Talk:Paulownia

message: On the Paulownia tomentosa page, it says the tree has been planted in China when girls are born. On this page, however, the custom is mentioned in a section that talks about Japan. Are both true?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.17.144.156 (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Paulownia has the highest strength-to-weight ratio of any tree in the world with a tested strength of 288 kg/m3, which is 129 kg/m3 greater than balsa. This makes Paulownia a highly sought-after marine timber.
The figures quoted are densities, not strengths, and therefore irrelevant to the claim, which needs verification before it can be included - MPF 10:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: There is a section that reads "Paulownia is known to be an early colonizer of sterile soils (such as after a high temperature wildfire), because its seeds are easily killed off by soil fungi. In fact, it is so difficult to start Paulownia by seed that successful plantations purchase rootstock or seedlings—or propagate their own. Remarkably, despite the fact that seeds, seedlings, and roots of even mature trees are so susceptible to rot, the wood itself is not and is widely adored for boat building and surfboards." How is it able to b an early colonizer if the seeds are easily killed by soil fungi? For the same reason, why does the article use the phrase despite the fact? Wouldn't it be because the seeds, seedings etc. are supsceptible to rot that the wood is not used for boatbuilding and surfboards?
The statement is not contradictory. When the fire is hot enough, most or all organic matter in the soil, including fungi and fungal spores are killed. Therefore the soil is sterile. The plant can therefore become an early colonizer, once the seeds are there because there is are no soil fungi to destroy them.
Even though the seeds, seedlings, and roots are susceptible to fungal attack, the wood harvested from the trees is used for surfboards and boats.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.182.102.152 (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradictory statements

message: There's a sentence that reads "Testing by CSIRO in Australia has shown that Paulownia wood is very attractive for wood-boring insects." I don't quite get if it means Paulownia has good resistance to boring insects, or if insects find the wood attractive. Needs clarification. JettaMann (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nebulous Sentence

message: I have several times removed an external link to  on the grounds that it's a link to a commercial web site and so is outside the Wikipedia:external links guidelines.  The owner of the site, User:JamesSLawrence, disagrees.  We have been discussing it at his talk page.  I suggested that we should bring the discussion here.
Most of his arguments seem to concern other material on the page that he suggests is similarly commercial.  I think this is not to the point.  (If other material on the page violates policies or guidelines, it should be removed too.)  I hope some other editors will weigh in with opinions about JamesSLawrence's link.
Thanks. —Mark Dominus (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody else seems to care, so if you put the link back I will leave it alone. —Mark Dominus (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulownia_tomentosa
That article seems to be really similar to this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.226.21.251 (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, does anyone else have an opinion. ?oygul (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate entry

message: Epicgenius, sometime in June last year I added a citation need to that content, it is more like advertisement that real facts. As no reference was added to support the stated content. I removed it. Epicgenius if you wish for the text to be back in the article you need to find a reliable secondary source that make the same claims or statement. ?oygul (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll leave the article as it is for now. Thanks for explaining it. Epicgenius (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable reference needed  

message: It is not native to North America.  Citing fossils doesn't count, especially millions of years ago!  That it not how native is defined.  I think the author is trying to counter claims about this plant being invasive and weedy by claiming it's native.  I think it's a self-serving claim.  I think the whole article has this taint. Though just talking about it's weediness would be the same - and I see this in many articles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.24.164 (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native to North America 

message: "Its low silica content reduces dulling of blades, making it a preferred wood for boxes to hold fine Japanese edge tools."
Is there a good reference for this? There's quite a lot of on line comment that the wood can have high silica content and does dull blades. and in any case, in the west at least, boxes to hold edged tools are designed so the tool is stored without the edge in contact with the box at all, so any blade dulling capability of the wood would seem at best of marginal importance. 212.159.44.170 (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  High Silica Content? 

message: It is widely claimed that the Paulownia tree uses the C4 photosynthesis pathway. If so, that makes it unique among large trees, and it should be mentioned in this article, in my opinion.
Here are two sources:
[1] Paulownia as a novel biomass crop for Northern Ireland?: a review of current knowledge. Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Global Research Unit, 2008.
[2] Wang, Jiayuan, Hongyan Wang, Tao Deng, Zhen Liu, and Xuewen Wang. "Time-coursed transcriptome analysis identifies key expressional regulation in growth cessation and dormancy induced by short days in Paulownia." Scientific reports 9, no. 1 (2019): 1-14.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.184.132.253 (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  C4 Pathway 

message: From the lead section: “The genus, originally Pavlovnia but now usually spelled Paulownia, …”
If the genus were originally Pavlovnia, then, based on the International Code of Nomenclature, shouldn’t it still be Pavlovnia?  I can’t find a reliable source on the web for the existence of the genus name Pavlovnia.
The person honoured by the genus name Paulownia did have the spelling of her name changed when she moved from Russia to the Netherlands.  In Russia she was “Павловна”, in Latin script “Pavlovna”, in the Netherlands she was “Paulowna”.
From the same paragraph: "It is also called "princess tree" for the same reason."
For clarity the subject of the sentence needs to be explicitly stated as P. tomentosa, although the information would be more appropriate in the article on P. tomentosa.
The probable source of the reference given at the end of the paragraph, Rush Industries, 2000, neither refers to the spelling change, nor to the name "princess tree".  Rush Industries was a company selling miscellaneous items, including what they referred to as "The Empress Tree"; possibly not a reliable source.
Maidenhair (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Pavlovnia and princess tree

message: Was it grown in Israel and then eliminated about a decade ago?
I have seen plantations of trees with similar appearance but crown had well-expressed menorah shape (branches nearly horizontal at their bases and curving up). Google seach doesn't yield such shape.
2A0D:6FC7:408:8A3F:34CA:41C:886C:80CF (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is not the right place to ask questions like that. You might try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grown in Israel