Talk:Pontederia crassipes

Thank you for reading. signed, ex-avowed "user". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.138.218.251 (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The comment above said that Wikipedia editors should move newly-added content to a new location if it is not considered useful enough in the location it was added to, rather than deleting it. It also appears to have said that there should be more respect for the effort of contributors and less emphasis on adherence to form. I have deleted the comment because it was a very long-winded rant that clogs this page, obscuring more useful information. This summary of the comment includes the relevant points, without references to hate preachers and the plethora of other irrelevance the original comment included.

Wrong about biogas

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)agre22

medicinal plant

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TiMkOk (talk • contribs)

Oxygen

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)

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)

False statement about control factors being equivalent, etc.

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)

Specifically, biological control is always, obviously, the superior factor is most every case, when it comes to a species being located in its natural environment. Once it has been moved out of that habitat, generally by people — then other control factors can become more attractive. In the big picture, though, those human intervention factors are hardly equivalent to biological control. It is nearly always the best type of control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.133.67 (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

Which English?

I have found a mix of American and British English. Since most of the units are metric, I will favor (favour?) British. Being American I will probably miss sometimes.User-duck (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@User-duck: Sorry, already Americanized spellings as I was editing.

I don't see why this article which heavily cites from researchers at NASA should bow to British or Canadian spelling.

Also U.S. spelling "meter" is used, not "metre".

And there's more content here on Louisiana, Florida.

Japanese Knotweed is a more viable candidate for Brit spelling.--Kiyoweap (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kiyoweap: I really did not care which English. The mix must have been annoying 2 years ago when I edited the article. A lot has probably changed. Changing English variety is one of those "reach consensus" changes that never seem to happen, glad it did. I find the criteria for English variety based on original contributor short-sided. This article should use American English based on sources and impact.--User-duck (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Invasive plant

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)

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)

water hyacinth 72.219.62.180 (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomenclature

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)

@IAmNitpicking: "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)

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

1884 World's Fair

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)

Global warming

Hello @Sophos II: 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)

@Invasive Spices: 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)

Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2024

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 20 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samsam2102 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Warmedforbs (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I added in two citations and two sentences regarding coexising with other native/invasive species and monitoring as an effective strategy. I will add this:

It can easily coexist with other invasive plants and native plants in an area.

Y. Ghoussein, H. Abou Hamdan, A. Fadel, J. Coudreuse, H. Nicolas, G. Faour, J. Haury, Biology and ecology of Pontederia crassipes in a Mediterranean river in Lebanon,Aquatic Botany,Volume 188,2023,103681,ISSN 0304-3770, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2023.103681.

It is very critical to monitor areas quickly that are infested in order to efficiently reduce or control the growth of these species.

Datta Aviraj, Maharaj Savitri, Prabhu G., et al.Monitoring the Spread of Water Hyacinth (Pontederia crassipes): Challenges and Future Developments,Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution,9,2021, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.631338 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsam2102 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)