|This article has been reviewed by Trends in Ecology and Evolution on 2009-03-05.
Comments: Reference: Callis, L.; Christ, R.; Resasco, J.; Armitage, W.; Ash, D.; Caughlin, T.; Clemmensen, F.; Copeland, M.; Fullman, J.; Lynch, R. L.; Olson, C.; Pruner, R. A.; Vieira-Neto, E. H. M.; West-Singh, R.; Bruna, E. M. (Mar 2009). "Improving Wikipedia: educational opportunity and professional responsibility". Trends in ecology & evolution (Personal edition) 24 (4): 177–179. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.01.003. ISSN 0169-5347. PMID 19269059.
For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7|
|Pollination has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|WikiProject Plants||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Ecology||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|To-do list for Pollination:|
- 1 Foxes as pollinators?
- 2 Clever plant
- 3 Alluring Factor
- 4 This page has serious errors
- 5 De-emerge Cross-Pollination with Pollination
- 6 Percentages of biotic/abiotic pollination
- 7 Article destroyed...
- 8 Funny words
- 9 New Structure
- 10 Evolution Section
- 11 Vector
- 12 Conflicting numbers
- 13 Humans as pollinators
- 14 Cell phone towers & CCD
- 15 Natural vs artificial bio pest control
Foxes as pollinators?
I remember having read somewhere that among the bees and other pollinators, foxes also do some pollination. No explanation was given (it was just a list of pollinators to show the variety of agents) -- can anybody confirm that this is true and add an example of plant pollinated in this way? Tuf-Kat 21:20, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
- I dont know of a specific instance, but I can surely imagine that....; a fox, with its bushy tail, could certainly inadvertantly transfer pollen. However, I'm sure that foxes aren't a major contributor to the reproduction of plants. DryGrain 21:24, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I remember watching a documentary and there was a plant which did something strange to pollenate. It attracted the bee to a hole in the flower. It fell down and landed in a sticky substance. Then, the bee came out through another hole. It went through a tunnel and finally emerged from the plant, and while exiting had packs of pollen stuck to its back. Does anyone know the name of this plant?
- The scientific name of that flower is Coryanthes, commonly called a bucket orchid. If you interested in learning more about it, see the movie "Sexual Encounters of a Floral Kind"--it's a very interesting movie which also explores other "clever plants."
The Alluring Factor If pollinators are enticed by fragrance, what is the evolutionary significance of a flower's aesthetic appeal?
- A better way of stating that is "What is it about humans that attracts them to flowers?" I'm totally guessing here, but many animal-pollinated flowers present the same visual contrast to the background that animal-dispersed fruits do, and humans, like other apes, are attracted to fruits as a food source.--Curtis Clark 16:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is the African water lily.
This page has serious errors
There are a number of egregious errors on this page and I plan to edit it soon. Am too busy just now. First on the list: pollen is not male gametes it is a gametophyte. Sperm is not produced until after pollination (typically). Nor is the ovule the female gamete. Yikes!
Szplotki 22:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)szplotki
De-emerge Cross-Pollination with Pollination
The should be separated and the other meanings for Cross-Pollination (eg cross-pollination of ideas) should be explained in a disambiguation page. --126.96.36.199 14:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)LeonTolstoy2
- What other meanings of cross-pollination do you have in mind? Cross-pollination of ideas is unlikely to merit its own article, and is only a borrowed metaphor from the real term. Richard001 04:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought this article was really clear, more clear than my three dictionaries, on the difference between cross-pollination and self-pollination. I see now that cross-pollination is between different plants, and self-pollination is either between different flowers on the same plant, or if the flower pollinates itself, and there's a great set of pictures showing a geranium flower not self-pollinating itself. The geranium plant is self-pollinating itself, if pollen comes in from another flower on the same plant, but it is cross-pollinating, if pollen comes in from a flower on another geranium plant. So I say, keep pollination, cross-pollination, and self-pollination together, so that people will be able to clearly see the difference between these three terms, without having to go to different articles.
However, with regard to the tulip picture, my understanding is that the yellow grains are pollen, but then what are the blue grains, at the top?
Thanks for having this clear, explanatory article!
Revised because when I looked at the article again, I saw that I hadn't gotten it right, the first time. :)
- I think if you look carefully at that picture at its highest magnification, you will see that the bluish bits are not grains, but the dark anther tissue showing through where the pollen has come off. All the best, and stay enthusiastic! JonRichfield (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Percentages of biotic/abiotic pollination
- "About 80% of all plant pollination is biotic. Of the 20% of abiotically pollinated species, 98% is by wind and 2% by water and sun."
This first sentence needs to more precise. Is it 80% of all species or 80% of pollinations occurring in a year? This makes a difference, since grasses are very common plants in comparison to many of the biotically pollinated ones. I assume from the second sentence that the first one refers to species. Mtford 16:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Also, how can the sun drive pollination? Debivort 18:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I think someone just ruined the whole article, just reporting it.
- Just revert it, it's quicker than reporting it, and no more difficult. Richard001 09:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Funny words are made up by funny people
- That was funny words —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
A partner and I are part of a class project that involved evaluating and suggesting improvements for ecology articles. For Pollination we thought the article would be more effective with an expanded structure (and some additional information) Here's our proposed structure:
- Environmental Impact
- Pollination Trivia
Ideally for our purposes we won't be including too much new info, but to give a good support for the current info and future edits. We're also thinking that the Pollinator page should be redirected to this page - there's a lot of redundant information between the two articles.
Anyway, we're going to be editing over the next week, so if there are comments or objections, it would be easiest if they were posted over the next few days. I hope we're not stepping on any toes here. Sclemm (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Your ideas are helpful, and any adjustments can be done, as your implementing them, but try to avoid the word "trivia". Hardyplants (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- We decided to leave the articles un-merged, but we moved some of the honey bee information over to pollinator - we thought the basic descriptions of pollinators can go in pollination, but putting most of the details in pollinator will hopefully reduce confusion over where information goes. We have one more planned big edit: the inclusion of an Evolution of Pollination section. That will probably go up this afternoon or this evening, and then we'll be done making waves. Cheers. Sclemm (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The new section on evolution was added by me (I keep getting signed out without noticing). While deciding what to put in the section my partner noticed that a lot of what we thought was relevant is already spelled out in pollination syndrome. So we weren't sure what else to add. Input/edits would be greatly appreciated. Sclemm (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The lead has a bad link: "The pollination process as an interaction between flower and vector...". Judging by a quick look at the history of the target page, it was once slightly appropriate (an article mentioning the right kind of vector). But then it was turned into a disambiguation page and neither of its two targets is appropriate. Furthermore, there already was another disambiguation page Vector which does not have anything appropriate for pollination. Any suggestions? Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
In the "Abiotic" section, it is stated that abiotic pollination constitutes both 10% ("Only 10% of flowering plants are pollinated without animal assistance.") and 20% ("Of the 20% of abiotically pollinated species") of all pollination. Could an expert clarify this? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I find both numbers suspect ( the 10 percent part is too firm of a number ) One problem is that many plants are both pollinated by biotic and abiotic means, so simple split between two absolutes can never be correct. Hardyplants (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Humans as pollinators
Recently I saw a TV program on Bees which included a segment on humans as pollinators in a pear producing area in southern China, where the bees have been wiped out by insecticides. It would be very interesting to add a section on humans as pollinators to to this article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Pollinators has a section near the end about vertebrates as pollinators, including humans. Maybe something about it could be here, but at least I found it in a closely related article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
If you put that in about China, and I have the PBS DVD of it, if anyone would like that citation, please also put in what more can be done. I followed up on this in detail, and even talked with someone by phone (I think at a university) in China, but he told me that to bring in beehives the way we do here in the U.S. (which is also in that PBS documentary) would be cost-prohibitive: it would cost $7 US dollars. I told him that I would be glad to donate it, but he seemed a little shook up, I think at the difference in our perception of that amount, and he ended the call.
Cell phone towers & CCD
I reverted the claim and reference for a number of sufficient reasons, including that one should do one's homework before posting in WP, but the operative reason for undoing the entry was the fact that this is not the article for such discussions. This article deals with the biology of pollination, not with the politics of cellphone infrastructure and speculative accusations of the effects of microwave equipment on pollinators. There already is at least one article dealing with the matter: Colony collapse disorder. Post such matter there, but do try to get the claims up to date first. It also might be worth checking on the ecological facts of pollination first; for example, the honeybee isn't even indigenous to the Americas.JonRichfield (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Natural vs artificial bio pest control
See this link:
- Study conducted showing that simply leaving 1/4 of land uncultivated (rainforest) can provide cost-effective pollination
See also here.
I think we need to mention at "agriculture" that simply "doing nothing" in certain areas of the farmland (ie if it's land with trees ((rain)forest) ) can also provide pollination using native bees (rather than commercially bred ones -all of the species Apis mellifera-. This seems to me to be much more cost-effective than providing pollination using some artificial way. KVDP (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)