Talk:Pontederia crassipes

message: The article writes:"Bacterial fermentation of one ton yields 26,500 cu ft gas (600 Btu) with 51.6% methane, 25.4% hydrogen, 22.1% CO2, and 1.2% oxygen. ". In fact, the biogas has almost no hydrogen at all. By weight, more than 65% of biogas is CO2. And less than 1% is hydrogen.Agre22 (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong about biogas

message: There is no reference for it, and I can't find any source for it. So I delete it.
07:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  medicinal plant 

message: Under "Invasive Species" header, the article says in the second paragraph that this plant "starves the water of oxygen."  3 sentences later, it says that it is a problem for man made ponds because it "and help to provide oxygen to man-made ponds."  
Either it starves or provides oxygen, it can't do both.  And I fail to see how providing oxygen to a water source is a problem, plant-wise.  Or am I reading this wrong?  If I'm reading it correctly, can this be cleared up by someone who knows what they are talking about (not me, all I know about plants are that they're pretty and I shouldn't come near one or it will commit suicide to cut down on the wait time before I accidently kill it)?  108.90.80.171 (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It can do both! When growing, plants produce oxygen. When they die, they decompose (an oxidation process) which consumes oxygen. Submerged, decomposing plants get the oxygen from the water. I added a couple of references.User-duck (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxygen 

message: Biological control is always the superior control factor. Not only is that elementary logic, the article obviously says that this plant is under control in its native environment (thanks to biological agents that keep it in check). Yet, the statement that I corrected was reverted without justification. Moreover, it is contradicted by the chemical control section -- which specifically stated that chemical control is the least-used type of control because of its drawbacks. And, the addition of "polluting" in the biological control section fits exactly with that previously-existing article text. Wikipedia editors need to stop blindly reverting changes. They need to actually read the articles, as the existing content relates to changes (understanding what they articles are already saying and what the facts are) before playing the reversion game.
It is too common for people to not understand nature from the point of view of nature. Instead, they think human intervention is likely to be equivalent, or even superior. It rarely is. Nature is a lot more complex and powerful than we are, no matter how arrogant we are. Biological control is vastly more effective than human intervention for this plant and for other "aggressive invasives", in most every case. Trampling forests to pull garlic mustard, dumping chemicals everywhere, and importing hippos to the USA — all of these things are clearly inferior to letting nature do its thing, rather than spreading alien plants around because they have pretty flowers or whatever.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.133.67 (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would consider hippos a "biological control". Maybe not a good one but it is not obviously a bad one.User-duck (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  False statement about control factors being equivalent, etc. 

message: The article makes clear the problems caused by Water Hyacinth as an invasive plant but does not say anything about why it is not a problem in its native habitat. It would be interesting to know.Bill (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There is probably no simple answer. Like for most invasive plants, it may be a number of factors working together to limit them in their home territory: predators, pathogens, climate, lack of nutrients or competing species, for example. --Mlewan (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

text: water hyacinth 72.219.62.180 (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasive plant

message: The article has nothing about taxonomy or nomenclature. The text refers to Eichornia, but the article name is Pontederia. Anyone know why? IAmNitpicking (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "A recent study recommended including Eichhornia as a synonym of Pontederia, treating this species as Pontederia crassipes (Pellegrini et al. 2018)." Two keywords "recent" and "recommended", I found nothing about a "consensus". I think changing the name of the article was premature, especially since there are still separate articles for Eichhornia and Pontederia in Wikipedia. Naturally, a redirect is appropriate.--User-duck (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

text: I moved the page back. I was surprised I could.--User-duck (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature 

message: The plant being introduced to the U.S. at the 1884 World's Fair is a "local legend" according to Lake Douglas.
The various authors are not forthcoming with any ultimate reliable source that stands up to a science historian's scrutiny, where you would be convinced this really even happened at the Fair. The claim about the Japanese being responsible fares even worse. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  1884 World's Fair 

message: Hello  Hellmann is about climate and Sarika does cite it. Sarika cites Hellmann for the degradation process which may be interpreted to implicitly include its evolved products. This may be the reason someone else added that text. Invasive Spices (talk) 10 October 2022 (UTC)
:  Good point, both references should probably have been cited then.
: However, that also lends further support for having that sentence rewritten, as Hellmann et al. 1997 precisely states that CO2 derived from plant matter degradation does not contribute to global warming (“greenhouse effect”), because it had been removed previously as CO2 by photosynthesis from the atmosphere.
: The situation is indeed different with the conversion of atmospheric CO2 into atmospheric CH4, but it wouldn't be so if that conversion was for example intentional, to be used for the production of biogas, which combustion would ultimately also end in CO2 being returned to the atmosphere, in a carbon-neutral balance.
: In the case of biogas production for industrial purposes, only N2O would end up not being climate-neutral, which is quite far from suggesting that the three gases "would all negatively impact the air quality and contribute to global warming". It is worth noting that efforts are currently being made to reduce N2O emissions in agriculture by promoting nitrous oxide respiring bacteria, which could be added to digestates of biogas production before being used as fertilisers (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-021-01101-x).
: Unfortunately, I don't have the time at the moment to correct that sentence along those lines...
: Sophos II (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global warming 

message: — Assignment last updated by Warmedforbs (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2024