Talk:Arundo donax

Untitled
It's not only used for the Great Highland Bagpipes reeds. There are other bagpipes too that use it. -- viller

Biomass output
I cleaned up some repeated text at the end and changed the cultivation/uses section to eliminate the reference to bamboo. Bamboo has a long and complex life cycle including a flowering and die off that can occur on long (~30 year or longer) cycles; Arundo just grows and grows. If you take an established stand of either plant and start harvesting, you will indeed get more from the bamboo for the first few years, because of bamboo's larger underground reserves. But in the face of annual or biannual harvesting, the bamboo's subterranean reserves will be depleted, and the Arundo outproduces it in the long term. R.E.S.A. 20:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In Article, Uses, Energy crop
I think there is a mistake here - 3,400 kJ/kg (8,000 BTU/lb). According to this converter ( http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/j_kgbtu_lb.php ) 8,000 BTU/lb are equal to 18.6 MJ. If this is true, one of the two values In Article (Uses, Energy crop) is wrong and needs to be edited.

Food
Though the plant itself is not eaten, my mother hunts down these plants for their leaves. She makes Tamales de Ceniza, wrapping the masa in the leaves. Fun Fact, I guess. 67.182.61.36 (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Long live the Mg!
Yay! :) lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darsie42 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Invasiveness in California downplayed?
This article seems to have changed a lot since my memory (if correct)... Arundo is a major problem as an invasive plant but the article now downplays the invasiveness (the idea that it is not flammable is not backed up either by my personal experience or by scientific data) and goes so far to encouraging its planting in 'non-riparian areas' - this is a horrible idea even if you aren't worried about invasive plants since once it is established it is almost impossible to kill. Efforts to remove arundo are also written about in the past tense (they are still ongoing).

It's fine to address the issue of invasiveness from a neutral standpoint but this article seems to me very biased 'pro-arundo' which is odd. I don't know how to flag the article for bias but maybe someone with an account can read the article and see if they agree.

-Charlie Hohn slowwatermovement.blogspot.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.122.9 (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Ecology | Carbon Sequestration - typo?
"Regarding the humification parameters, there were noticed any statistically differences between giant reed and a cropping sequence (cereals-legumes cultivated conventionally)." — should that be "there were not noticed" or somesuch? --Rob* (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent removal

 * When improperly planted in riparian areas with fast moving flood waters, which has been the experience in California and Texas, there is evidence the A. donax can be carried downstream to establish new colonies. However, There is no evidence of invasiveness when properly planted and managed in non-riparian areas. Additionally, there is no documented evidence of any such 'colonization' by Arundo donax anywhere in the Southeastern United States where A. donax has been present in some cases for over 200 years.

I almost lost it when I read this: "When improperly planted in riparian areas with fast moving flood waters"? This crap is everywhere! I just removed several stands from alongside a barren dry drainage ditch beside some apartments, it occurs in floodplanes, drainage ditches, slow moving streams, extends outside of riparian zones, and grows in places with only seasonal water. This is all confirmed by CAL-IPC's entry for Arundo donax. The statement that "There is no evidence of invasiveness when properly planted and managed in non-riparian areas", stands in direct contradiction to CAL-IPC "Invasive populations almost certainly resulted from escapes and displacement of plants from managed habitats" as well as virtually every publication on Arundo donax out there. "Additionally, there is no documented evidence of any such 'colonization' by Arundo donax anywhere in the Southeastern United States" I don't know about the Southeast, a quick google reveals it not being invasive down there, and I changed the statement to reflect that rather than the description that 'colonization' has not occurred.AioftheStorm (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This paragraph seems self-contradictory
Heavy metal remediation

Giant reed was found to grow rapidly in soil contaminated with arsenic, cadmium and lead; limited metal translocation from roots to shoots accounted for its strong tolerance to heavy metals. In Pakistan, where the presence of arsenic has made risky the use of ground waters as a source of drinking water, a research study highlighted the phytoremediation potential of A. donax when grown in hydroponics cultures containing arsenic concentrations up to 1000 µg L−1. Giant reed was able to translocate the metals absorbed into the shoot and to accumulate metals in the stalk and leaves above the root concentration, showing no toxic effects at As concentrations up to 600 µg l−1. Furthermore, the plant is not consumed by herbivores, a positive trait in phytoremediation plants.

The first sentence indicates that there is not translocation, while the second to last indicates that there is. Which is it?

I've moved it here because until it's fixed it's clearly wrong.

User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 16:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)