Talk:Fraxinus pennsylvanica

Untitled
Is Fraxinus pennsylvanica (Green Ash or Red Ash)dioecious like Fraxinus americana (White Ash)? D Michael Byler (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jh198712. Peer reviewers: Jh198712.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Emerald ash borer info
I think that all of the information pertaining to emerald ash borer should be combined into a single paragraph in the "Ecology" section. Some of the information seems to be irrelevant to green ash (e.g. the use of wasps in EAB control).

The second paragraph of the "Ecology" section mentions that EAB is a particular threat to Michigan green ash. I feel this should be reworded to say a more general statement highlighting the number of states that EAB is found in and the fact that all North American Fraxinus are susceptible.

Also, that second paragraph mentions that green ash trees possess no natural resistance to EAB. Surveys by the USDA Forest Service have identified small numbers of surviving, healthy green ash in areas where over 99% of the original green ash population was wiped out. These trees are being researched to determine the exact resistance mechanisms. So maybe just add a sentence saying that a very small number of green ash have been found to remain healthy in the wild, and that the resistance potential of these trees are being investigated.

Jh198712 (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Overall article quality
This article has a few organizational issues.

The introduction to the article has good information. However, I feel that the introduction could be shortened and rewritten to provide a better summary of the article. The middle paragraph of the intro is very descriptive of the botanical features of green ash. I feel that the introduction could state this more simply: e.g. "Green ash has opposite,compound leaves. Flowers are inconspicuous and its fruit classification is a samara." Then a section could be added to the main body of the article, maybe "Identification" or "Natural History" that provides the measurements and other identifying features of the tree. The introduction also has no information that relates to what is discussed in the body of the article. No mention is made of emerald ash borer, green ash's use as a street tree, or green ash's habitat.

The Ecology and Uses section overlap and contain a lot of extraneous information. For example, the third paragraph of the Ecology section begins by talking about green ash as a replacement for American elm. That is fine. But then the paragraph transitions to irrelevant topics like the strategy of urban tree planting. Consider this section:


 * Proclaiming a harsh lesson learned, cities like Chicago did not replace dead elms with a 1:1 ash:elm ratio. Norway, silver, red and sugar maples, honey locust, linden/basswood and hackberry, among others, were also utilized during this recovery period and in new urban and suburban areas. Ironically most of these other lesser urban species alternatives utilized barely survived 50 years, and are today also being removed in great numbers.

The passage contains opinion or vague words like "ironically" and "lesser urban species", and it does not cite any sources. But most importantly, the information does not directly pertain to green ash.

I think that all of the information related to green ash's use as an urban tree should be moved to the Uses section. The Ecology section should focus on green ash's range, habitat, and value to other wildlife. For example, the Uses section mentions green ash as being a keystone species. That belongs in the Ecology section. If enough information is present, Ecology could solely be devoted to green ash's role in ecosystems, with separate sections like "Range/Habitat", "Emerald ash borer" (could go in ecology but maybe deserves own section due to importance; see my above post), etc.

The last paragraph of ecology mentions that plantings of green ash in China were also susceptible to EAB attack. Is there a reference? This article demonstrates that green ash experiences high EAB mortality while Manchurian ash is resistant.

Another potentially interesting thing to mention, maybe in a "Natural History" section, is that populations of green ash have been found to have high amounts of genetic diversity, probably due to green ash's reliance on wind pollination.

So to summarize, this article could use some mending. A lot of extraneous information that doesn't directly relate to green ash should be removed. Information needs to be reshuffled so that Ecology is actually talking about ecology and Urban Ornamental Trees is actually talking about green ash's use in cities. The introduction could be shortened to provide a better overview of the article. Some of the information needs citations. Finally, more sources are needed to make this a comprehensive article. The current sources are good, but more are necessary to elevate the article above stub-class.

Jh198712 (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)