Talk:Endophyte

message: The type of symbiosis exhibited between plant and endophyte is often related to the reproductive mode of the endophyte. For example, vertically transmitted fungal endophytes (i.e. transmitted from parent to its offspring directly) are asexual and transmit via fungal hyphae penetrating the host’s seeds (e.g. Neotyphodium). Evolutionary theory predicts these endophytes to evolve toward mutualism, since their reproductive fitness is intimately tied to that of their host plant. Conversely, horizontally transmitted fungal endophytes are sexual and transmit via spores that can be spread by wind and/or insect vectors. Therefore, these endophytes can evolve a more pathogenic lifestyle since they can escape their host plant. 
:I am not sure that this statement is true because endophytes, even horizontally transmitted ones, may be mutualistic. Horizontal transmission is not a driving force to develop pathogenicity. Perhaps it is true that horizontally transmitted endophytes often have closely related pathogenic relatives or spread in a similar manner to pathogens, but they aren't pathogens. And the concept of "pathogenic lifestyle" needs more elaboration. I'm going to try and fix it some. Sifaka talk 21:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: statement validity check

message: *Endophyte: A stub currently, it lacks any sort of information on biology, reproduction and transmission, discovery, history, and human use. Attention on any of these pieces would help. Sifaka talk
Vinh1000 (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: Dr. Betsy Arnold at the University of Arizona specializes in endophyte diversity and their impact on plants and has published lots of high quality peer reviewed papers. If someone is looking for sources to ref the content with, her name is a good place to start. Sifaka talk 02:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Where to find sources

message: this article has been refspammed to death. too many sources, and way too many primary sources.  one recent review is all that is needed, and none for anything in the lead, if all it does is summary the body, as the WP:LEAD should. what a mess.  Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: some of this was cleaned up here; there remains a huge pile of refs cited in the lead that aren't used in the body.  all the lead does is summarize the body so there is no need at all for refs in the lead; certainly no ref should be in the lead that is not in the body.  again it appears that somebody just piled refs into this article and there is little connection between the content and the refs from which it was supposedly generated.  Things start with refs here; content is generated from refs (Wikipedia articles summarize accepted knowledge that is found in reliable sources) - refs are not just tacked on to content. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  too many sources, and the wrong kind 

message: People may be interested in the animal side of the process (and no, this is not about any skin microbiome): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/gbb.12680
--SCIdude (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  endozoites 

message: — Assignment last updated by TheDeven11 (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Plant Ecology Winter 2023