Talk:Monoculture

message: This seemed somewhat out of place and debatable (forests are very diverse compared to monocultures):
*Some native areas, such as climax forests, show remarkably little species biodiversity.  These areas are the exception rather than the rule, however.
--Erauch 01:41, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
:Agreed, considering that Climax community is, according to its article, "an outdated ecological term," and does not describe any decrease or limitations in diversity. Hyacinth 02:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forests 

message: The sociology section has few issues that should be addressed. The following statement makes claim that should be sourced:
:Some argue that the modern ideas of political correctness and enforced multiculturalism will inevitably spawn a global monoculture, pointing as evidence to the fact that in every historical society where two or more cultures have been put together and made to integrate, they invariably form a monoculture.
Since the section defines monoculture as it relates sociology as "wearing, doing, seeing, reading, watching, and thinking the same thing" it would seem that multiculturalism (encouraging interest in many cultures within a society rather than in only a mainstream culture.) wold be anti-monoculture. If we going to leave this in, it should be sourced. Also the claim that "in every historical society where two or more cultures have been put together and made to integrate, they invariably form a monoculture" needs to be sourced. --Cab88 07:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sociology section 

message: I remember from that West Wing episode that the Bible is against "planting different crops side by side". Does that mean the Bible is against polyculture? I think the relevant chapter and verse is Lev 19:19.--212.139.197.137 12:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Bible against Polyculture? 

message: When you google "Define: Monoculture" almost every definition shows as either single or one type.  Mono means one, yet this article says "describes systems that have very low diversity". KAM 22:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: definition

message: I'm not sure that Phylloxera is a good example of catastrophic crop failure due to monoculture. Although it was a case where all the grapevines were one species, there were many cultivars involved. Nor was the problem solved by replacement with new cultivars or a more diverse range of cultivars. Rather the susceptible cultivars had to be grafted to new rootstocks that were from the native range of the pest (or hybrids).
Southern corn leaf blight about 1970 is the classic example of large-scale crop failure due to widespread planting of a single cultivar that I can think of, and would be far more suitable than phylloxera as an example. I don't have time to look up the references and add this in at the moment but will try and get around to it if nobody else does in the meantime. 
Solanum dulcamara 11:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: grape culture as monoculture

message: I am moved by this comment that was placed in the article to the talk page:
::less waste??? Read Omnivore's Dilemma. I think you'll change your mind. Polyculture is actually A ::LOT less wasteful than monoculture. And it doesn't drain the soil and deposit chemicals into the ::surrounding area and water.  
This is not correct, any intensive plant culture will drain the soil of nutrients because you are removing nutrients when you harvest the crop and moving the crop to market for consumption. 01:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment placed in article

message: Perhaps it can be mentioned that polyculture is more bad to the environment in the way that it requires the soil to be conditionized for all crops. Making the soil more suitable for a single crop (thus not fertilizing with all the types of nutrients and making the pH neutral) keeps weed out as more weeds are capable on growing on too rich and/or basic soils.
Having the soil suitable to 1 crop (eg making the soil very acid still allows and even benefits growing of blueberrry but reduces weed growth) Eventually, the soil can be used intermittently to allow the soil to recover after a few years
Include section and info in article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.175.118 (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Monoculture more ecological than polyculture

message: Added section on how monocultured crops are generally more susceptable to a disease when one strikes, as they are all genetically identical so have the same resistance/lack of resistance.Philman132 (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually they are a lot less susceptible to disease. What you mean is when a disease strikes it is more damaging. On average disease is far less of a problem than it used to be, in terms of total output, even if you factor in potential complete crop failures. The problems come from issues like: if a farmer loses 33% of his crop every year to disease, he gets a field 50% bigger than he needs, and disease is no problem. If he gets 100% yield for 2 years, and then 0% in the third year (losing exactly the same amount of crop over that time period), he is likely to starve unless he is well prepared for it. This is obviously more true looking at entire countries/continents. Even worse of course, is a number of years of much higher crop yields will tend to allow the population to increase (double or more in many countries). --Sfnhltb (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is what I said in the article. Although usually engineered to resist current diseases, when a new one springs up, or aquires new charicteristics, it can destroy an entire years woth of crops if they are all genetically identical, such as the Wheat rust has been thretening to do.Philman132 (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Disease

message: Since both terms describe essentially the same thing, why have two articles with divided info?
They do not always mean the same thing. It depends on how the time and space factors are used. See my comment below. A6m7mcguire (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I just ran across these two articles (Monoculture and monocropping), and agree that they should probably be merged unless someone has a counterargument. I am unsure of which should be the merge target, but will start with the proposal that monocropping be merged to this article as we already have a polyculture article and it would make sense to keep a similar wording. I'll add a merge tag.Dialectric (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal: Monoculture and monocropping 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Monoculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160305010056/https://nature.berkeley.edu/~miguel-alt/modern_agriculture.html to https://nature.berkeley.edu/~miguel-alt/modern_agriculture.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monoculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111118044541/http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Rice-Diversity-Yield.htm to http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Rice-Diversity-Yield.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Would be useful to add sections about how european colonialism introduced monoculture for the purpose of extraction of particular commodities to be sold in the colonists' nations. 
Sugar, Cotton, Rubber, etc. 
A good book to reference is the pretty popular "Open Veins of Latin America"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by This-is-name (talk • contribs) 00:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Was the actual practice colonialism for these specific, or was it a practice used for other crops too and so just a tool for higher yields of any crop? Andrew McGuire A6m7mcguire 22:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colonialism 

message: The sentence about the environmental movement needs a reference. Same with the next sentence about local food systems. I think the last sentence is not about polycultures and more on diversifying the overall use of crop varieties and livestock breeds in agriculture. Since there is a link to polyculture at the beginning of the monoculture entry, perhaps this section on polyculture should be deleted? Andrew McGuire A6m7mcguire 21:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I waited a week, no response so I deleted this section. Add it back if you can address the issues above, but there is a full article on polyculture.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by A6m7mcguire (talk • contribs) 23:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Polyculture section near bottom needs work, or delete it? 

message: Hello  I disagree with Special:Diff/1173998491 this. I don't understand  the edit summary. Why?
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2019&q=monoculture has secondary sources. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:SECONDARY]]