecia, and diarrhea. Results: Eight RCTs with a total of 1998 patients with advanced gastric cancer were finally included, including 982 with capecitabine and 1016 with 5-fluorouracil. Compared with 5-fluorouracil, capecitabine use was significantly associated with an improved overall response rate in patients (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02-1.25, P=0.02). Compared with 5-fluorouracil, treatment with capecitabine was significantly associated with decreased neutropenia events (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.99, I2 = 86%, P=0.04), and a decreased risk of stomatitis (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64-0.84, I2 = 40%, P < 0.0001) in patients with advanced gastric cancer. In terms of hand-foot syndrome, capecitabine was associated with increased hand-foot syndrome events than 5-fluorouracil (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.21-3.31, P=0.007). In terms of thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting, alopecia, and diarrhea, the effect of capecitabine and 5-fluorouracil were similar (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Compared with 5-fluorouracil, capecitabine treatment improves the overall response rate and reduces the risk of neutropenia and stomatitis in advanced gastric cancer patients. It should be noted that capecitabine treatment may also increase the occurrence of hand-foot syndrome. Capecitabine is similar to 5-fluorouracil in causing thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting, alopecia, and diarrhea.