Talk:Photoperiodism

Merge

We needn't have three stubs, but only one good article. Aelwyn 07:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The three articles should be placed under"Photoperiodism". User:Sebanti —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.226.80.60 (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, combining the articles on different plants (long/short/neutral period) underneath the main article of "Photoperiod" or "Photoperiodism" (they should direct to one another) would be much more concise. - MF —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFacchin (talk • contribs) 02:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

We mustn't forget that photoperiodocity applies to more than plants. It applies, too, to animals changing the color of their feathers/coats to correspond to the seasons, migration, reproduction etc. Hordaland 15:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I think we need two articles: Photoperiodism (botany) and Photoperiodism (zoology) (with disambiguation at Photoperiodism, Photoperiodocity etc.). The subject is extremely important wrt animals' seasonality, while readers may well be interested particularly in plants or animals. Both subjects can be seen as sub-topics of Chronobiology. --Hordaland (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

this is true. it will be also helpful for the users to search —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsg2189 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It would also be helpful for novices (like myself) to have some examples of the types of plants as this helps to 'fix' the ideas and explanations with real life experiences. User : Jim Ewing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim.ewing (talk • contribs) 21:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Dr. Singh's comment moved here from above the Merge heading:

I agree that we should merge long day plants, short day plants and day neutral plants with photoperiodism because these subcategories of plants arise from photoperiodism itself. Dr. Rajender Singh, Scientist, CDRI, Lucknow, India —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.190.146.198 (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but I will repeat my suggestion from January (above) that we need two articles: Photoperiodism (botany) and Photoperiodism (zoology). It's possible that the article Chronobiology should be included in a reworking of the whole subject.

(Dr. Singh, I'm moving your comment to below the rest of the 'Merge' discussion.) --Hordaland (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree these are very connected and i think that having night and day within photoperiodism would be a good idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.173.80 (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the merge. As they are now, the three articles on long day, short day and day neutral plants are practically redundant. These definitions stem from the concept of Photoperiodism as explained in the main article, and thus deserve to be mentioned as sections in this article. I also support the separation of plant photoperiodism from that of animals into two articles, seeing as these are radically different in both mechanism and purpose. --2dm (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I edited this page because the discussion of the effects of moonlight on phytochrome was not correct. Also, the measurement of night length is not under the control of phytochrome itself but the 'external coincidence' of light (sensed by phytochrome, or another receptor, in daylight) with the phase of the circadian clock. I would recommend "Photoperiodism in plants" by Thomas and Vince Prue (Academic Press, 1997) for further reading on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.91.51 (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for help

Using the {help me} template, I've asked for help with merging at least the three long, short and neutral day plant articles with each other, and possibly merging all three into Photoperiodism. Over a year is too long for merge templates to sit atop these four articles, IMO! Interested editors may read my request on my Talk page. - Hordaland (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Moving Eldereft's comment down here

Merged Long day plant, Short day plant, and Day neutral plant to Photoperiodism. Someone more familiar with the subject please make sure that everything is completely and correctly presented. Splitting by kingdom would make sense (very few animals flower in the springtime), but until the content is more extensive there is no harm in treating both here. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for the help, Eldereft! - Hordaland (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I've offered some edits to the pages concerning plant photo-periodism. Specifically the edits are intended to clarify differences between Northern and Southern Hemispheres. I believe we must be careful to explain that what "summer" to someone in North America is not the same calendar period, and not necessarily the same weather pattern (e.g. monsoon season in India is "winter"?). Thanks for considering my suggestions. Please forgive my inexperience. UNLchoclero (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Who created the experiments that proved that its actually the night not the day?

A confused student like me likes to know who did ese experiments on photoperiodism cause i heard in the past that they once believed that it is actually the balance of light and darkness that makes a plant flower. yet many books state that "More recently, it has been demonstrated that the initiation of flowering involves hormonal mechanism. Flowering, therefore, is triggered by chemical changes under the influence of light." (A.W. Galston, The life of the Green Plant, 2nd ed., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Pinceton Hall, Inc., 1964, Capter 4)

Don't get me wrong but i want to put a 'PERIOD' on this topic once and for all, who did this? which comes first? with enough sources so i can brag my wikipedia research with satisfying references and explanation. Thank you.