Talk:Milicia excelsa

SLU Evolutionary Biology 3010-2

Are there any popsci or online resources you could use for your article?Evol&Glass (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources I am proposing to add to this page!

Ouinsavi, Christine, and Nestor Sokpon. 'Traditional Agroforestry Systems As Tools For Conservation Of Genetic Resources Of Milicia Excelsa Welw. C.C. Berg In Benin'. Agroforestry Systems 74.1 (2008): 17-26. Web.

Bosu, Paul P. et al. 'Survival And Growth Of Mixed Plantations Of Milicia Excelsa And Terminalia Superba 9 Years After Planting In Ghana'. Forest Ecology and Management 233.2-3 (2006): 352-357. Web.

Ouinsavi, C., N. Sokpon, and O. Bada. 'Utilization And Traditional Strategies Of In Situ Conservation Of Iroko (Milicia Excelsa Welw. C.C. Berg) In Benin'. Forest Ecology and Management 207.3 (2005): 341-350. Web

Appiah, Mark. Domestication Of An Indigenous Tropical Forest Tree: Silvicultural And Socio-Economic Studies On Iroko (Milicia Excelsa) In Ghana. 1st ed. Helsinki: N.p., 2003. Web. 20 Sept. 2015.

Ouinsavi, Christine, Nestor Sokpon, and Damase P. Khasa. 'Genetic Diversity And Population Structure Of A Threatened African Tree Species, Milicia Excelsa, Using Nuclear Microsatellites DNA Markers'. International Journal of Forestry Research 2009 (2009): 1-8. Web.

Lopezospina (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BIZOUX, J.-P. et al. 'Spatial Genetic Structure In Milicia Excelsa (Moraceae) Indicates Extensive Gene Dispersal In A Low-Density Wind-Pollinated Tropical Tree'. Molecular Ecology 18.21 (2009): 4398-4408. Web. Lopezospina (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on the edit done by Lopezosipina

Paragraph starting with "There is evidence that this Milicia excelsa came to be ~ "

You might want to consider making a separate subheading for this paragraph, something like ‘Evolution of the Species’ since it’s talking about how the species was derived. Also, fix typo (~a species of it own) please.

Paragraph starting with the sentence "There is evidence that some of the variation that is described above amongst individuals is due to the variation in the environment."

In this paragraph you use the names of the researchers whereas in other paragraphs you just call them “authors of a study”. Why not make it consistent? The content of the paragraph is good.

Thanks for the feedback! For your first comment I agree and I did as you suggest by making the “Evolution of Iroko” section. I also fixed the typo. As for the names of the researchers I also agree so I fixed that as well. Lopezospina (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general: Please link certain terms or concepts to their corresponding Wikipedia article. For example, Inbreeding instead of just Inbreeding. Khzzang9 (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for suggesting that. I linked “Inbreeding depression” as well as “Catkins” and “Agroforestry.” Lopezospina (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commeting on edit by Lopezosipina I agree that the paragraph under description should be a new heading.

For the paragraph under distribution and habitat: I am wondering how close they are to being on the threatened list. Is there any numbers that you found that would make this more clear? I tried to find a number, but on the page (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/full/33903/0#conservation_in_place) there are no figures provided. Lopezospina (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For paragraph under uses: Should this be under uses section? Maybe it can be moved or made a new heading. It is because of the tree being used for a variety of needs that it is near threatened but it is not a use.

I see your concern, but I’m not sure if it is worth adding a heading for such a small section of information. I thought it would be best placed there because it is an effect of the uses. But please feel free to change it. Lopezospina (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology section: Really interesting!! Fins42 (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

I made some changes to the formatting of a couple sentences, added some description of inbreeding depression, and fixed any grammatical errors I found in the article. There are a couple concepts mentioned that you might want to add further information about. Agroforestry is mentioned in the Importance to Environment section as a possible method to conserve the species, but there was never a description of what agroforestry actually is. It is mentioned at the end of the Uses section that leaves and ashes also have medicinal uses but these uses are never elaborated on, consider adding a description of what those uses are possibly. Also one of the last sentences about how gall mites can attack this species could use some elaboration, maybe a description on how the gall mite is harmful to the tree, and how big of a problem this actually is with respect the the decline of the species. Another suggestion is that maybe a new section specifically about conservation could be added. There is a lot of information throughout the article about the species importance to the environment, its many uses, its decline in population due to isolation and possibly gall mites, and an approach that could be used to conserve it. This information could possibly be consolidated under one section. AnonARK25 (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you additions and corrections they are great. To address the issue of adding information about “agroforestry” I added a link to it so that readers could go to the wiki page about it and see the brief definition given. As so the information about gall mites I added, I went back to the page and they did not give much more information about it. I tried to do some more research into it but I was unable to find anything that mentioned to what degree it was a problem. Do you feel I should remove it because of the lack of evidence? Thank you for any further suggestions or comments Lopezospina (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice article! I really liked the way this was set up. My first comment would be for the first section the evolution section, the very last part could have been explained in just a little bit more detail. Even though this is only the starting paragraph, maybe like one more key phrase to get the point across quicker. In the next section, explain a bit more about what dioecious is. Having a science background, people would know, but readers who do not have a science background would not quite understand. Otherwise, nice section. I like the great detail in the description section. I like how you gave a few other details at the end as well, when you said specifically soil characteristics and rainfall. That definitely helps clarify to the readers what type of variation you are talking about. Very helpful. For the next section when you talk about inbreeding, possibly consider going a bit more in depth with inbreeding depression. Again, readers might not understand this, but also to clarify this part of the article even more this could help. Another suggestion, could you possibly combine your ecology section with another section? This could be the opposite of what you want, but again just a suggestion, maybe adding it to the importance to environment section. Lastly, possibly explain the medicinal uses of leaves and ashes. Overall, very nice job in this article! It is a great read and I can tell it is very researched. Slu 2018 (talk)Slu_2018Slu 2018 (talk) 15 November 2015

Thank you for your feedback! I agree that the “Evolution of Iroko” section ends pretty abruptly. I tired to phrase it in other ways, but it seemed even more awkward. I would love it if you could help me change the structure a bit. To address your concern about explaining “dioecious” I linked it to the wiki page. That was reader can click on the link and see the brief definition given at the top of the page. I also did the same for inbreeding depression and another user added a short description. I thought about adding what I have under “Ecology” to the “Description” section, but I felt it was better organized under this heading because it’s not quite a description. Lopezospina (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]